My point is Natural Selection as conventionally presented in terms of a series of many many many random mutations, does not explain "the origin of species", does not explain the divergence of species from common ancestors which I believe there is fairly good evidence for. The most significant evidence for common ancestry in my mind being the shared genetic code, from sunflowers to whales.
Hmm? I get the very strong feeling that you don't.... fully grasp the concepts that you're talking about, to put the sentiment kindly. Maybe, just maybe, you should review the topic of what
Natural Selection actually is more carefully.
It does bother me though when creationists make the point that when evolution is taught in schools as unintentional, and purposeless and therefore a theory with an atheist agenda, they, the atheists are not treated fairly. They have a valid point, absolutely correct there they are. If evolution, natural selection is to be taught in schools as a process that occurs without direction, without purpose, without goal, then this needs to be acknowledged as the atheist rhetoric that it is, and creationists as a consequence have every right to ask that their views be similarly presented to students. Natural Selection is a secular presentation of atheism and needs to be acknowledged as such.
No. Just no. Natural selection is a means to explain the evidence in a logical and potentially predictable manner and works exceedingly well as such. Belief in causes of the process is absolutely irrelevant.
Natural selection is obviously inadequate to explain why we are the way we are, how we came to be, but there is nothing better out their to point to and say, "Look! that is what accounts for all of this".
"Obviously inadequate" is, likely, far, far too strong a position to take. It's like saying that obviously, chance is an inadequate explanation for why some number of rolls of a die ended up in a specific permutation. Nevermind that the chance of getting a result in that case is 100% and that it has to come from the set of possible permutations. At no point in natural selection does it say that "you" are an intended result. That said, please present your actual evidence or direct reasons for
evolution as a whole, of which Natural Selection is only one part of, at last check, being an inadequate explanation. Preferably in the correct forum, though.
My main point in the thread again is that Natural Selection and Christianity , Judaism, Islam, are incompatible, inconsistent with one another. Natural Selection says, no purpose, mindless, directionless. Christianity says God made me with careful studied attention.
Neither Natural Selection, nor evolution, addresses purpose, in any way, shape, or form. Also, be careful when generalizing a religion like Christianity, as saying "careful studied attention." Like most points, this is highly unlikely to be shared universally in the taught theology. Natural Selection and Christianity are not necessarily at odds, though, unless certain claims are taken literally. Young Earth Creationism, in its Christian forms, encompasses quite a few examples of where conflicts arise, for example. That said, evolution merely demonstrates that there is an excellent explanatory tool that does not depend either the supernatural or lack thereof. The supernatural is irrelevant. Certainly, one can argue that various mutations happened with the influence of the supernatural and were selected for or not selected for because of the supernatural, but such is irrelevant to the issue.
Now, to jump to a different post for a moment...
HAve you ever heard mainstream bhiologists say God may have worked through the process of NAtural Selection to create us. I have heard it a few times, but not mainstreamers. For the most part, the emphasis when presenting the nature of mutation in the process of natural selection is on its futrue of being chance based, unintentional, mindless, purposeless.
This opens the doors for the creationists. why should they not ask for equal time?
Because the process itself does not intrinsically require purpose, mind, or intention to function in the manner that does. When the "mainstreamers" say that, it's the simple truth. Certainly, there may be such involved, but it is not required, in any way. If you want to argue that that qualification should be taught? Feel free. If you want to equate it with creationism? No, just no. First, demonstrate that what they're trying to teach is factual and has value similar to science. Otherwise, keep it in classes that deal specifically with religious beliefs. I, personally, believe that classes should be taught about the major religions and religious concepts of the world, given how powerful the influence that they have had and have is. That does not, in any way, mean that their beliefs should get time in a science class without qualifying as such.
I know, the religious fighting is very dumb. Guess the fighting must at root really be about something else, like land, water, oil and other stuff. The religion is just a "cover".
I agree that religious fighting is moronic. I disagree that it has to be "a cover," though. Certainly, religion is rarely alone in the reasons for why things happened the way that they did, but, generally speaking, all reasons and justifications are only contributing factors in a larger whole.
Of course there is zero evidence, I just made it up (although there may be existing belief systems that it resembles). Don't try to make sense of it. That's not the point. On the other hand, if you try to make sense of the many Gods and religions that have sprung up over time you'll end up with the same conclusion.
Yet those beliefs existed, and influenced people and culture. And along with those beliefs people still advanced science and technology. History is rife with idiotic and irrational religions. Yet despite that fact, man never stopped inventing, never stopped investigating, never stopped conducting science.
Turn that last paragraph around ... Yet science existed, and influenced people and culture. And along with science people still invented new gods and beliefs. History is rife with invention and technological advancement. Yet despite that fact, man never stopped imagining gods, never stopped inventing religions, never stopped their quest for the spiritual.
That sounds like coexistence to me. That sounds like compatibility.
While I will quite agree with your sentiment that science and religion are not intrinsically incompatible, I find myself disagreeing with the way you defend that sentiment. It sounds like coexistence, to me, too. However, I don't think that the coexistence of the two has ever really been in question, much as science, as we understand it these days, is actually a relatively recent ideology that has proven itself to be extremely useful. Drastically more useful than any religion has, to my knowledge. Taken as an ideology of investigating what can be investigated, accepting verifiable evidence, and putting everything together into a larger, coherent picture of reality, it will, however, produce claims that are in opposition to the claims made by most possible religions. Therefore, science and most possible religions are incompatible, just as the religions are largely, though not entirely, incompatible with each other. Properly based logic, which isn't necessarily the same thing as science, will counter most of the remainder. Again, not all, though. Still, now I may begin to ramble, so... I'm just going to post this and allow more specific responses.
