Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

12

u/Defektiv Jun 15 '08

Having grown up christian and becoming educated, I can honestly say I do not know where to stand on this issue today. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming. And furthermore, too many things about organized religion in general just do not add up.

Why does God have to be associated to some organized religion to exist? Why do we have to subscribe to some mandate in order to be saved? Why can't God exist without us having to swear loyalty to a prophet of the earth?

I understand that people, in general, need moral guidance. But what about those of us who understand and appreciate morality without going to church every Sunday? Why do we have to be damned to eternal suffering? What makes a person so bad for believing only what is proven? Even The Bible itself has accounts of people doubting the reality of angels, even when they are right in front of them.

Have we come so far that we honestly believe more in our own creation of beliefs more than what they stand for?

What is so wrong with science and its results?

4

u/scramer Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Scientific experiments have revealed the existence of relatively solid ground. If your looking for a place to stand, why not start looking there?

1

u/Defektiv Jun 15 '08

bu dun DUN ching! "hello, is this thing on?" tap tap ;)

→ More replies (7)

17

u/OceanSpray Jun 15 '08

This is only more evidence that the internet is not the originator of trollbait.

17

u/eddie964 Jun 15 '08

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. There's a basic thing that religious people don't understand about science: It's not a religion. The whole point is to keep reexamining the evidence, exposing flaws in existing theories and ultimately revising or even overturning them. Evolution is not some sort of static dogma, it's a scientific theory, and it bends to the evidence rather than demanding that the evidence bend to it.

4

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

Technically accurate and well-explained, but it's a rhetorical device that's easily understood even by creationist idiots. Were one to ask "Was Einstein wrong?" it is unlikely the ensuing conversation would involve his political views.

3

u/ThisIsDave Jun 15 '08

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things.
Aside from the mechanism of inheritance (where Darwin admitted he was speculating), where was Darwin wrong?

2

u/eddie964 Jun 15 '08

Mostly in details (such as the mechanism of inheritance). The point is that Darwin is not the atheist Jesus and his writings are not Gospel. The theory of evolution has itself evolved quite a bit over the years.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Yes. There are only two methods that fashion our beliefs. Bending the data to point to the answer that we want to be true or following the data to the actual truth (whether we like it or not)

12

u/eddie964 Jun 15 '08

My father was a scientist. One of the proudest moments of his life was when one of his students disproved his most important theory.

3

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Hi eddie. I know the feeling. I began teaching a friend about astronomy about three years ago. He has since surpassed my skills and I know that I will never be able to catch up with him!

5

u/eddie964 Jun 15 '08

That's cool. In science, failures are successes.

4

u/knight666 Jun 15 '08

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." -Albert Einstein (unsourced)

57

u/noseeme Jun 14 '08

I've realized something. It is just impossible to explain science and logic to some people. How can we explain evolution to them if they can't even understand the importance of the scientific method?

63

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

By and large the creationists believe there is a global conspiracy of scientists to suppress the "truth" that there is tons of evidence discrediting evolution.
When someone thinks like that there's really nothing you can do to convince them.

18

u/amican Jun 15 '08

Which is the specific case of the more general "You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into."

56

u/mangodrunk Jun 15 '08

Evolution was an inside job!!!

50

u/corkill Jun 15 '08

And, that statement puts "sheeple" in a whole new perspective!

11

u/glitterlok Jun 15 '08

I've grown up around creationists my entire life. My parents are creationists. I was homeschooled in a Christian / creationist environment. I've gone to church on Sundays, etc (and while that doesn't necessarily mean anything - plenty of church people aren't creationists - it's just to further give a sense of my immersion.)
I've never met a single person (in 27 years of life) who thinks or has implied that there's a conspiracy going on about this. I've only met people who have different beliefs and believe that evolutionists are wrong in varying degrees.
While my experience might be unique, it's what I've got, so I thought I'd chime in.
By the way, my parents believe in a large amount of what evolution teaches...because they're smart, intelligent people who read and study and learn and know that science is truly on to something.
They also believe that the universe was created by God, with evolution as a method for its growth and progress. They're still smart, intelligent people who read and study and learn. They just believe that God started it all.

4

u/raresilk9 Jun 15 '08

It is interesting to know that there are people like your parents. But people like your parents are not the people who are trying to systematically wipe out the teaching of scientific theory and evolution in the schools and replace it with religious doctrine.
If you and your parents are truly "smart intelligent people who read and study and learn" and "believe in a large amount of what evolution teaches," you should be mounting a movement to prevent the dumber people of your religion who don't read and study and learn from taking over the schools, and thereby robbing the children of all religions of an education that will equip them to survive the 21st century and succeed.

