4 ms·

I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe). I said 'silly' because basically it s

by polos 17y ago

I insist in the correct term theory, because it is often presented as a fact (especially in school books here in Europe). I said 'silly' because basically it says: "less intelligent beings evolved into more intelligent beings". Now, this is simply impossible. If you want something less intelligent become more intelligent, you need someone from outside to bring the new intelligence. It's very interesting that Darwin himself admitted that he faked some of his experiments, just to "make the whole theory work". So, it's basically very simple: nobody can exclude a perfect Intelligence on the beginning of everything. Call it God, call it how you like, but denying it is not very intelligent...

rwolf 17y ago
Someone chime in here if I'm wrong, but evolution is not a refutation of the claim that an untestable, magical ur-Id skulks about the universe. I'm serious--the theory that we are talking about has absolutely nothing to say about your "first Intelligence".
- timf 17y ago
  It was compatible even for Darwin (me too, there's just nothing to really say about "beyond" the physical). I've read the original Darwin and there is many a mention of the "creator's breath" (that put everything into action) and things of this nature.
loup-vaillant 17y ago
About "theory", if you go down that path, we can say the same about Newton's. Few high school teachers in their right mind will mention that this theory is actually false, displaced by relativity, but nevertheless a good approximation at relatively low levels of energy. They simply present the Newton's three laws of motion as a fact. Unlike Newton's, evolution theory is currently the generally accepted theory. To present it as a fact is even more legitimate. Now, what schools do lack is a general explanation about theories, the certainties (or lack thereof) we have about them, and the changes in the generally accepted set of theories, past and present. About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye. About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch. About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory. As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.
- polos 17y ago
  All we are doing here is pseudo-science. Simply let me state this: - I sincerely listened to the evolution theory people - I sincerely listened to the creationist people (but not in the US! In US, they all seem fundamentalists! We here in Europe have a much better religion/science culture; sorry, US). I'm never interested in defending somebody or something, I'm always interested in the truth (read: ready to change my opinion, and I already did this many many times). No, Darwin and followers: you don't convince me... Yes, (european) 'creationists' (they aren't called so stupidly here, BTW): yes, you really convinced me! P.S. Better have no science at all than bad (read: weak) science.

by polos 17y ago

rwolf 17y ago

Someone chime in here if I'm wrong, but evolution is not a refutation of the claim that an untestable, magical ur-Id skulks about the universe. I'm serious--the theory that we are talking about has absolutely nothing to say about your "first Intelligence".

timf 17y ago
It was compatible even for Darwin (me too, there's just nothing to really say about "beyond" the physical). I've read the original Darwin and there is many a mention of the "creator's breath" (that put everything into action) and things of this nature.

loup-vaillant 17y ago

About "theory", if you go down that path, we can say the same about Newton's. Few high school teachers in their right mind will mention that this theory is actually false, displaced by relativity, but nevertheless a good approximation at relatively low levels of energy. They simply present the Newton's three laws of motion as a fact. Unlike Newton's, evolution theory is currently the generally accepted theory. To present it as a fact is even more legitimate. Now, what schools do lack is a general explanation about theories, the certainties (or lack thereof) we have about them, and the changes in the generally accepted set of theories, past and present. About "silly", I never understood evolution as a path from less intelligent to more intelligent. I always thought it was the survival of the fittest — quite a different concept. For example, I've heard about a animal which at some point in its life just eats its brain, because it's isn't needed anymore (the animal somewhat become a plant). Now, talking about intelligence as such isn't really possible, since "intelligence" is hardly a well defined term, let alone a measurable quantity. Complexity, on the other hand is more measurable. Why do life became more and more complex over time, I do not know. however, I do know that some complexities gave an edge to the concerned species. One of them is the eye. About Darwin's fake experiments, it already has been said: it doesn't matter. His theory was amended, we have more data, and more peer reviews. Without a relatively high level of plausibility, the evolution theory would have been rejected by now. Even if it means proving the Church wrong. Now, I have not read how the book you linked addresses this catch. About the perfect intelligence on the beginning of everything, it doesn't matter. It is just beyond science. That this begining was the Big Bang just fits the current observations best. Pretending that life on Earth allways was as complex as it is now is too convoluted right now to be considered a valid theory. As a final note, I must add that I am not as specialist. So my only choice is to take the generaly accepted set of theories for granted. I have no right to contradict them without a great deal of knowlege in their respective domains. If the author you cited is right, that is sadly not my job to listen to him. That is the job of specialists.

polos 17y ago
All we are doing here is pseudo-science. Simply let me state this: - I sincerely listened to the evolution theory people - I sincerely listened to the creationist people (but not in the US! In US, they all seem fundamentalists! We here in Europe have a much better religion/science culture; sorry, US). I'm never interested in defending somebody or something, I'm always interested in the truth (read: ready to change my opinion, and I already did this many many times). No, Darwin and followers: you don't convince me... Yes, (european) 'creationists' (they aren't called so stupidly here, BTW): yes, you really convinced me! P.S. Better have no science at all than bad (read: weak) science.