Where do I submit my own theory on how the universe started?
Shane June 27th, 2008
I think the average American needs to understand something. If you are a science buff this is basic stuff, but people need to hear it, so bear with me for a couple of paragraphs.
Evolution: Evidence has been provided - a shitload of evidence - to back this theory. Scientists call it a theory because if they found evidence contradicting their theory, they would look at that new evidence and try to figure out what the real truth is. As Richard Dawkins has stated “there are few if any scientific theories that have more evidence than Evolution does.”
Intelligent Design: No evidence. No data. Just an idea - “Hey, maybe some godlike being started it all! Maybe God created evolution”.
This goes against what the Bible says, but hey, lets ignore that for awhile. As a friend of mine says ‘well people don’t take the Bible literally anymore’. Well if you don’t take the part about the world being 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, Noah or whatever literally, then maybe people shouldn’t take the idea of God, Jesus and Heaven literally. Right?
The problem is Schools are trying to teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution. The last sentence of the linked article is simply… amazing.
In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
And this reminds me of a H.L. Mencken quote:
When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.‘ The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Woohoo! That day is today!
There is a point to my ranting. The issue here is that people want to put a theory alongside evolution/The Big Bang that has absolutely no evidence to back it. This is most ridiculous. Most ridiculous. So… I say we all make up our own theories, and submit them to school boards and textbooks publishers. I want my theory alongside ID and Evolution. My personal theory is that a big dog made up pudding was the only object in existence before the Universe. One of his toes was cut off by a ninja star, the dog then pee’d on it as it fell through space, and his ever so potent urine made his toe explode into the stars and planets we have today.
Now, ignore the fact that I said there was only the Pudding Dog in existence when a ninja star came into the picture, and ignore that without anything in existence than the dog, there would be no gravity other than that generated by the Dog. So when the toe would have been cut off, it would have fallen towards the dog and stuck to him, not fallen down (where is down when there are no other objects in existence but a dog made of pudding and a ninja star?). The Bible does this stuff all the time and no one seems to care. An important side note: it has been almost 20 years since I took a science class. Am I wrong about the dog generating its own gravity if no other objects were around. Guess what, if I am - I will say thanks to whoever proves me wrong. This is how people should think. The danger of Religion is that it does NOT promote this type of thinking at all…but I digress.
Now I just need to find out where to submit my theory. Maybe if a million (or 10, or 100…) people all did this and mailed their theories to book publishers and school boards, people would realize how absolutely …. (shit I cannot think of a synonym for ’stupid’ that is powerful enough to really convey how moronic this is)…Intelligent Design is. To close, I think everyone should read this Richard Dawkins quote. It explains the essence of what Science is. (Link to video of the quote, if you are interested.)
Science is about testing, comparing, corroborating this massive evidence. And using it to update old theories of how things work.
I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionately keen on a particular theory for, oh! a number of years! And one day a visiting American researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man’s hypothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said, my dear fellow, I wish to thank you! I have been wrong these 15 years!
And we all clapped our hands raw! That was the scientific ideal. Of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a particular theory and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.
There is no testing, no comparing, no corroborating of evidence with Intelligent Design. There is NO evidence!
My Dog O’ Pudding idea will look great in print, don’t you think?
- Politics
- Comments(16)
The elderly professor had wasted one and half decades merely thinking about his hypothesis , i he try to prove the thesis by doing experiments he will save an active part of life and also he may do another research by the experience he got from that one.
I wonder how God would have explained evolution to Moses? Would Moses have been capable of understanding it? Would it even have been relevant?
God made the Universe in seven days. How long is one of God’s days?
The bible is spiritual history. It’s not a scientific document. It’s what the prophet’s could understand. They were human beings. They hadn’t the time for the luxury of scientific enquiry.
We don’t look to the Bible to provide answers about material things; we look to it to get us into Heaven, and avoid Hell; both places which plenty of revered, sober mystics have reported on.
A rationalist is a very clever fellow until he goes to meet some ancient, impoverished mystic who tells him something which devastates him. If he’s lucky.
@ Tiger Tom:
Using at least the slightest bit of logic isnt exactly what I consider “luxury of scientific enquiry”.
“We don’t look to the Bible to provide answers about material things”…..You need to define “we” here. I second your opinion on that one because Im from europe and most people here dont take the bible literally (thats originally my remark which Shane quoted in his article :P)….but the more I read about religion in other countries, especially the USA, the more I wonder if this remark is generally true or just a wrong impression by me due to my origin.
btw: Im an agnostic, so take my post as provocation to get the discussion started….and not as “you are definately wrong” statement.
Talking about religion is like talking about … parachuting. You understand much more if you actually do it.
Westerners talk about God. Easterners work hard to meet him.
As the soft drinks ad says: Just do it!
—-
If you have a mystical experience which seems _more_ real than your everyday life, scientific logic is superfluous.
The Israelites were tribespeople under a lot of pressure. A prophet leads them well, guides them to safe pasture, therefore he speaks the truth, he is a ’sooth-sayer’ in Old English. Case closed.
In the old days, priests had to have mystical power to be believed, and to be benevolent with it. We place too much value on mere talk, these days.
Tiger Tom:
So a ‘prophet’ leads a tribe of people all the way to a country next door and when they arrive, after a mere 40 years of wandering in the desert, they genocide the natives, allegedly at ‘Gods’ behest. This in your mind, is proof that the ‘prophet’ is a ’sooth-sayer’ or truth teller and (presumably) evidence of the existence of ‘God’.
