Article re: Intelligent Design

Well I don't fully believe the evolution theory. Scientist Georges Cuvier argued that from fossils that domestic animals had not really changed since ancient times and that that the dissapearane of various fossils was due to the animal becoming extinct rather than evolving.

Cuvier stated that we would find fossils with gradual modifications and that species do not just turn into new ones overnight. He also disagreed on spontaneous generation (The idea that life could arise from non-living matter.), Cuvier pointed out that Life had always arisen from life, we see it being transmitted but never produced.

As for the similar structures that we can find in various animals, it is just as plausible that the similarity between their structures were created from a basic design from a common creator.
 
Cuvier recognised that that vestigial organs existed and should be studied. He believed that these organs were not useless leftovers of evolution and that they were useful.

The tailbone for example which is thought to be remnants of a tail is now recognised as an important point of attachments for muscles which help maintain our posture and support our intestines. Tonsils were also once considered vestigial but we now know that they are important disease fighting organs. Over 180 other organs once considered useless are now known to have important functions.
 
Would you really expect domestic animals to change that much, to the point of speciation, over the course of a dozen millenia? Not much in the way of selective pressure on a farm, is there, aside from selective breeding? How extensive was his evidence?

The fact that 'vestigial' organs may be more useful than previously thought does not strike me as any kind of evidence against evolution. The structures are useful, and that's why they've been kept. It's expensive to divert resources to support useless tissue, and I would be surprised if anyone found very many truly useless leftovers of evolution anywhere.

As the article that started this whole thing pointed out, if we are the product of an intelligent design, then the designer was rather inept. Doesn't sound like a good description of God to me.
 
A geek sent me a quote from a page promoting a theory of unintelligent design that may amuse some readers:

"But instead of being swayed by either side, we at UDN, Inc. have found a theory that effectively merges the strengths of the two theories without the weaknesses. The intelligent design people say there are too many holes in the fossil record, and that evolution is only a theory; the scientists say there's not enough evidence of intelligent design. So we say, instead, that life has indeed been designed, just not very well."

http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/

Melissa
 
:lol: Love it.

Speaking on this subject, did you know whales have hip bones? That's like if a human engineer put an outboard boat motor on a city bus. I think it's clear God never went to college, and I'm thinking it's sketchy he even has his GED.
 
This thread would have my Mum frothing at the mouth............she's pretty much a creationist and I'm well....................not! (all that scientific training y'understand!) After a few screaming matches we agreed not to talk about it any more!!

But it brings to mind one of my favourite quotes

"If God had indeed lavished his best design on the animal created in his own image, Creationists would have to conclude that God is really a squid"

- J. Diamond (not N :biggrin2: )

:lol:

j

well lookit that I'm a :meso:
 
Hey, I think it's way past time that we brought back the Dark Ages. Name one good thing the world has produced since the 16th century. :roll:

I am utterly terrified by this:

In the United States, where a survey in 2002 found that 45 percent of the population believe an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life in it within the last 10,000 years...

:alarm:
 
Georgia School Board in Court Over Evolution Flap

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

At first, I wanted to get angry over this. After considering it for a few minutes, however, I’m convinced that it’s actually a step in the right direction. The problem I have now is that the sticker doesn’t go nearly far enough—that textbook is probably infested with theories, not facts, regarding several aspects of living things. If not that book, I’m sure that other biology textbooks are (I own a couple). And the problem, I think, is even more pervasive than it first appears. You see, physics textbooks, too, contain theories. Why, just the other day I stumbled across a summary of the theory of general relativity in one of ‘em. Sure, there’s a mountain of evidence and successful predictions supporting that theory, and even practical applications of it in things like the ubiquitous Global Positioning System. But it’s still just a theory, and it should get a sticker, too. Come to think of it, a lot of my textbooks—and not just the scientific ones—are distressingly sparse when it comes to facts. Oh, they contain some facts, but it seems that the darned things are overflowing with page after page of interpretations, opinions, and various analyses and syntheses. True, courses that focus on critical thinking might help obviate the constant reiteration of the caveat that knowledge is dynamic and intrinsically tentative, but teaching that stuff would take up so much precious time and require so much effort (and it might prove downright dangerous for certain political entities to have all that pesky open-minded, careful, critical consideration going on). Nah, I say we just slap a silly litte sticker on everything. Let’s start with the Holy Books, and then move on to the newspapers...


DOWN WITH DOGMA! Unless it’s mine or Kevin Smith's
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top