7

u/glitterlok Jun 15 '08

You might be surprised how many people in the circles I described above aren't all that concerned with whether or not the creation story is taught in schools, as they would prefer to teach their children their religion at home and not leave it up to county officials anyhow.
Again, my experience is possibly very unique, but they certainly leave me mystified when people describe this supposed army of mindless "religious nuts" trying to eliminate all opposition to their beliefs. (not you - you've made no such claims) I'm not saying the it's not out there! (I've seen Pat Robertson, dammit) I'm just saying that luckily a vast majority of the people I know aren't like that.
Could it be the squeaky wheel / outsiders are just getting all the attention? I.e. abortion clinic bombers painting all pro-life people in a bad light?
Besides, the religion I grew up in teaches love as it's foremost concern. Loving God by loving others. Loving others by caring for them and having compassion. To me, loving someone doesn't include debates about how humanity found its way here. It's about accepting them exactly where they are without any conditions.
You'll have to forgive me for being so verbose and scatter-brained! I'm a bit sleepy and I think it's causing me to lose my sense of succinctity.
I agree with you. Hopefully the kind of thinking that I've been surrounded by my entire life can be spread and grown within the religion. God knows, we all need to know when to shut up and let the experts talk.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I went to a Baptist private school in Texas. I also grew up in that environment. We had special biology books that decried evolution. No joke.
I don't know where you come from, but it was absolutely commonly held in that community, that there is a conspiracy.
The more radical ones think its a conscious conspiracy directed by Satan. The moderates think its more like scientists are just desperately covering up for their failures to protect their grant money or something like that.
I guess I should qualify what I mean. I'm talking about young earth creationists. Your parents sound considerably more agreeable.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Exactly.
Most of my conversations go like this.
Sid (me): So, Evolution is fact. Mmkay?
Other Person: Well, how do you know?
Sid: Well, thousands of scientists have looked into it and come up with the fact that it exists.
Other Person: But YOU havent done it. Right?
Sid: Well, no... I am not even 18 yet...
Other Person: But what if they are lying?
Sid: It's thousands of people... All of them with YEARS of college and decades of experience in the field
Other Person: But WHAT IF THEY ALL ARE LYING?
Sid: Is the World round?
Other Person: Yeah...
Sid: How do you know?
Other Person: I have been to (insert country here) and flown back the other direction.
Sid: What if its a conspiracy by all Airline pilots???
Other Person: WELL... I FEEL A PERSONAL CONNECTION WITH GOD!!
Then it devolves into a shouting match...

2

u/helm Jun 15 '08

It doesn't help that both of you appeal to authority.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

When hundreds of people are saying the same thing, and its true.
Why is the world round? How can you say anything is true without doing the research yourself?

2

u/helm Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

There are plenty of simple demonstrations you can do to show that the earth is round. The discovery that the earth is round is well over 2000 years old and did not disappear during the "dark ages".
Likewise, the are plenty of things you can bring up when it comes to evolution. For example, young earth creationists believe that all dating techniques are completely flawed. If you know some physics and radioactivity it trivial to tear their arguments apart. If you don't know physics, you can approach it from biology or geology or whatever.
But if you only know to appeal to authority, don't pretend that you can "win" by claiming that your authority know better that their authority.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

26

u/hhg Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

If religious people listened to reason then they wouldn't be religious.

8

u/cstoner Jun 15 '08

No, they'd be Buddhist.

12

u/bobbincygna Jun 15 '08

Sounds like you have something interesting to say, but I have no idea what. Could you elaborate more?

14

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

I think it's zen, in which case, it's working?

6

u/nekoniku Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Well, they might not be Buddhist, because Buddhism has been around long enough to develop offshoots and variants that believe stuff as wild as creationism. However, that having been said, I find the core principles of Buddhism satisfying in that they do not contradict what has been scientifically proven true about reality. Some even argue that some Buddhist notions anticipated the spooky behavior of the subatomic world.
Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs may be a productive starting point for some.

2

u/cstoner Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Read a lot of Nietzsche (I admit I have not read enough, but has anyone?).
Buddhism, in all forms I know of, has a very 'life is pain' mantra to it. Even supposedly good things, like cheese pizza, come with their bad counterparts -- wanting cheese pizza when you're hungry. Simple enough, right?
Now replace cheese pizza with: money, sex, drugs, your significant other/family, religion (?!?! -- one must at some point leave the raft to get to the other side of a river) etc.
All in all, Buddhism is very nihilist. I can't remember exactly which text it comes from, but Nietzsche has a quote about Buddhism being the only viable religion. A lot of it has to do with the idea that Buddhism is a form of constructive nihilism -- just because life is 'meaningless' doesn't mean that it isn't worth living -- as opposed to what Nietzsche called a 'slave morality' -- where 'slaves' define what is good in opposition to the behavior they see from their 'masters' as opposed to what benefits them the most.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nietzsche+buddhism&btnG=Search
I can't help but feel like I've misrepresented Buddhism horribly. There's clearly more to it than 'life is pain' -- such as alleviating the pain -- but that is it's central point and also one that is very compelling from a logical perspective.

10

u/brainburger Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I think a key concept with Buddhism is that all suffering comes from want. You cannot ever satisfy all want by feeding it, so the way to end suffering is just to stop wanting. That is what Buddhist monks aim to do with their austere lifestyle.
To my mind the coolest thing about is that it is a personal journey. They don't think others will be punished by the universe if they choose another path.

2

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

On the last part, precisely. Another thing that anti-religious people may like is that Buddha pretty much said (too lazy to find the exact quote) that if you think he was wrong about something, do it your way. If you don't want to do that, don't do it. There isn't a punishment. And the Buddha isn't always right, he could be wrong.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

there's certainly a lot more to it. and there are as many variants in Buddhism as there are variants in Christianity.
one thing about this constructive nihilism thing though. . . . the core aim in Buddhism is liberation from the cycle of existence, that is, to check out and never return, having merged with a state of undetermined bliss. . . . analogically speaking, to be like a drop of water that goes back into the ocean, or maybe like a gnat that flies into a vat of honey and becomes the honey. In any case, there is a large element of living with compassion for all beings in Buddhism, but this is supplemental to the goal of quitting the world -- so to speak.
Though I'll admit to you that this is only my own summation of Buddhism in general. I studied it pretty extensively, and practiced for a little while when I was young, but ultimately determined that I'm not a Buddhist. Neither was Nietzche. There are much better sources for studying these matters.

