Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Baashi]

SB,

 

Question: one of the basic assumption of Biology regarding to the origins of life is that the whole thing started as an accident. No?

 

In the beginning there was no plan no design nothing, Darwinists say. The tale as I called is that Big Bang happaned, elements, essential elemnts, in a chain reaction formed molecules and all this happened by chance.

 

From there the single cell formed again by accident OR by chance. The cell evolved over time. Formation of mulitcell organism followed, complex biological processes take shape by accident and so on untill sophisticated organs appeared by chance. Is this familiar or my axyaa and the tadhawur I was taught in high school is worthless?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

SB,

 

Question: one of the basic assumption of Biology regarding to the origins of life is that the whole thing started as an accident. No?

Yes, scientists prefer spontaneous as suppose to accident though.

 

But don't confuse that with Evolution Theory. The only assumption Evolution Theory makes is the existance of first living organism. How that organism came about or why is not areas Evolution Theory explores.

 

In the beginning there was no plan no design nothing, Darwinists say.

Actually that is not what Evolutionists say. Evolution theory is silent on the subject of the 'beginning'. Its beginning is the first living organism (or organisms).

 

The tale as I called is that Big Bang happaned, elements, essential elemnts, in a chain reaction formed molecules and all this happened by chance.

Roughly yes.

 

From there the single cell formed again by accident OR by chance.

There is huge time gap between the very beginning of the universe and when it came possible for first living organism to arise on earth. It took billions of years after the Big Bang for the planets to form. The creation of the earth its self took billions of years. Life became only possible after the surface of the earth cooled and the atmosphere stabilised.

 

The cell evolved over time. Formation of mulitcell organism followed, complex biological processes take shape by accident and so on untill sophisticated organs appeared by chance. Is this familiar or my axyaa and the tadhawur I was taught in high school is worthless?

Yep, you got the gist of it right.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Baashi:

SB,

 

Question: one of the basic assumption of Biology regarding to the origins of life is that the whole thing started as an accident. No?

Bashi, Graad, let us sift the assumptions first.

I remember Caano geel pointing at the absence of a scientific theory about the origins of LIFE.

 

The big bang theory answers a diffrent Question.

Ever since Edwin Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. and discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast and

the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position

 

Creationsm again took a blow becouse it talks about 7 heaves without an elevator

 

Having said that, Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

 

The Age of the universe can be roughly calculated as

(distance of a particular galaxy) / (that galaxys velocity) = (time)

 

or

 

4.6 x 10^26 cm / 1 x 10^9 cm/sec = 4.6 x 10^17 sec

This equation, equaling 4.6 x 10^17 seconds, comes out to be approximately fifteen billion years

 

This maybe is the begening you´re talking about

 

Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.

[Bakar]

Baashi,

 

Thanks for the links, widaay. I never once visited theier website, though I tune in some of the of the programs aired by PBS. It is very educational, indeed.

[Cara.]

Socod_badne, you made some really good points, but this one stands out:-

 

Evolution theory is silent on the subject of the 'beginning'. Its beginning is the first living organism (or organisms).

THANK YOU.

 

The theory of evolution is (mostly) silent on how life came to be simply because the theory of evolution is a biological theory. As such, it concerns itself with biological (living) entities. Any thing before that is the purview of chemists.

[Liibaan]

Creationism theory shouldn’t compare with Darwin's theory "Evolution theory". It shouldn’t be said if this is right the other one is wrong or vase versa. However, I believe they can go hand on hand. Keeping in mind that organisms evolve till the fits one survives and others become extinct (through natural selection mechanism). The question is how does these organisms become to existence?????? since everything have a start point! Common answer is from bacteria etc. Well are not bacteria itself an organism …where does this bacterium emerge? Here is where creationism can play a reasonable role. It has been created by whom? Obviously god . Unfortunately, atheists don’t like to dig the argument that deep, so usually we see them rowling on the surface and trying to set up a cyclic argument; if not creationism than it should be evolution and vase versa.Evolution theory is coming from scientific aspect – its excavating physical proves / tangible facts from the nature. Furthermore, it is not only limited to humans. However, it covers all living organisms form Endoskeletons such as vertebrates (e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) to exoskeletons like arthropods regardless which environment they inhibit. However, creationism is mainly scrutinized from the historic aspect of the universe’s origin. Meanwhile, religion books and other myths that different societies adhere are frequently the main resource of creationism, since it involves a transcendental power, which is beyond imagination of our intellectual capability.

