Interesting...
I think the answer to your question is, quite simply, NO.
The main issue seems to be the old "God did it" response to unresoved conundrums. Science doesn't work so well in that environment!
No way.
Ignorance trumps reason every time in creation museums.
I think the greatest weakness in Darwinism has been the origin of life. For the longest time, the theory has been advanced that lightning somehow excited organic molecules and life was the lucky accident. In retrospect, the notion was silly and that gave Creationism an opening. God makes more sense than a lucky accident. In a sense, the Darwinists earned all the brickbats the Creationists threw at them.
To be charitable, the Darwinists had no way of knowing whether life existed anywhere else in the Cosmos, and the cautions of astronomers and astrophysicists didn't help. Every time they raised the point about life elsewhere, they got horselaughs. No planets had ever been detected, they were told, and if they did exist, it would be impossible to see them. Not only that, life is so accidental, it might have only happened a few times in billions upon billions of years. Anyone believing any different was either insane or a fool. These cautions buttress the metaphor of Spaceship Earth that has been so dominant over the past four decades.
As it has turned out, Spaceship Earth is a myth. Planets and solar systems are as common as the stars they orbit. Not only that, they have been detected in the hundreds and a few have been photographed. Finally, Gliese 581 d, a planet twenty light years away, has been found in the so-called Goldilocks zone, and it has abundant liquid water.
Now, as we await confirmation that Gliese 581 d has organic life, it's time for the Darwinists to consider exogenesis as the origin of life on Earth. There has been recent evidence that life appeared within a few hundred million years of Earth's formation, at least a billion years earlier than previously estimated, raising the possibility that life fell from the sky in the ejecta of a volcanic eruption rather than occurring spontaneously. That poly extremophiles exist that could survive millions and possibly billions of years make exogenesis viable.
Of course, detection of an interstellar civilization changes everything and it’s back to the drawing board for everyone. Everyone, that is, but the Creationists. Telling an alien society thousands of years older than us that their own histories got it wrong and some heartland farmer has it right sounds like vintage Mel Brooks.
God makes more sense than a lucky accident...Leno
*******
Maybe to some. Which god would make sense?
All that does is to push back an to explanation that still does not make sense.
Evolution in todays thinking or in Darwins thoughts...none of those thoughts have anything to do with luck.
Darwin provided a working explanation for how species changed over millions of years...which was natural selection.
This has been added to as he predicted by heredity,DNA ect.
Darwinism is usually used as a put down. Evolution is larger than just
Darwin.
posted by wot53
8 months ago
Answer no it i not to be reconcukes the evilution is the scirntific and correct model the literal in my opinion does not fly.
I am finding it interesting how Sarwin is now an sue in Islam where somwr dundamentalists are proclaiming that darwin is just another western attack on the moslim world. muslim fundamentalist christian evangelical(i will also include rigid atheist deicides) now what do they all have in common? watch your language
"Evolution in todays thinking or in Darwins thoughts...none of those thoughts have anything to do with luck."---------------------------------- -----------------
So what do you call the statistical probability of creation happening by random chance without guidance or an Intelligent Designer! I could hit the lottery every week for a year and still not come close to the random chance of an unguided creation!
Once again, several thoughts cross my mind....
1) Presumably, a Christian would agree that anything and everything in our universe would be created by God (omnipotent)...and that He would have full knowledge of (omniscient)...be present everywhere (omnipresent). I would think that Science would be part of that Divine creation...certainly as part of the Divine knowledge. I don't understand why Science and Religion are treated as being at odds with each other. What if each is only another way to look at the universe? What if our actualization of our full potential as mortals was to understand how they fit together?
2) I think most people are rather human-centric when it comes to understanding life itself. It is remarkable that our planet hosts it. However, our awareness of the universe around us is expanding in leaps and bounds. We are able to observe and detect many things, even without being able to see them as some things only reveal themselves by how other items react around them. The coin toss that managed to get life started here is only one of several million coin tosses made in our section of the universe. While unbelievable odds, they are still odds. Odds that never ultimately vary in the mathematical sense, but are influenced in the emotional sense. Take lottery tickets, for example. The chances of actually winning a large sum of money are incredibly low...One July 4th Millionaire's drawing here in PA boasts the odds of winning are 1 in 125,000...the best odds of any lottery game, per the commercials. However, ask anyone how chooses to buy a ticket and you'd think that their chances are better than anyone elses.....it's almost like there is a belief that will power can change things.
3) I think this museum is just a way to keep up with the Joneses, academically at least. It has a feel like its some attempt at trying to validate itself....like it's trying to compete....or be taken more seriously...I'd really hope that it's not some way to backdoor its way into classrooms. I'd be curious to hear a Creationists take on whether or not other religions take on our Earth's beginnings should be included in classrooms too. I wonder how the 'demand for religious freedom' agenda would go. As Creationists don't appear to accommodate things like carbon dating and have many questions answered by "God did it but we're not sure how"; I wouldn't necessarily get my hopes up.
We can always claim fantastic theories about the unknown but if it’s based on no evidence... common sense dictates that it’s extraordinarily unlikely.
Therefore the odds for the existence of a god are infinitesimally small. More practically, let’s admit God(s) simply don’t exist.
Evolution continues to happen and LUCK has nothing to do with it.
posted by wot53
8 months ago
