Evolution

[supersurfer]

For anyone who's interested. http://glumbert.com/media/calltoarms

 

[supersurfer]

The standard creationist argument, there is only one, they all reduce to this one, takes off from statistical improbability. Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance, therefore they must of had a designer.

This argument, of course, shoots itself in the foot. Any designer capable of designing something really complex has to be even more complex himself and that's before we even start on the other things that he's expected to do. Like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers, favor our side in a war, dissapprove of our sex lives, and so on.

Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve, and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex, thereby simply compounding the problem.

Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant because it solves the problem of explaining complexity in terms of nothing but simplicity. Essentially it does it by supplying a smooth ramp of gradual, step by step increment.

From the above link.

 

[Tonio]

I've read Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Excellent defense of the scientific principle behind the natural selection hypothesis.

However, I disagree with both Dawkins and Sam Harris on this point - an individual should be entitled to believe anything about deity as long as that belief doesn't harm others. Also, these two seem to assume that all Christians read the Bible literally. I've read elsewhere that most Christians accept natural selection.

 

[supersurfer]

I've read Dawkins' "The God Delusion." Excellent defense of the scientific principle behind the natural selection hypothesis.

However, I disagree with both Dawkins and Sam Harris on this point - an individual should be entitled to believe anything about deity as long as that belief doesn't harm others. Also, these two seem to assume that all Christians read the Bible literally. I've read elsewhere that most Christians accept natural selection.

An individual IS entitled to believe anything about deity that they want.

Yes Science is making progress. 5-10 years ago you wouldn't have read the statement that most Christians accept natural selection.

So, the majority of Christians accept evolution. "No big deal...., umm hey Father Mike, yea... you know that whole part of Genesis that we've been teaching as literal for 2,000 years.... Well, umm.... we're just going to change our view tell the folks that God didn't literally mean that...."

Father Mike bursts out in laughter.....

"Those suckers fall for it every time...."

 

[Tonio]

Yes Science is making progress. 5-10 years ago you wouldn't have read the statement that most Christians accept natural selection.

In other threats I've mentioned Stephen Jay Gould's concept of NOMA. In my view, it's not necessary for religions to make any claims about the natural world at all, including the origin of life. The meaning of life and the origin of life are two different topics, and however life originated is irrelevant to the meaning of life. What if religion concerned itself with the former and left the latter to the scientists? What if the religions abandoned all claims about supernatural explanations for events?