Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005 943
lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"
As the headline on fark.com said.... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
For a horrified, thankfully brief, moment... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My fellow Christians: Strategize (Score:5, Funny)
Given that you Christians believe in one God (or is it three?), won't it get rather confusing if you name all the planets after him?
You won't be able to tell Uranus from Urelbow.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
You can't pick Evolution over ID as a scientific theory based on the evidence or on the testible hypothesis or on falsifiable hypothesis- the two are completely equivalent on those criteria, because the evidence used is exactly the same evidence. "God did it" and "Random Chance did it" are both theological statements that are logically indistinguishable from one another.
You claim that ID is not predictible- but since it predicts the exact same outcomes that evolution does, that would mean that evolution wasn't predictable either. You claim that ID cannot be supported by observation; yet religious visions have occured throughout human history, and actually, since ID insists that God used evolution as a method, the natural world observations for ID and evolution are also exactly the same. You claim that ID is not supported by strong scientific evidence- but where's the strong scientific evidence for randomization, the one key difference between atheistic religious evolution and Christian religious Intelligent Design?
If ID is not science, then evolution certainly isn't either. If evolution is science, so are the scientific portions of ID. But of course, the worshipers of Popplar and demarcation methods such as falsifiability will never actually see that...
Re:As the headline on fark.com said.... (Score:4, Funny)
Thank-you (Score:1, Funny)
Evolution is false, and one day (Score:1, Funny)
Re:As the headline on fark.com said.... (Score:3, Funny)
careful i have a patent on intelligent falling... (Score:4, Funny)
Just under 4 billion years too late (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As the headline on fark.com said.... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Funny)
Lordy i feel a rapture coming on!
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:3, Funny)
- How did the falsity of propositions based on religious sources become an axiom? That is a premise of humanism, but humanism is not known to be a correct doctrine.
ID, not being a scientific hypothesis, will *always* be rejected by legitimate scientists, due to the fact that it:
* Cannot be tested
- you obviously didn't understand my original post
* Cannot be separated from religious dogma
- we believe that the Bible is a direct account of absolute prehistory from the only One who existed at the time. So you're right, our beliefs are rooted in that account. Can you think of a more reliable source for such beliefs? The historical accuracy of the Bible is remarkable, as has been shown by many archaeological discoveries, and is more reliable than any other document that ever existed.
* Requires belief in the supernatural as part of its core support structure
- Would you outlaw the supernatural from science if it does in fact exist? How do you then expect science to accurately describe the universe?
* Negates many scientific principles which *are* tested and well-regarded among people of learning.
- There are a great number of scientific principles which were considered to be adequately tested and were well-regarded in the past that nonetheless have later been widely ridiculed. Unfortunately, one of those, macroevolution, has made a stunning comeback in modern times.
- It sounds like you're condemning evolutionism, not creationism. We are using much different interpretive frameworks.
The Earth is not young. Carbon dating, fossil records, geology, atomic theory, astronomy, and many other scientific disciplines have all independantly dated the earth at more than four billion years old.
- there are many holes in such methods that rely on a uniform past as a basic premise
If God did create the world, and all the things in it, in six days, then how were days reckoned before the creation of the sun?
- time existed before the sun
If God created all the animals, why were so many of them such complete failures as to become extinct?
- there was a catastrophic, global flood
If all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, then why the biblical prohibition on incest?
- the prohibition of incest arose fairly late in history, after the gene pool had become corrupted through genetic
mutations
And, furthermore, I am not a genetic researcher, but I'm fairly certain that thousands of generations of familial in-breeding would result in a rather, shall we say, shallow gene pool.
- our original (and current, to a lesser extent) genes contained an incredible amount of diversity
The *key difference* in these bits of biblical lore which seperate them from real science is that the observer, the reader of the bible, assumes them to be true solely on basis of religious conviction.
- Certainly not. I want to believe the truth, wherever it m
Re:And the winner for 2006 is... (Score:3, Funny)
Yup. Intelligent Design proponents claim to be following a literal interpretation of the bible, but they are not really.
If you really want to take it literally you have to go hardcore - go flat.