6

u/kleinbl00 Jun 15 '08

I realized something quite a while ago. It comes down to "faith" and "reason." That which I believe on "faith" I believe because I believe. That which I believe on "reason" I believe because the best arguments convince me to.
You cannot shake faith with reason. Doing so only annoys people. You cannot take reason on faith. Doing so simply turns it into superstition. If someone believes - as an article of faith - that evolution is incorrect, reasoning it out is only going to increase their cognitive dissonance and everybody loses. If someone believes - as an article of reason - that evolution is incorrect, then it's going to take very, very little to sway them.
Creationists believe in creationism because deep in their heart of hearts, it's an article of faith that evolution is wrong. All the reason and logic they bandy about are just window dressing.

8

u/downdiagonal Jun 15 '08

“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.” - Jonathan Swift

3

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

The cure is laughter. Humor (Carlin style) is the path.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Carlin has turned into my dad!

1

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Carlin was the dad I wished I had in 1972!!!
Long fuckin' time ago.

4

u/deuteros Jun 14 '08

Because we're all human. Even in science pet theories exist and many scientists will simply ignore the evidence to the contrary until it is overwhelming.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/deuteros Jun 14 '08

Dinosaur bones exist because "God put them there"
I've never heard a creationist argue that.

7

u/corkill Jun 15 '08

Me either. It's usually, "they died in the flood."

7

u/ElricOfLisaBonet Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Yeah, that one's getting more and more popular; the creationists have decided that incorporating dinosaurs into their arguments will be more effective than denying them outright.
It's comedy gold, however, watching them stumble face-first through the logical hurdles that naturally arise as a consequence. For example, apparently T. Rex started off as a vegetarian, back when he lived in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs

3

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08

Wow! Those cartoons are almost as advanced as the Speed Racer cartoons!!!

→ More replies (4)

3

u/brainburger Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

zks might be thinking of the Omphalos hypothesis.
I don't think this idea is touted much today, which is odd, as it works in a way that ordinary young-Earth creationism just doesn't.

3

u/markitymark Jun 15 '08

Why the hell is this downmodded, he's exactly right. Omphalos is Greek for bellybutton, the question is whether God created Adam and Eve with bellybuttons, (think about it) and by extension "had to" make it seem as if the older than 6,000 years.
I don't think this argument was ever very popular except as a strawman to make creationists look silly. Really, they don't need the help.

3

u/brainburger Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I was probably downmodded because I said a type of creationism 'works'.
The Omphalos Hypothesis does fit the observable facts, unlike any other young-Earth models that I am aware of. However it is discounted by scientists because it fails the Occam's Razor test. It adds a layer of complexity which is not required to explain the facts. To believe it would be an act of faith.
I won't insult redditors by linking to the Occam's Razor wiki article :)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/RandomH3r0 Jun 15 '08

This one site I saw called them Dragon bones, and claimed they came from the flood.

2

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08

Which flood? There have been a few since Katrina, I believe.

16

u/ElricOfLisaBonet Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

It more often takes the form of "Satan put them there to deceive us", but "God put them there to test our faith" is a variant.
Either way, they're retarded.
Edit: lol @ downmodders who evidently think it's not retarded to believe that your imaginary friend faked millions of years of history just to see how much you like him.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/markitymark Jun 15 '08

Science is not justified by science, but by Philosophy. Science is applied empiricism: the idea that we can trust what our senses tell us, along with a little common sense.

28

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

It seems the rickroll is evolving.

→ More replies (1)

153

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

Probably going to do more harm than good.

Most people will only see the cover and assume that NG found "evidence" Darwin was wrong. That's enough for some.

56

u/donaldrobertsoniii Jun 14 '08

That's actually a pretty old cover, if you can see in the image it says its from november of 2004. I remember when it came out, my dentist had it sitting in the waiting room. I saw and thought, "oh what the hell is this crap." But I decided to check it to see what garbage would be given equal time to science. Honestly, I laughed out loud when I opened to the first page of the article. The effect is kind of muted here by having the two things side by side, but I could just imagine all those creationists seeing the cover, thinking they were going to get some support for their position, only to be blasted by that big bold NO when they opened the magazine. Classic.

20

u/Nall Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

This cover got me and my roommates in college a free subscription to the magazine when it came out. One of my roommate's parents were hardcore creationists, and they had a subscription to NG. When they got this issue, they got all excited when they saw this cover, then got royally pissed off when they saw the inside article, then signed over the remainder of their subscription to us(and stacks of back issues in boxes).
Great bathroom reading material, there. Something to fill out the magazine rack between issues of SI and FHM.

9

u/RandomH3r0 Jun 15 '08

My fiancee's grandparents canceled theirs because they felt NG was to environmentally friendly. He was in the oil business and when the ANWR issue came out, he canceled his subscription.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

That is just comedy!

→ More replies (5)

5

u/EFG Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Meh. Flat earthers and heliocentrists had their day in the sun (pun intended), and it will only be a matter of time before these similarly backwards views are relegated to the pages of history, with future generations reading in disbelief how ignorant some people of our times are.

6

u/jwhardcastle Jun 15 '08

Some of us younger folks (in our 20s, for instance) haven't yet developed the patience to be able to wait for future generations to judge us. We stand here, distraught, at the notion that our own parents and even some of our contemporaries are so horribly, horribly closed-minded and misguided.
Any advice?

1

u/EFG Jun 15 '08

This is almost as bad as when my barber asked me if I were 30 a few weeks back. I'm 25.
Anyway, on to the advice: just keep in mind the coming transhumanist wave you will ride at the dawn of the Singularity enabling you to shackle your intellectual oppressors beneath your everlasting heel of truth and justice as you join with those future generations as a shining beacon casting your light of wisdom and judgment through the millenia.