[NomadicQueen]

Being that we are all muslims (at least i hope we all are), I think that we are in a great position. A cozy balance between creation and science. the quran is filled with scientific facts before man "discovered" them. We know from accounts in the quran that humans have not always looked the same. The prophet Adamn (alayhi salaam) was described to be much taller than men are today. We know that humans have changed, as we continue to, but our origin was not from a primate. Rather we evoloved seperatley. We cannot deny that evolution occured in humans, but at no point were we neanderthaals (Bush and cabinet are the exception. So the question is how to reconcile the evolution of humans and that of other animals.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada:

Creationism theory shouldn’t compare with Darwin's theory "Evolution theory". It shouldn’t be said if this is right the other one is wrong or vase versa. However, I believe they can go hand on hand.

Salaam,

 

I disagree, they can NEVER go hand in hand. The two theories provide two mutually exclusive, irreconcilable explanations for the history of man and living organisms. Where is the middle ground? One theory makes falsifiable predictions and hypothesis, the other (Creation) doesn't even have a hypothesis or make any predictions. It is not theory in the traditional sense with hypothesis and testable, falsifiable predictions.

 

Science, relying on the Scientific Method, has done wonders in the last few hundreds years, why enmesh religion now? Why the sudden doubt of science? Do ppl doubt science when they flick a light switch, dail their cell phones, drive their cars, take an NMR Scan or the gazillion other science related modern devices they use on daily basis? I doubt it, so what is the justification for this doubt of science and calls to bring religion into the fray?

 

The simple truth is, as far as science theories go, Evolution Theory is well supported. Not only that Evolution is a FACT -- an observable, predictable, testable fact.

 

I believe science and religion can and MUST co-exist in harmony but only if each is kept in its rightful place. Religion IS a private matter -- for the individual --, science is for all (if science discovers the cure to cancer tomorrow, every1 benefits regardless of faith). There will certainly be frictions, this Creation vs Evolution debate is a good example. But all those involved in the debate and those watching on the sidelines must keep an open mind, look at the all the evidence, the objective, unadulterated historical record, eschew all pre-concieved convictions...then come to a decision.

 

In my view, too many ppl are dismissing Evolution Theory as false on the premise it doesn't have God in the picture or dismissing Creation theory because it is not 'scientific.' I think each theory has its strengths and weaknesses. It is about knowing what those strengths and weaknesses are and finding out what mirrors your believes the best.

 

When the debate becomes about the metaphysical, ontological, creation of first living organism and similar topics...Evolution Theory must -- rightfully -- exist the ring. Conversely, when the debate is about the biology of living organisms, Creation Theory must step aside. It is not one or the other, which is right or which is wrong, it is about knowing when not to step on the other's toe. It is about avoiding unnecessary and undesired friction.

 

 

That is what this Creation vs Evolution debate should be about. Not which is right or wrong. Such debate will never come to an end for the simple and self-evident reason that the two sides are like blind man talking to a deaf man. One is armed with facts, demonstrable facts and testable predictions. The other has the word of God. A recipe for endless circular debate.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by NomadicQueen:

We cannot deny that evolution occured in humans, but at no point were we neanderthaals (Bush and cabinet are the exception. So the question is how to reconcile the evolution of humans and that of other animals.

We aren't descendents of Neanderthals cuz they are side group that splintered off from our ancestors. All modern humans have a single, common ancestor.

 

According to Evolution Theory, the evolution of humans and animals are one and the same.

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada:

The question is how does these organisms become to existence?????? since everything have a

start point!

Common answer is from bacteria etc. Well are not bacteria itself an organism …where does this bacterium emerge? Here is where creationism can play a reasonable role. It has been created by whom?