Agreed, lots of people claim to have had mystical experiences, many of them are where they belong - in psychiatric hospitals. I have a challenge for you, name one verifiable contribution to our knowledge of the world which has arrived via one of these ‘mystical experiences’, just one, thats all I ask.
hey i recognize that rabbit… my little sister has a t-shirt with it on it -_- just thought it was kinda funny to see it here
-Igor D.
Definitely an article that makes you think, regardless of which side of the discussion you agree with.
I am curious to know about this “evidence” that proves that interspecies evolution is the truth. Additionally I’d like to see some current examples of it today.
However, the evidence I am most interest in learning about is the evidence you yourself have discovered. It seems to me that your position requires every bit as much faith as that of one that believes an omnipotent God created the universe. If you have not made any of these “discoveries” yourself then you are exercising faith in the individuals that purport to have made these “discoveries”.
I’m just sayin…
LarryG:
Amazing isn’t it, how you can turn questions into sneers just by using quotation marks. I know that you don’t really want answers to your “questions” but I will provide them anyway. I will pitch the material as low as possible, so that even fundies might understand it.
For your opening question (about evidence for evolution) we need only look at the fossil record (if you don’t believe in fossils you are beyond help). At different levels in sedimentary rocks, you find the remains of completely different sets of animals and plants. As you go deeper, you find the remains of increasingly primitive animals and plants. Not only that, but as you ascend the strata, you find a definite progression in the forms of certain classes of animal. Eohippus for example is an ancient proto-horse type animal found in strata about 45 million years old, as the strata get more recent the fossils more and more resemble modern horses. Evolution is not a rapid process so there are no really good examples of recent changes, unless you count the case of the peppered moth, which developed a darker colour in response to industrial pollution.
In response to your second “question”, I would simply ask how many ancient religious manuscripts you have personally unearthed and translated? Go on admit it, you have never sneered at a church minister (or any other religious person for that matter) with the question “how many ancient manuscripts you have personally unearthed and translated?” Bit of a double standard there eh?
As for your following “point” about trusting other individuals, scientists have to include all the information when they write up their discoveries, all the equipment they used (make and model), all the tests they made, all the logical processes and calculations, and all of the sources for all the supporting data. Science does not require trust, its all there, out in the open for anyone to examine, criticise, check and/or attempt to replicate/debunk.
Anyway, I knew that you didn’t really want answers to your “questions”, they were just sneers, in the final analysis thats all you’ve got isn’t it?
I’m just sayin…
it was good attempt .the rabbit in the picture was nice
I have no problem with the theory of evolution as it relates to how on life form has evolved over time into another.
I have a big problem with those who feel that if something can evolve into something else, therefore nothing can evolve into something too. This type of “logic” defies reasoning. The first living celled creature came into existence somehow. Evolving from a non-life entity is not high on my list of logical explanations.
Kathryn:
The transition from inorganic molecules to living things is still not really understood but its hardly fair to describe it as ‘nothing evolving into something’. The molecules which make up living things are very abundant and when a suitable energy input is provided, increasingly complex molecules begin to form. One famous experiment which showed this happening was the Miller-Urey experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment.
Although a long way from creating life, the Miller-Urey experiment did show a tendency in the right direction.
However you look at it, there is always a problem with the origin of things. With science the problem is ‘why is there a universe in the first place?’, with religion it is ‘where did God come from?’ or ‘what was he doing before he made the universe?’.
I find the intelligent design around us a strong reason for my faith in God. I would wonder how “the theory” of evolution can account for our eyes. Did the body know that it needed to see? Did the baby know that it needed to redirect the blood flow at it’s birth by closing a flap and thus oxygenate the blood (and that over millions of years of evolving)? Must we enjoy the food with eat with the taste buds that have been intelligently placed in our mouths?
Data Entry Services:
The human spine and feet are quite poor designs, evolution accounts for this quite well, we are still not fully adapted to walking upright. Perhaps ‘God’ is a poor engineer.
The Giraffes neck is a terrible design, it has the same number of bones in its neck as we do, the same number that all (or at least most) mammals do, seven. Either ‘God’ is a terrible engineer or the Giraffes neck evolved by lengthening of the existing bones.
Food tastes good to us because it contains stuff that we need. All animals need to eat, tasting and smelling good is how they know what is food and what is not.
Even very primitive creatures are able to detect light. life began in the water, a being which can detect light knows which direction the surface lies and which direction the bottom is. Despite the claims of religious types, the evolution of the eye is well understood and perfectly logical and goes as follows:-
Firstly, all you need is a light sensitive spot, as already explained this will indicate the direction of the surface of the water, the sun etc
Secondly, if the light sensitive spot was in a depression it would be even better at direction finding.
Thirdly, having a protective covering over your light-sensitive spot is a good idea, obviously the covering should be transparent (the beginning of a lens)
I think its obvious where and how it goes from there. Next patient please nurse.
I agree that the Evolution theory should be taught exclusively in school. Then free for everyone to choose their beliefs, but the school should encourage rational thinking. That being said, I do think there is something more, something larger than just what we see, feel and hear. I do not see the existence of a God and science as mutually exclusive. God and the evolution theory have each their place and to me are just as real as one another.
Lake Tahoe Hotels:
At last! A comment from an individual who does not see a contradiction between spiritual beliefs and rationality (I hope that you will excuse me if I take the liberty of expanding slightly on your comment)
Evolution should be taught in science classes, religion belongs in RE classes. Intelligent design (I.D.) belongs in RE classes (if anywhere) because it is not a scientific theory. I.D. is not a scientific theory because it breaks the most fundamental rule regarding the formulation of scientific theories, it is not testable (falsifiable is the ugly word that scientists use) Until the I.D. enthusiasts can come up with a test which could potentially prove that I.D. was NOT true, then it will remain an unscientific theory and should be kept out of the science classroom.