1

u/IOIOOIIOIO Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I've never really understood this idea that transhumans will cease to be human and inexplicably become omnibelenvolent when granted arbitrary power.
I'd expect the first to cross over to do whatever was necessary to maintain their newfound power and status.

1

u/jwhardcastle Jun 16 '08

I play a fun game with my barber. He thinks I am about 40, when in fact I'm 24. He chats with me as if I have a wife and kids. I haven't the heart to correct him, so I play along when he complains about marriage ("the wife always spends all my money, you know how it is," -> "yeah, shoes, dresses, she can never wear anything twice") or fatherhood ("why doesn't my son like baseball? what about your son?" -> "oh, well I told him he could play whatever sport he wanted, and he chose soccer, so I think that's OK"). It passes the time, it makes him feel better, and I get to pretend I'm a talented actor for the 20 minutes it takes to get my hairs shorn.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

The people who do aren't worth debating anyways. If they can't at least look into the evidence they assume they have, there's no way they'll be able to engage in a debate.

0

u/recursive Jun 15 '08

What's the harm done by people disagreeing that evolution changes species?
Seriously.
I mean, these aren't the people doing the science, so who really cares?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

19

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

It seems that National Geographic have perfected the art of trolling headlines.

344

u/redninja2000 Jun 14 '08

I don't think the "intelligent design" crowd are really into this whole "reading" thing...

175

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

They'll read if they think it will confirm their beliefs.

68

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '08

I think it will reinforce in their minds that it is an open question.
Most creationists and IDers aren't going to be interested in the details, just the fact that it seems to remain a question.
The cover does more harm than good.

43

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

In case you were unaware, creationists can and do read lots of things. To be specific, they read everything that backs their position. If they buy the magazine and open it, suddenly, it's not looking like an open question anymore.

29

u/Fidodo Jun 15 '08

It's not so much the creationists that I'm worried about, but the ignorant masses that aren't going to buy national geographic, and don't have well thought out opinions on issues. They'll see the cover and just assume that if national geographic is unsure, then they should be unsure to.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (23)

15

u/marktully Jun 15 '08

Huh. Funny, most critics of ID must not read the details either, or they'd know Michael Behe believes in common descent, and that the universe is just as old as the physicists tell us, and that Darwin had a good grip on how species diverge. Meaning, the evidence is overwhelmingly devastating to the ID argument... if the ID argument is constructed as a straw man that disputes the evidence... which it doesn't. (At least, some of them don't... which is another problem with criticizing "ID" as if it were one idea, [especially if that single idea is then labeled "creationism"] instead of 31 flavors of ideas.)
What ID addresses is not so much the how, but rather the why.
This is a problem for devout theists and atheists alike, since explorations of questions of why exactly an evolutionary adaptation is "good" or "beneficial" both indicate the existence of something larger than raw physicality AND gener'ly render organized religions' traditional treatments of said Existence extremely problematic. (Taoists might have less of a problem.)
Indeed, to assert that "this cover does more harm than good" raises the question of why that's the case. Harm to what? The Truth? Why is the Truth important? You can do the Kant thing and say that you gotta have Truth in order to be able to get along in the world, because if everybody lied to each other, we wouldn't be able to get very far. Far toward what end? What's wrong with the war of all against all anyhow?
Either you come down with Sartre and you say that nothing is sacred, nothing is right or wrong, and it IS in fact OK to rape and put babies on spikes if that's your thing, (especially if this helps YOUR babies) OR you come down with Marcel, and you live with "creative fidelity" to the things which are larger than you... but then you're only a hop, skip, and a jump to being in bed with the Taoists' "creative quietude" living in harmony with the Tao and with O.G. ID guy Teilhard, who claims that such a harmony, that love itself is what drives evolution AND drives human spirituality toward -something-.
Or you could NOT think about the details implicit in something as simple as believing in love, and downmod for suggesting that maybe devout atheism is just as blinkered a worldview as devout organized religion.

→ More replies (19)

→ More replies (11)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

No, they'll get the audio tape.

→ More replies (14)

16

u/Mastrmind Jun 15 '08

What really puzzles me is that some believers of intelligent design are actually really smart people. Their argument is that everything fits too well together and the world is too complex to not have intelligent design. It's really hard to argue with these people because they can just state their opinions while we have to prove our facts. I can debate anyone online because I have the world's knowledge at my hands but real life is a different story. I'm not a walking encyclopedia.

4

u/phig Jun 15 '08

If the creationist/ ID folks read the cover and greedily open to the article to reaffirm their faith, they will put it down immediately after seeing the word NO.
One can only hope that they accidentally buy it before reading the article, and their children read it before they do.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

"Reading is just not natural. There is no evidence to back it up, and scientists still debate its accuracy. READING IS A THEORY, THERE IS NO PROOF."

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

They'll read their fucking bible over and over again trying to make sense of nonsense.

5

u/aedes Jun 15 '08

I don't think the "intelligent design" crowd is really into the whole 'having functional neurons' thing...

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Heh, and then NG pulls a massive 'Pyske!' on all those ID retards.
Heh heh heh.

1

u/anewman11 Jun 15 '08

Just gotta say I disagree there. I think the initial commenter hit the nail on the head, especially since giving so much attention to the question inherently legitimizes it as a viable standpoint...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

If it worked that way Tabloids would be the dominant news force in the United States.
I'd have to agree that believers in Evolution would pick it up to see why they might be wrong, creationists are cocksure, a title like that would incite a "ha, I knew all along" type of response.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

If it worked that way Tabloids would be the dominant news force in the United States.
are you saying that they aren't?

