DARWIN VS. GENESIS

Post Reply New Topic

Right. As I said, it is almost universally accepted among scientists. In scientific communities, fact is a matter of a consensus of experts.

Theories are, ideally, not based on what an individual believes sounds the best or makes the most personal sense. Rather, a good theory is palpably the best explanation of the evidence. A well-trained scientist will acknowledge, and utilize, a grounded theory, even if she or he finds it personally unappealing.

vote All life evolved without any supernatural intervention.

As far as I know that is, and there is a lot I don't know.

Oh yeah, I shoulda made that more clear. Anything can be a theory, I guess I forgot about that.
What I mean is a scientific theory I think.

Now I think I have managed to decipher some posts by elizabethhensley, with the help of people quoting them.
I still don't think that they make much sense, and I constantly fail to see the point, but they are now less headache-inducing.

Probably what is most significant about evolution that the mechanisms posited are daily used by working biologists to actually modify species for special purposes. It is a useful tool. I have never heard a report of a creationist biologist modifying a species by praying to God. When that occurs, I might have second thoughts.

My conceptualiztion of god differs from most of humanities'. I believe our god to be made of the same organic matter we were made. The intrinsic knowledge of this has not been made; the proof of this has not been found or identified. Why? I think that most of this has been kept secret through the ages. The automatons can't handle the truth mostly. That is why we are left in the dark, like a child with a flashlight on a stormy night, stricken without luxury.

Does anyone agree?

Wow...36% of people are idiots on here.

"I'm the fittest!"

What do you mean?


What do you mean?

Quoting Petey-girl the parakeet, "I'm the fittest!" Can you see the photo?

Yes, it is rather difficult to produce knockout mice via prayer. How strange

I believe he is referring to all those that didn't vote for "All life evolved without any supernatural intervention." option in this poll.



I believe this to be a jovial attempt at illustrating the Darwinian principle of "the survival of the fittest".

IMO, the most cogent approach is simply to recognize that "supernatural intervention" has no place in scientific research. If one cannot separate one's views of divine causation from natural processes, one cannot effectively "do science."

I can't help but note that if a person thinks that some natural processes are actually due to divine (ie, supernatural) causes, this effectively destroys any scientific thinking in that person. If one admits supernatural causation, it becomes impossible to determine whether any given unexplained case is supernatural (ie. the argument from ignorance can always be taken as a supernatural incident).

In other words, a person who admits supernatural causes is by definition unable to separate divine causation from natural processes. As a divine being can do literally anything, there is no way for a believer to sort unexplained events into the categories 'divinely caused" vs "naturally caused"

As per the saying: once you admit the supernatural, anything goes.

I should also note that a refusal to accept evolution is equivalent to a refusal to accept that the earth revolves about the sun. Or that Newton's theory of gravity is valid. Or the germ theory of disease.

People may dispute these theories of course, but by doing so they betray their own ignorance.