Anybody Want to Argue Evolution vs "Intelligent Design"?

If so, you should watch this NOVA special from PBS. According to the site, the program will be posted online in its entirety beginning Nov. 16th.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_novabrjudgmentday_2007-11-13

 

Good call. I highly recommend the show, which I just finished watching.

I'm religious enough and all, but I've never had any patience with the creationism crowd. There's nothing, to me, that has ever created a conflict between Genesis and Darwin.

I feel badly for those who can't (or won't) reconcile the two.

 

I'm with you.

 

Genesis and Darwinism are mutually exclusive. Genesis holds that God created the earth in perfection, and only sin brought death. Evolution holds that chance has brought order out of chaos, and the "fittest" survived.

Those are two far different views on the origin of the earth. I am curious how you resolve those two things.

 

Ditto.

 

It's not that difficult.

One's a supernatural belief, one's science.

 

This person doesn't believe in evolution. Then she does. I guess she can't reconcile the two.



I, however, can. Though I am not religious, and in fact am anti-religious, I can see the two come together neatly. Hell, we are evolving as a planet as we speak. And though it doesn't prove the existence of god, it doesn't kill it either.

 

Science doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God.

Relgion cannot prove or disprove science.

They're not mutually exclusive as long as you accept each for what they are.

I was listening to some of the podcasts on the Nova site and the judge on the trial made one interesting comment---the foreign press who attended the trial were wondering what the hell the fuss was about.

 

Even if we were to agree on that point, we would have to conclude, though, that they are different. I'll admit, I'm no scientist, so I can't debate on that issue. But to say that one scheme of belief (that death has created order out of chaos) is compatible with another (which says God created everything in order and sin has caused decay) seems far-fetched to me.

From what I understand of science, for something to be "scientific" it must be proveable through a method. It seems that any story about the origin of the earth would be unproveable in a scientific manner.

 

I thought the point was the two opposing viewpoints are reconcilable? I don't believe they are.

If you accept the Genesis account, you believe that God created things in perfection and rebellion against Him caused death and decay, etc. If, though, you accept Darwinism, you believe that order came out of chaos, and that the original existence of the earth, the universe, etc., was imperfect and is better now than it was.

I'm just asking how someone can reconcile those clearly opposite viewpoints.

 

Because they're not opposite. One's faith, which isn't bound by the rules of "proof". And one's science. It's a totally different playing field.

It's like saying, "I struck you out on three pitches, so ... be gone." But you're over there, shooting hoops on the basketball court.

 

It's called the THEORY of Evolution. THEORY. So no, evolution hasn't been proven, and not all the kinks have been worked out, but that doesn't mean it's less plausible than some dude building a big boat with every species of animal on it.