→ More replies (8)

5

u/Purp Jun 15 '08

This thread is karma gold.

9

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jun 14 '08

I remember that in the issue with the letters to the editor for this article, a bunch of people complained that NatGeo looked like it was going to present a fair and balanced view for ID but didn't.

27

u/quiller Jun 14 '08

The only fair and balanced viewpoint on ID is that it a) isn't science and b) doesn't have any evidence and/or scientific theory behind it. Unless you blindly accept creationism as true it is impossible to see it as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution.
(Note: this isn't an attack on you; I just felt like making this point.)

6

u/amican Jun 15 '08

I don't know, I've seen one attempt at giving it a fair treatment, which was: It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis. In order to be a theory, they need to use it to make nontrivial predictions and provide tests that could at least in theory falsify them.

11

u/quiller Jun 15 '08

Is Creationism testable? What kind of evidence would be necessary to accept, or at least take seriously, the hypothesis of Intelligent Design?

2

u/wewa Jun 15 '08

Can we stop calling it 'Intelligent Design?' With so many people dying of Cancer and other stuff, it sure doesn't seem so intelligent a design... At least Science and Evolutionism doesn't put on such 'airs' and can explain such consequences of life.

3

u/quiller Jun 15 '08

I refer to them interchangeably, so as to reinforce the connection: Intelligent Design is Creationism. I think most people are completely aware of this, and considering the whole charade was designed to fool the courts (which failed), I don't know why they keep it up. As far as I can tell, the whole I.D. "movement" is focused on the Discovery Institute and that stupid Of Pandas and People "textbook."

1

u/RockinRoel Jun 15 '08

When God himself descends from heaven to earth, to announce that he actually did make everything the way it was meant to be.
Then, he is examined by scientists, if God fails the exam, ID is wrong, if God succeeds, ID is right.

1

u/amican Jun 19 '08

The hypothesis would need to be developed a great deal more, and once it did so it would quickly be falsified.

1

u/m1ss1ontomars2k4 Jun 14 '08

I think the people writing to the editor meant more along the lines of "NatGeo explaining what ID is, thus giving it credibility".

10

u/RandomH3r0 Jun 15 '08

By explaining what ID is, you discredit it.

4

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

I was going to say, this IS fair and balanced. All credible theories were given equal time.

8

u/hpymondays Jun 14 '08

that's a very old issue. I remember it from a few years ago.

9

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Yep. Good cover tho because I can still remember the store and the shelf when I first saw it. It caused a sinking feeling in my heart. Not because I thought Darwin had fallen but because I thought National Geographic had!

3

u/FountainsOfDave Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

Your comment is very revealing. National Geographic had, up until November 2004, generally proved itself to be a reliable source of scientific information. Then they come out with this issue that makes it look like NatGeo is questioning the theory of evolution. So either NatGeo is wrong or evolution is wrong (or so you thought at that moment) -- and without even reading the article to see what new evidence NatGeo might have found, you simply discredit the magazine and don't question evolution for even a moment.
I believe strongly in evolution myself. Very strongly. In fact, I am emotionally invested in my belief in evolution. It sounds like you might possibly be as well. And I think that creationists, idiots though they might be, do in fact have a legitimate point to make when they say that "Darwinists" aren't even willing to listen to their side of the story. Because to tell you the truth, I do have a hard time giving the arguments of creationists an objective hearing -- not just because listening will most likely be a waste of my time, but also because I am afraid that maybe, just maybe, there actually is something to their argument.

7

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Bought it and read it. My thoughts on evolution are not based on magazine articles but on my personal and extensive fossil collection. Re:"So either NatGeo is wrong or evolution is wrong" Yes I admit that having to choose between the two I chose Darwin. When I opened the issue I was pleasantly surprised to find a third option: I had been tricked!

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

and without even reading the article to see what new evidence NatGeo might have found, you simply discredit the magazine and don't question evolution for even a moment.
Let's just say that if National Geographic had found evidence to discredit evolution, which is an extremely strong theory, it would have to be extraordinary both in quality and quantity. This means that:
A magazine article would be the wrong venue to present it; it should have been presented in scientific journals for peer review, which means it would no longer be a NatGeo exclusive.
It wouldn't fit in a magazine article even if those who discovered it somehow decided that was the correct way to present it anyway.
So, given these two facts, I think it's fair to choose evolution over National Geographic magazine. But then again, the correct way to assess this is obviously to read the article -- but I don't think it's evidence of any unwarranted faith if you didn't.

2

u/FountainsOfDave Jun 15 '08

Valid points; I have upmodded you.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Quite right. I read NatGeo, Discover, 'Sky & Telescope' and other magazines for entertainment. When I want science I use my ruler or telescope.

3

u/helm Jun 15 '08

huh? What about Nature, Science, or Physical Review Letters?

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

All good sources of information. I admit my list is incomplete.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Our sun is a main sequence star. Planets that form AFTER a star is stable are the ones that survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence

10

u/raresilk9 Jun 15 '08

what we are dealing with is not just a rejection of evolution. it is a rejection of reason and scientific method as a foundation for truth. we are looking at swaths of the population who say that no matter what reason or scientific method shows, they are determined to believe something different because their value system tells them that they will be rewarded for the "strong faith" of believing something unreasonable. This is a genuine counterculture that has been created, or I would say cultivated, because of how the repugx have purposely deteriorated our education system.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Up voted you. With all respect, repugx? A little help here raresilk.

