If Man was a Monkey.....

[questor]

T Mac, as i have repeatedly stated, i think most posters on this site are speaking of biblical stories and myths when they discount ID. they can't separate religion from the universe as a whole. they reject the idea that a God in man's image created heaven and earth. this image is burned in their minds and they cannot argue outside the image. i, personally, think parts of evolutionary theory is true,although there are many unanswered questions present. if it is true, in no way does that eliminate the possibility of a creator for the universe and the evolutionary process itself, in fact, it adds strength to that argument.

i would be more comfortable with the theory of evolution if all species could be traced back to the original single cell, if the information inherent in DNA was proved to be a happenstance, if thoughts and life itself were just simple biochemical reactions and all sub atomic activity in live fauna and flora could be explained by natural occurence.

[TRoutMac]

i, personally, think parts of evolutionary theory is true,although there are many unanswered questions present. if it is true, in no way does that eliminate the possibility of a creator for the universe and the evolutionary process itself, in fact, it adds strength to that argument.

 

I agree. As I have said many times, it is quite obvious that species do change over time in certain circumstances… even in many circumstances. But this process does not and cannot cause them to gain new functional structures, features, body plans etc. This "evolution" is limited to the amount of total information within that species' genome. Anything beyond that requires new, additional information and mutation cannot add new, functional information. Mutation can only degrade and damage existing information, even if a mutation results in, for example, a lesser susceptibility to sickle cell anemia, which by itself is actually a benefit. (as we know, however, that particular benefit comes packaged with other detriments)

[lindagarrette]

T Mac, as i have repeatedly stated, i think most posters on this site are speaking of biblical stories and myths when they discount ID. they can't separate religion from the universe as a whole. they reject the idea that a God in man's image created heaven and earth. this image is burned in their minds and they cannot argue outside the image. i, personally, think parts of evolutionary theory is true,although there are many unanswered questions present. if it is true, in no way does that eliminate the possibility of a creator for the universe and the evolutionary process itself, in fact, it adds strength to that argument.

i would be more comfortable with the theory of evolution if all species could be traced back to the original single cell, if the information inherent in DNA was proved to be a happenstance, if thoughts and life itself were just simple biochemical reactions and all sub atomic activity in live fauna and flora could be explained by natural occurence.

You need to understand the scientific method and its application. This is very important. A theory is not proof. A theory attempts to explain a hypothesis with the best evailable evidence.

 

You could spend a lifetime reading all the evidence for evolution But there is no evidence at all for intelligent design. There may be gaps in the timeline of evolutionary evidence but none of them can be explained by any other theory, so far. ID is not a hypothesis or a theory. It is merely a way of addressing the missing pieces by attributing their explanation to the supernatural, which is not a scientific explanation. Science and nature don't have any link to the supernatural. The supernatural is a complete contradiction of terms and concepts from the natural.

[TRoutMac]

You could spend a lifetime reading all the evidence for evolution But there is no evidence at all for intelligent design.

 

Oh, geeez… I almost busted a gut reading this line. Even Richard Dawkins concedes there is the appearance of design in biology, and while appearance alone may be far from proving Intelligent Design, it certainly does constitute "evidence" of design at the very least.

 

That aside, for your claim of "no evidence at all for intelligent design" to be legitimate you must deny the existence of DNA and you must deny the existence of functionally integrated systems which consist of numerous interacting parts. In short, to deny the evidence for Intelligent Design, you must deny the discovery of science. Oh, the irony… it just kills me.

 

ID is not a hypothesis or a theory. It is merely a way of addressing the missing pieces by attributing their explanation to the supernatural, which is not a scientific explanation.

 

More anti-ID talking points disguised as legitimate, informed opinion, I'm afraid. In reality, Intelligent Design doesn't invoke the supernatural. The hypothesis of ID does not include details about the identity of the designer, or whether that designer is natural or supernatural. Your assertion is simply not factually correct.

 

Now, you apparently buy into the philosophy of methodological naturalism or materialism, which states that science must in all cases restrict its explanations of natural phenomenon to causes which are themselves natural. My question, which no one at Hypography has been able to answer, is this:

 

If you have "Natural Phenomenon A" and you explain it with "Natural Cause A", doesn't "Natural Cause A" have to be a natural phenomenon itself? And if so, haven't you really explained "Natural Phenomenon A" by reference to "Natural Phenomenon B"? And if so, don't you now have to find "Natural Phenomenon C" in order to explain "B"?

 

Do you see that this gets you absolutely nowhere? Do you see that in this "box" you have sentenced yourself to never answering the basic question you set out to ask?

[questor]

if man was a monkey, does someone have a credible time-line which shows the point where man became Homo Sapiens and ceased being a monkey? would it not be just as credible to believe Homo Sapiens was always Homo and the monkeys ( apes ) were a similar species which developed during the

same timeline? is there any proof to the contrary or is this a faith based initiative?

an interesting quote :

 

''Still, efforts continue to be made to somehow dehumanize Neandertal man. Some investigators have insisted that Neandertal man was anatomically incapable of speech but recent studies show that he had a laryngeal anatomy entirely consistent with speech. One of the world’s foremost authorities on Neandertal man, Erik Trinkaus, concludes: “Detailed comparisons of Neandertal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neandertal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.” (Natural History, vol. 87, p. 10, 1978). Why then are there continued efforts to make apes out of man and man out of apes?

 

In one of the most remarkably frank and candid assessments of the whole subject and methodology of paleoanthropology, Dr. David Pilbeam (professor of anthropology at Yale) suggested that:

 

perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy. (American Scientist, Vol. 66, p. 379, May/June 1978).

 

Oh, that these heretical words were printed as a warning on every textbook, magazine, newspaper article and statue that presumes to deal with the bestial origin of man! ''

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 1995.