Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

elaphe · 07-24-2003, 07:46 AM

NO offence taken, Fibrosa,

I have a BSc in Zoology form the University of Toronto. My area of study was in Evolutionary Biology. My professors were among the leaders and contributors in various fields of studies including pealeontology, biochemistry, genetics and microbiology. I give this info out not to boost my ego, but to inform my fellow posters that I'm not some crack-pot spouting off and that I have some knowledge on this subject. Check that. I AM a crack-pot spouting off. ;-)

Enough about me.

My post on this hot-button topic really was spun out of a deep discussion that I had with a close friend of mine some months ago. He is a devout born-again Christian. He playfully tries to convert me whenever I'm visiting and I just as playfully take on the role as "godless heathen". One time, I saw a bumper sicker on heis car that had the "Jesus" fish devouring a "Darwin" fish. I made a comment about it - something in the lines of "You don't believe in the evolution of species?"

This sparked a LONG debate about the scientific merits of both theories. I spent MANY hours surfing the "creationist" web sites designed to educate people about creationism. I did this so that I could have an informed opinion.

Now, my friend is an very intellegent person. He has built up his own business in the tough IT field and is doing quite well at it. The fact that he works in such a technical field with an obvious "science" background and has such strong religious beliefs is an ever source of ammusement to me with regards to this debate.

Our discussions became heated and ended with a polite "We agree to differ." in order to save the friendship.

The theory of evolution has its flaws. The most basic is that it cannot be tested because of its randomness and purposeless and the extreme time factor. Some creationists feel that because of this one factor alone, their alternate theory of speciation should be given equal weight because there is no test for a supreme being.

I personally think that the science that some creationists do in order to give their arguement weight is bad science. I remember a paper by a microbiologist who tried to explain that the existence of pathogenic microbes are the result of original sin. Purely speculative and "way-out-there" stuff! But to some, the idea that humans descended from apes is just as speculative and "way-out-there".

Both sides have slammed each other. But to suggest that scientists involved in evolution do not have personal agenda because they are trained to be "objective" is rubbish. They are human too. they have agendas. And like it or not, these people do feel threatened by the creationist movement and find the time to make comments, like the one I sited earlier with regards to the "dinobirds".

I just hope that someone is going to ask me why I see some problems with the dino feathers in the article I previously mentioned.

btw, Great thread, glophead!

07-24-2003, 07:46 AM	#25 (permalink)
elaphe Tilted Location: British Columbia, Canada	NO offence taken, Fibrosa, I have a BSc in Zoology form the University of Toronto. My area of study was in Evolutionary Biology. My professors were among the leaders and contributors in various fields of studies including pealeontology, biochemistry, genetics and microbiology. I give this info out not to boost my ego, but to inform my fellow posters that I'm not some crack-pot spouting off and that I have some knowledge on this subject. Check that. I AM a crack-pot spouting off. ;-) Enough about me. My post on this hot-button topic really was spun out of a deep discussion that I had with a close friend of mine some months ago. He is a devout born-again Christian. He playfully tries to convert me whenever I'm visiting and I just as playfully take on the role as "godless heathen". One time, I saw a bumper sicker on heis car that had the "Jesus" fish devouring a "Darwin" fish. I made a comment about it - something in the lines of "You don't believe in the evolution of species?" This sparked a LONG debate about the scientific merits of both theories. I spent MANY hours surfing the "creationist" web sites designed to educate people about creationism. I did this so that I could have an informed opinion. Now, my friend is an very intellegent person. He has built up his own business in the tough IT field and is doing quite well at it. The fact that he works in such a technical field with an obvious "science" background and has such strong religious beliefs is an ever source of ammusement to me with regards to this debate. Our discussions became heated and ended with a polite "We agree to differ." in order to save the friendship. The theory of evolution has its flaws. The most basic is that it cannot be tested because of its randomness and purposeless and the extreme time factor. Some creationists feel that because of this one factor alone, their alternate theory of speciation should be given equal weight because there is no test for a supreme being. I personally think that the science that some creationists do in order to give their arguement weight is bad science. I remember a paper by a microbiologist who tried to explain that the existence of pathogenic microbes are the result of original sin. Purely speculative and "way-out-there" stuff! But to some, the idea that humans descended from apes is just as speculative and "way-out-there". Both sides have slammed each other. But to suggest that scientists involved in evolution do not have personal agenda because they are trained to be "objective" is rubbish. They are human too. they have agendas. And like it or not, these people do feel threatened by the creationist movement and find the time to make comments, like the one I sited earlier with regards to the "dinobirds". I just hope that someone is going to ask me why I see some problems with the dino feathers in the article I previously mentioned. btw, Great thread, glophead! __________________ "Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.