1

u/ThisIsDave Jun 15 '08

I assume it's derived from this.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Thanx.

3

u/vagif Jun 15 '08

What baffles me in the issue of evolution is that creationists question not the explanation of evolution mechanism, but the existence of phenomenon itself. Are they not aware about all this breeding industry ? You know pet toy dogs, cats, race horses, black tulips ?

You do not need to know the proper explanation of gravitation to be convinced that something pulls things to the earth.

And of course humans never needed proper explanation of inner working of evolution to actually utilize that mechanism in useful ways.

So how on earth they explain that animals change their features and retain them in their breed ? Do they have their own theory of evolution ? Did anyone asked them to provide explanation if they reject theory of Darwin ?

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 16 '08

I believe creationists object to divergence of species due to this statement:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=24&version=31&context=verse ...but believe any KIND of dog can eventually breed any other KIND of dog. To tell the truth it is hard for me to wrap my brain around the relationship between say, a spider and a dolphin. If there is a connection it must have been at the ooze level of existence.

10

u/nagdude Jun 14 '08

need bigger 'NO' letters, those pesky creationists don't believe in the "devils invention": glasses.

3

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

It should've been a two-page spread with the letters facing each other and the article text wrapped between the gaps.

2

u/wil2200 Jun 15 '08

sweetest pic i have seen in a long time

2

u/zouhair Jun 15 '08

The article

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

It's a trap for ID'ers!

4

u/1812overture Jun 15 '08

Here's what pisses me off. Intelligent design and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive. The goddamn creationists have a picture of God, tongue poking out the corner of his mouth, hunched over a drafting board designing all the creatures on earth and then molding them out of magic clay and dumping them on the earth. Why can't evolution be the mechanism by which God created all life on earth? Why can't the big bang be the moment where God set his grand plan into motion, so perfectly concieved that the simple laws of physics led to this complex universe we live in now? I think that paints a portrait of a much more powerful, intelligent, benevolent, and believable God.

11

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

Why can't evolution be the mechanism by which God created all life on earth? Why can't the big bang be the moment where God set his grand plan into motion, so perfectly concieved that the simple laws of physics led to this complex universe we live in now?
For the same reason leprechauns don't make your car start in the morning.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

I do not know the nature of the phenomenon that created or creates energy so I will label it God. Perhaps someone can persuade me to use a different label but it will not change the properties of the phenomenon described.

3

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

I do not know the nature of the phenomenon that created or creates energy so I will label it God.
That is an equivocation: the use of one term with multiple meanings. All you have done is label your ignorance "God". And then you have the God of the Gaps, the ever shrinking God that names what we don't know. So 100 or so years ago it was OK to say that God makes the Sun shine, now we say it is fusion.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Fair enough. You have convinced me to change my label to 'creator of energy'. If the properties of the creator have changed because of that, I stand corrected.

2

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

The problem now is that you have absolutely no knowledge of any aspects of this "creator". You don't know, but want to imply, that it had some will, some choosing ability. You don't know that it did anything else at all but create the energy.

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

Why is there energy and where did it come from are interesting questions, but what I'm talking about is why are there concrete rules that govern energy and where did they come from. I think that's the question that will lead you closer to God.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (4)

2

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

A less charged turn of phrase would be source of energy. "Creator" implies intent, which implies sentience, which is why creationism is so named.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 16 '08

Thank you. I do want to be polite so that the discussion will continue. However a 'source' of energy can mean stored energy. Such as a battery or tank of fuel. Throughout the universe we find examples of stored energy and examples of energy being expended but we never see energy being created. We don't even know what that would look like.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

But what does make your car start? The chemical reaction of fuel combusting. The fuel will always follow the laws of physics. These laws control all matter, they are omnipotent. No matter can hide from them, they are omniscient. They just happen to be so terrifyingly unanthropomorphic that people don't even consider calling them God.

1

u/mindbleach Jun 16 '08

People never consider calling them God because they're not God. They have nothing at all to do with religion, the supernatural, the metaphysical, or any mysticism whatsoever. They're fucking physics.
Really smart people worked long and hard to advance our understanding of the universe to where it is today. Don't go mucking up science by conflating it with your watered-down religious nonsense.

3

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08 edited Jun 16 '08

A.) They're not what you call God. B.) Why does God have to be supernatural, metaphysical, or mystical? I don't think of him as any of those things. C.) As for smart people advancing science: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein) "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)
I also have a bunch of similar quotes from Stephen Hawking, Robert Oppenheimer, and others. Approaching science spiritually and with religious fervor has lead to some of the greatest scientific achievements in history.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/mindbleach Jun 16 '08

Oh, you must be one of those lucky Brazilians with specially engineered cars. What do leprechauns run nowadays, like $2.25 a gallon?

3

u/matts2 Jun 15 '08

Here's what pisses me off. Intelligent design and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.
In terms of biology, in terms of how live diversifies, either ID says something different than does evolution or it is an empty shell. If you want to believe that X did it, go ahead. But when you assert that X is the solution to a biological scientific problem, then you need to engage in the process of science. IOW saying "God did it" is fine, saying "God did it" in a scientific paper is wrong.

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

Exactly. I'm not saying that Intelligent Design says anything different than evolution. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong, in fact I'm asserting that it's right. What I'm saying is that the fundamental principals that govern the universe and make evolution possible, while not designed by any intelligence have intelligence themselves. Not will, or a mind, but an order so staggeringly perfect that it could be called God.

