It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Analogy about ID/creationism debate

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I've seen it all to much, (mostly religious) people "rejecting" the scientific theory of evolution to suit thier beliefs.

An argument i've heared a lot is that "it's just a theory" and you have to "believe in it" so evolution is a religion... which is clearly not the case.

I was talking about this with a friend of mine and he came up with a very good analogy which i want to share(and discus) with fellow ATSers.

Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion.
Creationism is backwards. It has pre-determined the conclusion: God did it, absolutely, period.
Any evidence that contradicts the Genesis account is discarded or ignored if not interpreted to fit the conclusion.


I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece. Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place! Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake! Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
very nice analogy. it's quite clear that dogma really isn't contributing anything and is always just saying what it thinks things will be despite evidence

star and a flag



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Sorry for the one liner but....

it's funny and demonstrating that no one of the army of ID/creationist people here on ATS would touch this thread with a 10 foot pole....



[edit on 28-4-2008 by XyZeR]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


Quite elegant analogy and beatifully overlaid.



[edit on 28/4/2008 by HoHoFoo]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


right on the money there

i'm surprised not a single member of the community has showed up to do anything but praise this

hello? *crickets*
...nope, not a single creationist within a mile of this thread



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Interesting example, however there seems to be several flaws.
(1) What image would appear if one were to merely shake the box? Remember, evolution theory is based on random selection, based on the theory, Shaking the box should produce the desired results, without the introduction of intelligence, in the form of the scientist.
(2) The picture that does emerge, (idea) does not reside in the material of the puzzle, matter does not think, but it certainly will hold an idea in the form of ink to convey design.
(3) What picture would one get if, as soon as two pieces are connected, the pieces disconnect, the process reverses itself. Remember all enzyme action in the human body have to be reversible. Perhaps a very simple example of the reversible actions of the enzymes is the role of the red blood cell. Although not an enzyme, one of its roles is to carry oxygen to the cells, reverses its role, picks up carbon dioxide from the cells, and carry it to the lungs to be expelled. Now what would be the life expectancy, if say the reversibly were to stop? Therefore, an infinite amount of time does not help, time is the mortal enemy, the system has to be up and running at the get go.
(4) Purposefulness, does not reside in matter, but it certainly will hold an idea, but does not think, therefore the example of the altered mousetrap as a tie clip, and its usefulness resides in the intelligence of the person wearing it,(idea).



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   


evolution theory is based on random selection

No, it is not. Evolutionary theory of natural selection is based on just that, natural selection. Natural selection is based on natural pressures causing certain individuals to be favoured.



The picture that does emerge, (idea) does not reside in the material of the puzzle, matter does not think, but it certainly will hold an idea in the form of ink to convey design.

The analogy was not of evolution itself, but of the science used to understand it. That is my answer to the third "error" as well.



(4) Purposefulness, does not reside in matter, but it certainly will hold an idea, but does not think, therefore the example of the altered mousetrap as a tie clip, and its usefulness resides in the intelligence of the person wearing it,(idea).

Perhaps, but adaptations on a animal will be used ore or less intelligently, eliminating the need for a "guiding hand". Hence the validity of the tie clip example.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I don't really have a beef with evolution on religious grounds. But I suppose your analogy would be better served if you said "It's looking more and more like a bear," and an ID'ist mentioned that several of the parts in the bear are cut in such an unnatural way that one imagines there was a designer to the bear puzzle.
Incidentally, the ID movement, as it was created, did not argue against evolution. It only said that Darwinian processes appear inadequate for the evolution. It has been hijacked by both sides of the spectrum into something it really was not designed by its creators to be(to borrow the terms of the debate).




top topics



 
4

log in

join