I don't really buy into Darwinism for a number of reason. I see some evidence for micro evolution because we see it every day but macro evolution is filled with errors, speculation, and fairy tales.

But another interesting thing is how did the idea of morality come about in humans? Basically something must have caused our ancestors to hold religion as sacred as food, family and life. It's not like one day our ancestors just decided to make something up. I think morality exists today because something happened in the past ... every culture shows evidence of that.

What errors, what speculation, and what fairy tales? Because you haven't actually said anything yet.

I've never understood why people who deny evolution choose instead to call it darwinism. Nobody else calls it this. Biologists who believe in evolution don't call themselves darwinists. Yet it seems to be some meme spread, from what I can tell, only by religious deniers of evolution. Why is this?

All the telltale signs of someone misinformed by answersingenesis and their ilk:"Darwinism", Micro/Macro, argument from ignorance

OP, you're not original. Use the search function.

I assume its becasue Darwin got some stuff slightly wrong, he did not know about genetics for instance. So using the term Darwisim gives them a strawman to fall back on.

I think God is responsible for people growing from a cell to a baby in the womb. And homeostasis. It's completely absurd that something as complex as a human can just function without **** going majorly wrong. Or that a functional human being complete with a brain can grow from a single microscopic cell. How is that even possible? How does one cell then two then four become a complex human, let alone a moral agent. Forget evolution, we have far more pressing lies. Biology is a lie fed to us by the atheists. We're held together not by physics and blind particle interactions, but God-glue.

Is this a serious comment?

And? People have disputed science and natural philosophy for 2500 years. Join the club. The earth still revolves around the sun, medicine cures far more than prayers and planes fly just fine without spotting any gods gods on chariots levitating about.

The world doesn't really care that you don't accept something. It will churn on just fine. You might hold back societal development a little, but so have hundreds of millions of people done before you. That's about it.

I'm in favour of the 'God-glue' hypothesis. Those lying scientists will get what's coming to them.

http://www.theonion.com/article/evan...h-new-int-1778

That's good, but it is also so astute that it is actually painful to read.

I wonder if people who oppose evolution genuinely understand that the "intelligent design" articles they link sound exactly like this. I mean, it's satire... but it isn't above and beyond satire, it is more a replica set to another theme.

But that's precisely what happened. There were no telescopes, no microscopes, no way to see beyond the three dimensions in front of their eyes. What are those lights in the sky at night? What is that bright ball that gives earth and light?

So they speculated - if it's there, somebody must have put it there? So they decided it must be Ra, or Helios, or Zeus, or Yahweh...etc. etc.

It was the attempt to explain without evidence.

Of course. Rules come from necessity. 5,000 years ago, 80% of babies died in the first year of life. Guess what? You can't have sex unless you're trying to make a baby. Every other type endangers the tribe. Thus the rule against homosexuality. That rule made sense back then, and for a long time in human history. Survival >>> Freedom. That same rule makes no sense now.

That rule didn't come from some mythic tribal chief in the sky, it came from human reason regarding the exigencies of the time. Now it's not a survival necessity, so the rule can go in the dustbin history where it belongs.

Not to mention that almost everybody who scoffs at evolution has a total misconception of how it works.

This kind of armchair evolutionary psychology is so ******ed - a kind of simplistic, evidence-free, ad hoc theorizing that's possibly stupider than religion (and that's a big ask).

No, dislike of gays has nothing to do with the necessity of reproduction. No, acceptance of homosexuality now has nothing to do with the lack of necessity of reproduction. Neither has anything to do with evolutionary psychology.

Homosexuality has been widely practiced and openly allowed throughout history, as well as widely reviled, from the Greeks who were open and happy pedophiles of young boys, to the Jews who forbade it as sinful. None of these relate to breeding. They're simply philosophically different views of life and proper behavior.

In fact, even in America, acceptance of homosexuality has gone from 37% to 57% in a few years. Our brains haven't evolved, nor have we discovered reason or new circumstances in the last few years. What's happened is that the commentariat class has simply made it a cause, after years of strident, hateful lobbying by gay groups, and people are sheep who go along with the opinion makers (the same reason people at large net supported slavery).

Nothing here has anything to do with evolutionary psychology. People have a dislike of homosexuality because it's weird and dysfunctional. Dislike of homosexuality comes from the same basic place as it does for kids picking on people who dress or talk differently. It has nothing to do with necessities of breeding. And the dislike is easy enough to override with sufficient conditioning. As are dislikes of many things, including foods, sexual preferences, accents, and so on.

Most of the people who support it have almost as strong a misconception.

While the truth of various evolutionary psychology narratives is often difficult to verify, everything about life has everything to do with evolutionary biology and psychology.

I see no immediate problem with the narrative presented by Kurn.

And to be clear, I wasn't using the "laws against homosexuality" argument to demonstrate anything re: Darwin, it was an example of how rules and laws come into being as rational responses to situations, not mystical absolutes devoid of context.

****in darwin after 9/11 he messed everything up for us.

I lol'd at parts of this post

I suspect that kind of reaction is common for you.

I didn't mean that as an insult of course. I'm just assuming that someone who has seen through the obvious failures of a million-man strong scientific establishment finds the world fairly simpleminded.

That's OK with me. The billions who believe in the fairy tale called "god" make me lol even harder.

Yeah, because this universe and life here just got here by magic.

Because we all know, if gravity exists, then the universe can create
itself. Hawkings said it, so it must be true.

Or maybe it was alien sperm that did it, because Dawkins proposed that,
so it must be true...

Fairy tales are fun aren't they?

"We have no clue" + plausible hypotheses isn't really a fairy tale. It's humility and intellectual curiosity.

A fairy tale is something where there's a powerful being who rewards and punishes his creations and takes an interest in their life, and lets them live after death (depending on whether they've been a good girl or boy, naturally).

I do agree that some atheists overreach with the certainty of their explanations and their lack of appreciation of the mystery of some of these questions.

It is a bit ironic that you seem to say this sarcastically. I mean, you're the one with an actual magic explanation.

As for how the rest of your post, no physicist worth his mettle is saying how the universe got here. Those who delve into this realm of thought are open about it being speculation, though of course it suits your bickering better to ignore that.

My post is "bickering?" If my one post in this thread is bickering,
what does that make your joke of a reply?

Oh, and let me make what is already painfully obvious even more obvious
to you: I was quoting the renowned (Atheist) physicist Stephen Hawking,
which means I guess that you don't think Hawking is worth his mettle.
Cool, because I think he's lost his mind on this issue.

Contrary to how it may appear, there's a lot of meaning in what you're saying actually and I largely agree with it.

There are still things both religious and non-religious can agree on reliably. For example, human suffering is bad.

If you want to know the real story about this quote-mined nonsense (at the hands of Ben Stein), Dawkins will tell you all about it, in his own words, below. This is in the hopes that you are the kind of person who would no longer spread false information after it has been shown to be false.

I'm not sure why you bothered to post that, as it actually proves
my point. He said exactly what I said he said.

Now, whether or not Dawkins wants to backtrack and say that's not
what he really intended to say - that's up to him. He's still a blathering
idiot.

Now, you calling it spreading false information is laughable. You saying
it has been shown to be false is also laughable.

Any questions?

Oh, and Dawkins claiming that all Intelligent Design folks are all creationist
Christians in disguise is a blathering lie. Any questions about that also?