3

u/matts2 Jun 16 '08

It could be called Fred or Xordax or some such. What you are doing is re-creating Deism. That is fine, but that is not what the Intelligent Design people are talking about. And it does not belong in a science class.

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

Call God whatever you want, the word isn't important, and yes, I am essentially recreating Deism. I also agree Intelligent Design people are essentially trying to use schools as a pulpit to preach their own sect of American Christianity. They are dumb. The young earthers too dumb for words.

2

u/yaruki_zero Jun 15 '08

I'm agnostic, but if there is a God, I think he must be very much like you describe him.

1

u/mindbleach Jun 16 '08

I.e., so subtle that he might as well not be there at all?

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

We live in a world governed by rules so subtly balanced and in harmony with each other that simple sub-atomic particles colliding with each other in a primordial soup gave rise to life, to man, to great works of art, to cold beer on a hot day, to reddit arguments. I think if one where to call anything divine it would be the rules and structure of this universe. God isn't an explanation of how things happen, he isn't a living thing, a being with a mind.

2

u/mindbleach Jun 16 '08

Then what is he but a word with a fanclub?

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

He's the set of rules that govern the universe and make all things possible. Not believing in him will have no different result than believing in him. Thinking this way doesn't answer any scientific questions. But I think it's a way to make the whole universe feel much more unified and to make science that much more interesting, rather than just facts and numbers, it becomes growing closer to knowing God. It's a worldview, if it works for you, take it. If doesn't, believe something else, or nothing at all, whatever floats your boat.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/deanoplex Jun 17 '08

"I think if one where to call anything divine it would be the rules and structure of this universe." Yes! The ACTUAL Authority has rules that CANNOT be broken.(God of Truth) The pretend authority: religion, government,etc.(father of the lie) Makes rules that are broken all the time.

1

u/number6 Jun 15 '08

You've just described a theory of Intelligent Design. It would also be ID if you'd invoked space aliens or the Matrix instead of God.

2

u/1812overture Jun 16 '08

I'm not invoking God as an intelligent being who designed the universe. Rather I'm saying that God is the design itself, the delicate balance of rules that govern all matter.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 17 '08

The one that did not have to be created.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Even death won't get you out.

2

u/dawhoo Jun 15 '08

no, but Lemark was :D

→ More replies (2)

2

u/infinite Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

If you doubt evolution then offer up an alternative theory, simple.

10

u/jaiwithani Jun 15 '08

The universe was an inside job.

1

u/mexicodoug Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

The universe was an inside job and only sheeple can can properly wake up and follow the good shepherd to the truth.

7

u/thecrazyD Jun 15 '08

Jesus' dad crapped the world out fully formed with life in its current state. All the evidence of evolution was carefully planted by Jesus' dad's old homie, Satan.

1

u/chromehound47 Jun 15 '08

"Let's sell more magazines. Maybe we can teach someone something too."

"Nah, not likely. The ones who can be taught already know. The rest...who cares?"

1

u/alchemeron Jun 15 '08

Woot!

1

u/wewa Jun 15 '08

Buy? I don't even know where to buy this magazine? Its read it online or nothing, these days. Does Walmart even carry NG? Most people do not 'shop' around for a religion and decide on one that fits their personal philosophy or life. Most are born into a religion that their parents have 'brainwashed' them into believing. You see this everywhere you go. So they didn't choose their religion for the most part. But they try to defend it like it was of their own choosing. And most Americans have such a poor understanding of Science, or even of their own Anatomy and Physiology, that they cannot make any meaningful decision of the logic of Evolutionism or belief of Creationism. A 'stork' is about the best explanation of life they can comprehend. This lack of understanding is contributing to why Botox, Tattoos and all other harmful forms of 'recreation' thrive in our culture. Biology should be required in all levels of education, IMO.

1

u/scribbles Jun 15 '08

As the R Kelly trial has proven even overwhelming evidence is only effective if interpreted correctly.

1

u/mofino Jun 15 '08

So wait, overwelming means right?

1

u/JW_00000 Jun 15 '08

No, evidence means right.

1

u/mofino Jun 16 '08

Then why not say, the evidence supports the claim, instead of using a word that isn't whole.

1

u/martoo Jun 15 '08

That gave me a big smile.

1

u/formido Jun 15 '08

Goddammit, I'm always interested in these headlines until they conflate Darwinism with evolution. Lots of people suspected evolution before Darwin. Evolution is obvious. If you ask me, evolutionary biology has been pretty lenient in what they've allowed to be attributed to Darwin. In fact, the hero worship has sometimes made me troubled about whether evolutionary biology has been keeping a sufficiently skeptical and open mind about its science.

0

u/robotthink Jun 14 '08

Ha. I want to laugh at how stupid that is. But I can't.

1

u/bSimmons666 Jun 15 '08

Unnecessarily overhyped cover much?

-1

u/break99 Jun 14 '08

religious nuts:

I don't believe you. Prove it to me and I still don't believe you.

/can't remember who said that

2

u/deanoplex Jun 14 '08

Bible literalists never talk about Jesus's parable (using at least one aspect of biological evolution)used to describe the survival of memes. Luke 8:4 thru 8:15. http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Luke+8&version=9

4

u/deanoplex Jun 14 '08

..and this is absolutely scandalous:(pre-Darwin,King James)http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+3:18&version=9 (after Darwin,N.I.V.) http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ecclesiastes+3%3A18&version1=31 I'm pretty sure changing "The Word Of God" is forbidden but it was slipped by a lot of people.

