posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:34 PM
ID(creationism) vs. Evolution is a pointless argument. Just like the current presidential election. DEBATING is not likely to change the average
person's mind. A lot of this world is very *VERY* closed minded. I am not. I always have an open mind. I'm always up for a debate. I'm voting for
Obama but that could change prior to election day. The same goes for my belief in evolution. More important then my personal bias towards
"Creationism" is how I feel about it being taught in school.
Creationism taught in school? Absoultely not. Ben Stein, Sarah Palin, the Christians in Dover:
"Why not teach both sides of the argument so the children will have a both sides of the picture?"
Here in lies the problem. Teaching alternative theories doesn't seem like a big deal, or even a bad idea. Creationism however is not a THEORY.
Creationism isn't a science. Beleive in creationism all you want, it still isn't a science. Science is supported by facts. Lots and lots and lots of
facts. I almost want to say Creationism is Mccain.
I'm still voting for Obama at this point. A huge reason is due to Mccain's lack of a plan. If Mccain has a plan for Iraq, the economy, etc...etc...
I don't know. OKAY I'm an educated voter so I do know Mccain's plan but the point I'm trying to make is that your average voter doesn't know
Mccain's policy's. Alll we see on TV is Mccain attacking Obama. The same thing has happened with Creationism. Rather then Creationism being promoted
on scientific merit, all I see is a bunch of nut jobs attacking Evolution, poking all the holes they can find and then saying "THEREFORE GOD DID
IT!"................."THEREFORE VOTE MCCAIN PALIN 08!!!!"
Think of it this way. The evidence for Evolution lead to the Theory of Evolution. Darwin was studying finiches and the evidence he collected lead him
to Theory of Evolution. Creationism on the other hand starts with the premise of an Intelligent designer, a Creator. Then we go back and peace meal
evidence that supports our claim, while ignoring evidence that does not. Lets just take irreducible complexity for example. No one part of an organ
serves a purpose unless the organ is complete. Therefore for the organ to function it most be complete, thus it needed to be designed in
whole....GUESS WHO DESIGNED IT? AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, YAY!!!!!!
The bacterial flagellum is most often spoke of when irreducible complexity is brought up. Sure it looks like a little machine, makes scence that is
was designed by someone. This could not happen by chance because the bacterial flagellum has too many unique parts, parts that would serve no function
if the bacterial flagellum was not whole. Well first this is not true as it was prooved that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved from a some
sort of poison injector, but hell lets just say the bacterial flagellum did not randomly form. What then? As a scientist, one would look for a natural
reason as to how the bacterial flagellum came to be. This would mean researching, experienments, etc.....however Creationists go straight for the
super natural "Intelligent designer". It is like a freakin I win button, anything can be explained by "Intelligent designer". Now if someone
found a messege encoded in our DNA that said "hello world", then I'd change my mind.
In closing it might appear like I am very closed minded, but I'm really not. Infact I was raised as a god fearing Catholic. Eventually I decided to
open my freakin eyes. There is no place for God in science. The two cannot co-exsist unless we find actual evidence of God. Finding something we
cannot currently explain is NOT evidence of God. That kind of thinking has been present through out our history and it leads to nothing. I'm not
Athiest, I'm Agnostic. I hate religion, I don't hate spirituality, as long at it doesn't get in the way of more people taking their freakin
religion bliders off.