I could only make it to #14 before I just zoned out.
I could only make it to #14 before I just zoned out.
For everyone else, the question was: "What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?" It's a more eloquent version of a common creationism trope: evolution is invalid because evolution cannot add information. As with most anti-evolutionist claims, it is completely bogus.Originally Posted by Shlup
Neat! I figured as much; I was just too lazy to look it up.
I wind up agreeing and disagreeing with some things from both sides, except for the end, something Bill Nye said.
Still, I'm glad they're both able to speak in the same room, heck even TO each other, without venom. But I feel like Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be NAILING it. He just has a way of getting my blood pumping when he starts talking about 'the beginning of life' in all his excitement.
Last edited by Black Magic Shopkeeper; 02-07-2014 at 06:03 AM.
Nye was able to speak without venom only because he's a classy mofo. Ham deserved a good smack.
While it may be a minority, the numbers from the 2007 Gallup Poll on the subject show that 49% of americans believe in evolution, 48% do not, and 2% have no opinion.
And when asked if the believed in creationism, the Idea that god created us in our present form in the past 10.000 years 39% said definately true, 24% said probably true.
These numbers are astonishingly horrifying.
Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution
It's sad that debates like this happen in this day and age, but the matter is they need to happen. The numbers that disbelieve evolution and even the numbers that believe we came about our current form within the last 10,000 years (I believe the earliest it is believed to have been is 100,000 years, but I may be a bit off on that number) is something that needs to be dealt with.
It's way too many people to brush off as an unimportant minority.
On the bright side, official Roman Catholic position supports evolution!
As far as I am aware and have been told, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design remain largely a North American phenomenon and has significant less presence outside of NA. I could be wrong here but that was the impression I was given.
Also, the article regarding Canadians did point to the fact that the word of the poll can change the results. Angus Reid and Gallup asked similar questioned worded very differently. So there is ambiguity there!
Classical theism would probably respond with the cosmological argument/prime mover argument. Then again, this just shows the strong influence that Classical Greek notions of divinity/Greek Philosophy played in the development of Abrahamic religions. Essentially, the whole prime mover/unmoved mover argument which can be traced all the way back to Aristotle though often popularized by Aquinas (I think). Or you could just go with the whole "God is beyond human understanding/knowledge". Depending on how it is formulated, the latter is far more respectable.
As for "science" is a theory, by definition. No, science is not a theory. Evolution is a theory. Science by definition means :knowledge" and historically refers to systematize knowledge/knowledge system. While in English it has largely lost this meaning and is synonymous with what is called "natural sciences", in French and German its "original" (derived from the Latin) meaning still holds.
The thing about biblical literalism is that, if I understand my religious history correctly, it's only about two hundred years old. No one took all parts of the Bible literally before that.
The other thing worth noting about the word "theory" is that it means "pretty close to accepted scientific fact". The way people use the word "theory" colloquially is the way scientists use the word "hypothesis", which of course, is nothing like a theory.
They did--just were often the minority.
I facepalmed with Ham opened with "I'm an Aussie".
It's weird. They look normal. *pokes with stick*
The whole division of science into observable and historical is bullplop. Ham's idea of historical science is simply "we weren't there to see it, so all sorts of magical, wonderful things could've happened. God is awesome etc. etc." That's not science.. Science is making predications as to what could have happened in the past - not just dismissively waving it off and putting it down to a magical being in the sky.
If anything, Ken Ham's approach to science is more akin to philosophy.
I resent your slander of philosophy.
Master of the Fork
Cid's Knight
Not bill nye but oh well.
I would actually question the inherent/apparent "objectivity" that science is often attributed. Then again, I have been reading a lot of feminist, post-Kuhnian, and/or post-colonial critiques of science lately...The "truth" of science is often a vested interest.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
