Re: Evolution

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:57:11 GMT, Rita <nitany_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:26:16 -1000, Alvin Toda <aet@> wrote:

>>Rita...I guess I should remind you that ID is a leap of faith. There
>>is no way to disprove it. Not that there's any need because it's not
>>science.
>>
>>It's a little different from the theory that life here was originally
>>brought here from meteors. People look at metors with high carbon
>>content and hydrocarbons, to see if the primitive chemicals could have
>>an extraterrestrial origin. IIRC scientists now even suspect that
>>most of the water on earth comes from meteors and comets that rained
>>on the early earth rather than volcanos. This is a real scientific
>>theory and not religion as is ID.

>Dawkins makes glancing references to some of the above theories
>in his intro chapters. But the book is dedicated to tracing the
>evolution of life from the first molecule forward -- which he
>does in a backward fashion.

I think evolution as a theory is fairly complete. But that "first
molecule" is a basic question of the origin of life.

>His comment on ID is that you then have to explain the origin of
>the Intelligent Designer. However, the ID people don't limit their
>objections to evolution to that, they talk about gaps in the fossil
>record, etc., which Dawkins shows are not all the important. He
>says now with DNA and other evidence exclusive of fossils we could
>trace evolution as well as with them. A lot of the DNA sequences
>are yet to be unlocked, but enough of them are to make the case
>for evolution iron clad.

Yes the fossil record gaps are being filled in, but this is just
nitpicking as he points out, I guess. The basic question of faith is
something that science and Dawkins cannot address. If IDers believe
that there is a devine hand that causes all of this to happen, then
there is no way to disprove this belief. It's similar to the question
of the Big Bang. Religious people believe that a god existed before
the creation of the universe. At some point, there is not much that
science can say. That point is continually being pushed back by
science. But science cannot disprove something that is unknowable.

--alvin
.

Relevant Pages

  • Theistic Evolution: Harmonizing Science and Faith
    ... Theistic Evolution - or how to harmonize between Faith and Science ... This means that I make one assumption, which is squarely planted in Faith as a matter that cannot be scientifically proved - G-d exists. ... I am theologian with an interest in science, and especially in reconciling Science with Faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... >> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> evolution are unscientific. ... What is your faith based on? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Slate: The Legend of the Scope Trial
    ... >>> reject anything as obvious as evolution, they are prime marks for a good ... then it's just as much an article of faith as ... >> others believe in creationism. ... > at all the same thing as believing fantasy is the same as science. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Strange Coincidences
    ... you can't really use this as evidence of evolution vs. ... there can be no debate. ... people's faith. ... It's not about science, debate, religion, right, or wrong. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... >> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> evolution are unscientific. ... What is your faith based on? ...
    (talk.origins)