cutina

I appreciate what you are saying, but i would really be interested in the specifics of what 'they' are saying. I work with scientists everyday, in fact, I am a geneticist, but so far I have not seen any publication in a peer-reviewed journal which discusses the evidence you are referring to ('definite indisputable design')
So far, DNA points rather towards evolution.

camelot

Listen, absolutely in no way was I trying to corner anyone, I also am not trying to make anyone look like a fool. I have said I'm not an expert, I'm just trying to understand this whole thing myself too, like everyone else.

You're right, you didn't say evolution was proven, but for it to be evidence surely it should be proven?

And I'm not twisting or downplaying your words, far from it, you said animals walked the earth before humans and that, to me, aligns with the bible, what's the problem?

And, yes I am new, but I thought the point of the forum was an exchange of view, opinions, and ideas - that's all I was doing, certainly not trying to offend anyone.

cutina

Camelot, I can see that you are an open-minded person. For that reason, I would like to recommend you read (at least some of) 'the Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.
The reason being that RD is an excellent science writer (even if he can be a bit of an arse), and explains, very well, how it is possible for these things to come about without intelligent design.

Even if you come out of it with the same viewpoint, at least you will have a better understanding of why some people can believe in evolution over intelligent design.

camelot

Hi Cutine

Well as a geneticist you must know more than me. As I said, I've only discussed this with someone else who wasn't an expert either, that's what I was told, but I am very interested in the specifics now too.....I'll try do some research and come back to you. It's an interesting topic

Camelot

cutina

well, I do it for a living, but then again there are plenty of scientists who argue for ID too...
(But some of those still believe in evolution, despite believing in ID...). It's just that so far, no one has convinced me, personally.

There's always two sides, and i think this is something which will never be proved 100% one way or another, so this question will be argued forever. But the arguements are interesting.

happy reading...

camelot

Cheers for your reply,

I've read it, well most of it anyway, and yes you're right, Richard Dawkins is an arse, ha ha ha. This is so interesting, because I had to get that book for a friend at University who was doing a philosophy paper and she couldn't get it from her local library so I got it from mine and before I gave it to her, I read it.

Personally, I thought it was a load of bollocks. (can I say that on here?) But she didn't, and we debated it for ages. Don't get me wrong, though, I certainly understand why people would choose to believe evolution over ID but I really feel it has less to do with science and more to do with other factors.

rincewind

Like I said, there are two accounts of that in the bible. Re-read it.

camelot

Hi Cutine

Interesting, I don't think anyone can convince either way either, but have you looked at what the ID scientists are saying? yes, the arguments are interesting.

Camelot

camelot

will do, but to help me can you point out where the two accounts are please?

cutina

If belief in evolution isn't due to science, what is it due to?

cutina

yes i have looked, because it is very important to understand both sides of an arguement if you want to make a good point. What I have seen is that no one has committed themselves to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This in iportant for credability in all areas of science. if the evidence exsists, they would be falling over themselves to publish it in 'nature'. The fact is though, ID is a belief, not a science.

Wintersong

One major flaw in your argument is that it is completely impossible to "discover... that an intelligent design is behind [DNA]"

No scientist can ever give evidence of an intelligent designer. They might say "Ooooh, this is so complex it's beyond the capabilities of my human understanding and therefore I think there MUST, by default, have been an intelligent designer behind it."

cutina

btw, although some scientists may have a belief in ID, it certainly did not arise from 'new scientific findings'... in fact, it came from here;

Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley American law professor and author. A born again Christian, he is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes creationism as an alternative. Johnson has also participated in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In both of these areas his critics accuse him of promoting pseudoscience.

camelot

Well, and this is interesting too, I've just studied Darwin and his cronies and how the evolution science came about. It was advanced at a time (Victorian)when there was a major backlash against the established Church in England. It wasn't affected by just scientific advances, but political and social issues too.

This has affected how it has permeated our society, in other words, evolution challenged creation for political purposes. It was about who held the power, not necessarily what was the "truth" (which today evolution is passed of by some as truth). But even the Victorians, Darwin, Huxley, Lubbock and the rest, and the est Church acknowledged that in their own era (same old story today, I spose).

The battle over people's belief's isn't just due to science even though purely scientific people would like to think it is. Of course, I have boiled down the whole argument so I'm sorry if it's too simplistic, but my point is there were other more mitigating factors than science as to why evolution is such a major choice for us today.

gruffbrown

And VCRs, don't forget them...