Obviously god

. Unfortunately, atheists don’t like to dig the argument that deep, so usually we see them rowling on the surface and trying to set up a cyclic argument;..

Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada ,

Here is the undressed version of your argument.

 

1: Everything has a start point.

2: organisms Do exist.

3: organisims has a start point.

4: organisims probably come from bacteria.

5: bacterias too has a start point, but HOW?

6: No clear answer is available,(you don´t know)

7:(conclussion) since no clear scientific answer is available, it MUST have been created.

 

Now Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada, the problem with your thinking is assumption 1,6 and your conclussion 7,

The failure of assumption nr 5 doesn´t yield 7 through 6 . You´re giving creationism the credit just becouse you can´t find the scientific answer.

In a just and sane thinking creationistic world ,creationism should answer assumption 5, don´t you think so?

 

so much for digging, and see who got a cyclic argument.

[NomadicQueen]

I really think you all are debating something for the sake of debate. First off there is no clear scientific explanation for how we came to be, I think we all agree on this, otherwise we wouldn't be typing. Secondly, WE ARE MUSLIM! We understand and most importantly ACCEPT! that there are always going to be questions that will NEVER! be answered, at least not in life. So my brothers, and i say "brothers" because this debate seems to be dominated by males as most of these circular never ending and conclusionless debates usually are, you can rest your over worked brains.

 

 

P.S. There is another wonderful outlet for your need to compete for the prize of "most intelligent faarax award"...its called Starbucks. You will find your predecessors there debating over things they do nothing about. You can sit at there feet with a cappuccino and soak up the plethora of knowledge they have to offer. Dont have a ride home? No worries, an army of taxis await you in the parking lot, just one of the many perks of being such a smart Faarax.

[Baashi]

Originally posted by NomadicQueen:

P.S. There is another wonderful outlet for your need to compete for the prize of "most intelligent faarax award"...its called Starbucks. You will find your predecessors there debating over things they do nothing about. You can sit at there feet with a cappuccino and soak up the plethora of knowledge they have to offer. Dont have a ride home? No worries, an army of taxis await you in the parking lot, just one of the many perks of being such a smart Faarax.

 

Waja maneeniyaakoooooow mujaja Starbucks rocks...we love it...it's our second home...and cabbies are very considerate to give us a ride when we miss the bus. Guess what I saw u there too the one in Duluth...don't deny it now.

[Liibaan]

I believe science and religion can and MUST co-exist in harmony

When the debate becomes about the metaphysical, ontological, creation of first living organism and similar topics...Evolution Theory must -- rightfully -- exist the ring. Conversely, when the debate is about the biology of living organisms, Creation Theory must step aside

If you are saying all above statements is not that mean you agree that two theories can go hand in hand. Since, you clearly stated how the two theories interplay, as one exists and the other steps aside, in different phases of building a logical trace of lifes origin. In addition, you surprise me when you said

the other (Creation) doesn't even have a hypothesis or make any predictions

Well here you are treating creationism as a product of science, which is not true. Therefore, i wouldnot suggest you to use the scientific way to disprove creationism theory but to evaluate its validity in other terms. moreover, when iam saying right or wrong iam simply cautioning introverted individuals to abstain their close circle and bridge themselves to the big picture. in fact, as you mentioned the two theories have its own weakness and strength so why not bring the best of two worlds and drew mutual consensus. unless we are ready to go for the third option " Vacuity" ( as far as i know) if anyone have/know other options iam please to know

[Liibaan]

Johnny B i am not giving the cridet to creationism simply because i cannot find a scientific anwser but science itself lacks a vaible explanation. in addition, i havenot done any assumption rather i underline questions that are worth to analysis, for example if science cannot expalain where bactria come from than we have take the consideration if creationism have anwser, which says ID made this bactria. in fact, creationism has anwser what you called assumption number 5. apart from this discussion you mentioned earlier in the debate that

I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like).

So i would like to ask you where you falling in this heating debate. since you not with creationsim, or evolution or pro-creationsim or pro-evolution??? because in order to mismentel any argument there should be a target that person running after. Otherwise, there is nothing to debate about

[Johnny B]

DP