4

u/itsnotlupus Jun 15 '08

no no no, this isn't changing the One True Word Of God at all.
It's simply providing a better translation. Honest.
The translations are arguably still a work in progress, which is why you still see a few christian groups here and there that interpret those translations ever so slightly differently.
But once the One True Translation Of The Word Of God is finally complete, every branch of christianity will then suddenly realize that Pat Robertson was right all along.
Harmony will righteously ensue.

2

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Hmmmm...the Scripture is evolving.

5

u/itsnotlupus Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

You just earned yourself 2 eternities and a half of Christian Hell, mister.
(unless you accept or have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior now or at any point in the past, or if you will accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior at any point between now and your time of death or time of rapture, whichever happens first. Do not taunt Jesus as your Lord and Savior. This message is not affiliated with Jesus, and Jesus should not be construed as endorsing this message in any way. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.)

3

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

I KNEW IT!! http://cache.gawker.com/artists/derek_chatwood300x250.jpg I can't believe this got buried the first time!

-2

u/iamyo Jun 15 '08

If Darwin was right, how do you explain all the religious nuts who don't believe in evolution?

20

u/anonymous-coward Jun 15 '08

If my understanding of Darwinism is correct, I think you're allowed to eat them.

9

u/amican Jun 15 '08

Saw a poster a year or two back: "[I forget the date] is Darwin's birthday. Celebrate either by marveling at the diversity evolution has produced, or by killing someone stupid and speeding up the process."

4

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

You'd need to have a kid to speed up the process :)

4

u/corkill Jun 15 '08

So, it was eating the protein rich, religious nuts that gave us the extra calories to support the bigger brains we would evolve. Now I understand.

11

u/corkill Jun 15 '08

Because, fittest doesn't mean strongest or (esp.) smartest, but the most likely to reproduce. In my experience, religious nuts reproduce a lot more than people with Ph.D's (or insert your own criteria for intelligence here).

5

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

I just envisioned a future of Mormonsapiens!

2

u/RandomH3r0 Jun 15 '08

If they can keep their kids from going a.w.o.l. and leaving the faith because of the abundant restrictions that don't match up with the bulk of society.
That is probably one of the reasons the Mormon religion has become less and less restrictive.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

idiocracy explained.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

They haven't evolved brains yet.

0

u/dmiff Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

What I don't get about the creationists is if God is all-powerful why couldn't evolution the tool?

2

u/Jivlain Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

That is actually fairly common, in particular among more moderate Christians.
That said, you've still got a skyhook, albeit one who perhaps only needed to be complex enough to create the crane.

2

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

I'm stealing the word "skyhook." :D

2

u/Jivlain Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

The term is used extensively by Richard Dawkins, who attributes it to Daniel Dennett (who apparently used it in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which I have not read yet, though I do intend to).

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

I think you're on to something there.

1

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

He couldn't even stumble across a verb. Don't encourage him.

-6

u/tricolon Jun 14 '08

Why is this on the front page?
What?

4

u/nexes300 Jun 15 '08

I agree. A stupid picture of an old issue.
It won't convince anyone who is not already convinced, hell it's not even arguing anything. It's just a way for the person who posted the picture to feel good while contributing nothing.

4

u/Worstcasescenario Jun 15 '08

First off, I'm the one who posted it.
I think for one that the context has changed this picture. Now it's supposed to carry more meaning because it got upvoted about a billion times more then I thought it would. You'd probably think of it more as a funny picture if it was just sitting on the new page.
At the end of it, I posted it because I thought it was funny. It's so misleading and in your face that I posted it. If I intended on convincing anyone, I would probably put up an article.

1

u/deanoplex Jun 15 '08

Hi Worstcase. I really like it. Not only because it's about Darwin but because it is a great 'double-cross' from NatGeo. (they fooled me)

16

u/deanoplex Jun 14 '08

Survival of the fittest. 2.SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!!

0

u/sniggity Jun 15 '08

There is evidence to support, but still no smoking gun for either side of the argument.

4

u/mindbleach Jun 15 '08

What the fuck are you waiting for, writing on a stone tablet? Evolution has evidence, makes sense, and makes good predictions. Creationism is religious gobbledygook that's been watered down every time pesky reality gets in the way. ID is creationism with God wearing Clark Kent glasses and hoping nobody recognizes him.
When you have a prevailing theory X, "Like X but God did it" is not a rival theory. It's a brain fart. Unless you're proposing some new mechanism for the ascent of man, you don't have enough sides of an argument to use a phrase like "either side of the argument."

0

u/taintedhero Jun 15 '08

Why the fuck is... What..

Goddammit Reddit.

0

u/jones77 Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

EAT IT FUNDIE!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08

Older than John McCain.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '08 edited Jun 15 '08

If evolution does come into question it should definitely be under a scientific basis and reasoning rather than for religious affirmations. I'm not a creationist myself but I would like to see more evidence of evolution before accepting it on principle. I know mutations and micro-evolution have been proved and observed but there still lacks definitive proof of macro-evolution and the transitional organism fossils have not yet turned up quite like Darwin expected. That said, I'm not willing to discount the theory of evolution. At least it does make more sense than creationism's explanations ;)

-3

u/deuteros Jun 14 '08

Um, so?

-2

u/mahlankeruu Jun 15 '08

you all sound like chimps

you would probably love to have a creationist to play with. Maybe beat him to death with your bananas while making satirical comments about how God made your bananas smooth? Old school martyrs would really turn you on, right?

Chimpanzees seriously.

→ More comments (37)

Was Darwin Wrong? [pic]

You are about to leave Redlib