Google  
Web    Images    GroupsNew!    News    Froogle    more »
  Advanced Search
  Preferences    
 Web Results 1 - 10 for The RevantaSphere[definition].  
 
    
« Home

Posts

The Ashes
The First Invaders of South Asia?
Aryans and Dravidians
Indian discus thrower fails drug test : Surprised?
Indian Athletics
Game Time
Indian History
 
     Archives
August 2005
September 2005
November 2005
February 2006
February 2007
December 2007
June 2008
 
     I Read
Reporter's Diary
Trippin' on the Dish
Listed on BlogShares

"The jury is still out on Evolution"

In a country that has been at the forefront of science for decades, what would be the reason to question something as fundamental as evolution? However, just as any argument goes, there must be two sides - and I am going to attempt to see where the religious right might be coming from on this one.

I am sure that there are still people out there that believe that everything came from the Garden of Eden. The dinosaurs must have been frolicking in the garden as Adam and Eve tended to their apple orchards. To these people, I dont really have much to say because it is difficult for me to laugh and speak at the same time.

So, let us focus on the Evolution doubters that realize that they really do need something "scientific" to back up their statements, and therefore use the scientific term "Intelligent Design" - apparently an alternative "theory" to Evolution.

What is the basis of Intelligent Design? The concept essentially is that the random processes of evolution cannot lead to the complexity and/or physical properties of many species on this planet - and therefore imply that there is an element of intelligence involved in their design. Sounds perfectly reasonable - but when you delve into the definition a little more in detail, all it really is, is the age old answer to questions that are difficult to answer. If the question cannot be answered, lets just say a "superior being" was involved - the argument of ignorance.

What the creationists do not understand here is that the complexity involved in different species is very adequately explained by evolution, and "survival of the fittest". Evolution works by "natural selection", and the fact that worthwhile traits that suit an organisms current living environment are chosen over others that are unable to respond to changing environmental conditions. With time, these can become reasonably complex - as complex as the human brain itself.

The problem with wrapping the creationist "theory" and sticking the "Intelligent Design" label on it, is that it is still nowhere close to a real science. Science requires theories to be tested and proven by experiment in some form. This is certainly not possible with ID. Further, how does one really define this Intelligence in the first place other than the typical, "You will know it when you see it" definition.

Going back to my point on explaining everything in terms of a superior being, where unexpected and unexplainable complexities are explained away by using the Design expertise of an intelligent architect. It appears that all that is being done is that the complexity is being taken from the living species, and moved up one level to this Designer - thereby making the Intelligent Designer incredibly complex. So, taking the argument back to the proponents of ID - how does one explain the irreducible complexity of the designer? Is the jury still out on that one?
"The jury is still out on Evolution" - Saturday, November 26, 2005 -

Post a Comment


Result Page: 

 








 


 

Search within results | Language Tools | Search Tips | Dissatisfied? Help us improve


Google Home - Blogger - Blogger Templates

© 2005 The RevantaSphere