DarkCryst (darkcryst) wrote,

  • Mood:

Can O'Worms + Opener...

One of my main principles in life is LEARN. Just learn about things. Everything, as much as possible. I it perhaps explains why sometimes I come across as pedantic and, I guess, occationally patronising. I don't mean to be, but I like accuracy and clarification. Ah c'est la vie.

I delve into subjects until I know them as much as I can. One of the recent subjects that has been popular was Evolution. What really impresses me is the complete lack of knowledge most people have about Evolution, Natural Selection, and the basic principles of both.

Especially if they are arguing for "the other side" as it were.

For example - the argument of Irreducible Complexity, where say... something as complex as a watch must have been designed, and as life is more complex still so it must also have a designer (Paley's Watch as it is called) has been destroyed now for years. Darwin himself dealt with it in Origin. Yet it is still used!

Also, for gods sake, Evolution is not the same as Natural Selection. Darwin didn't propose Evolution, he proposed the method of Natural Selection as the way Evolution works. He also didn't answer everything and he acknowledged that - later work has filled in almost all the missing pieces. The parts that aren't filled in are usually filled in by various competing ideas, they aren't holes as much as competing theories that need to be tested. Therein lies the difference between faith and science really - science doesn't mind being wrong, it just wants to know what is right.

Evolution, both macro and micro, has been shown to exist... it's there, there is no argument over the fact that species change. Fossil records and observational evidence is overwhelming. However it is the process by which this evolution happens that is the question and the controversy - and it was this question that Darwin was trying to answer. Arguing against "Evolution" is like arguing against gravity, but if you want to argue against Natural Selection then please do! There are many scientists out there that would love some genuine discussion.

The common Intelligent Design/Creationism arguments (like the Watch, the 'half an eye' question, the parasitic wasp, and even bacterial flagellum) have been destroyed so totally that anyone that uses them only shows their ignorance on the subject.

Also - and I should say (as if you didn't know) that I'm not religious - Evolution and Natural Selection don't disprove, deny, or generally insult, anything but a literal view of the Bible/Torah/ Qur'an. If like the 10,000 clergy members in this article you take the view that the bible is a story designed to carry ideas, not literal truth, into the minds of people - then there is no reason why a God/Jehovah/Allah couldn't have set in motion the mechanisms for Evolution (and science has shown that mechanism is almost certainly Natural Selection). Basically you are saying that G/J/A is a bloody good engineer.

In fact anything less is not really giving a Supreme Being credit for being, well, supreme. This is a strange position to have if you are religious really...

  • Two posts in one year?

    So a lot's been going on... I'm thinking about retreating back to LJ a bit. Facebook is just... well it's facebook. This is a different…

  • Um... Hi.

    So.. er.. who is still on here? I actually posted on here more than I thought over the last year... though nothing in like... 8 months. Thinking…

  • Writer's Block: Dinner's on me

    My country - England, or Great Britain if you so wish - is oft-maligned for it's food; especially in the USA. Much like its dentistry (which is…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.