Evolution? How?

Why don't you just keep it simple folks and open your minds eye first.

There you will find the sunbelt. And the light will pass through easier with the eyes open.

Shouldn't issues of faith be kept separate from issues of science? Verification is important to science but has no relevancy to issues of faith.

paulaj wrote:

Why don't you just keep it simple folks and open your minds eye first.

There you will find the sunbelt. And the light will pass through easier with the eyes open.

I don't need that. I've been taught science in school, and it works fine, as witness we are using computers to speak on the Internet, sitting in rooms completely manufactured by technology that started out as science. I don't think religion can make a similar claim to verification.

Shouldn't issues of faith be kept separate from issues of science? Verification is important to science but has no relevancy to issues of faith.

How can science argue with the concept of intelligent design?...

How can science argue with the concept of intelligent design?
How can one "dumb up" the universe?

wandeljw wrote:

Shouldn't issues of faith be kept separate from issues of science? Verification is important to science but has no relevancy to issues of faith.

Verification becomes relevant, when religion makes assertions regarding matters of scientific fact, e.g. the origins of life on Earth. Is this not obvious?

How can science argue with the concept of intelligent design?
How can one "dumb up" the universe?

Jackofalltrades wrote:

I will say science has given us the Salk Vaccine and many other useful things, but how is it evolution that created this?

Evolution itself contributed to everything we do (including vaccine's) because it evolved us, and we have the intelligence to do what we do.

But this probably isn't what CI was implying. Sometimes when we say evolution, we're talking about the knowledge of evolution, rather than the process itself. And in this case, recognizing how evolution works has allowed modern science to understand the biological world in far more detail, and to understand the microbial world well enough to begin to make functional vaccines and antibiotics which change as the organism changes. Without the knowledge of what evolution was doing, we wouldn't understand why an antibiotic (or an insecticide) might work just fine for a while, but then begin to fail (as the organism adapts to it).

RexRed wrote:

How can science argue with the concept of intelligent design?...

By pointing out a simpler origin of species, and then showing verification in fossil records and processes we see around us in the world. Even if you don't agree with the scientific viewpoint, it is inconceivable that you are making all these posts against it without even knowing what it is.

El Diablo wrote:

Quote:

I have an idea that may be right i dont know. In the past animals (like monekys) chose mates based on how strong and physical they were (this is general sure there may be oddities). However the early human(oids)s began to value intelligence in picking mates. Suddenly the early human(oid)s could dominate not because of size but because of intelligence. If brains starts being the most valued ot has greatest chance of evolving which is why humans havent gotten stronger but we have gotten smarter.

I think you are on the right track there El, but it does not have to be a change of mating "choice" that develops better intelligence.

In a competitive environment where the dumb kids don't live to maturity, increased intelligence in the population is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Shouldn't issues of faith be kept separate from issues of science? Verification is important to science but has no relevancy to issues of faith.

Verification becomes relevant, when religion makes assertions regarding matters of scientific fact, e.g. the origins of life on Earth. Is this not obvious?

I was probably trying to make the same point you are, Brandon. I believe it is inappropriate for religion to make proclamations on science and it is especially inappropriate for religious views to be disguised as science.

wandeljw wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Shouldn't issues of faith be kept separate from issues of science? Verification is important to science but has no relevancy to issues of faith.

Verification becomes relevant, when religion makes assertions regarding matters of scientific fact, e.g. the origins of life on Earth. Is this not obvious?

I was probably trying to make the same point you are, Brandon. I believe it is inappropriate for religion to make proclamations on science and it is especially inappropriate for religious views to be disguised as science.

Religion can be verified... it has to be tried and walked out on to prove it. Also, we are proof that something put us here.

rosborne979 wrote:

Jackofalltrades wrote:

I will say science has given us the Salk Vaccine and many other useful things, but how is it evolution that created this?

Evolution itself contributed to everything we do (including vaccine's) because it evolved us, and we have the intelligence to do what we do.

But this probably isn't what CI was implying. Sometimes when we say evolution, we're talking about the knowledge of evolution, rather than the process itself. And in this case, recognizing how evolution works has allowed modern science to understand the biological world in far more detail, and to understand the microbial world well enough to begin to make functional vaccines and antibiotics which change as the organism changes. Without the knowledge of what evolution was doing, we wouldn't understand why an antibiotic (or an insecticide) might work just fine for a while, but then begin to fail (as the organism adapts to it).

That is genetics and mutation but not necessarily evolution.

That is genetics and mutation but not necessarily evolution.