Comments on: Religion, evolution and stupidity

By: Yunus Yakoub Islam

Yunus Yakoub Islam — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:06:15 +0000

“…a fashionable theory among scientists…”

Nonsense — despite his straw man arguments about religion and his snooty atheism, it’s worth listening to Dawkins demolish Harun Yahya. Dawkins may know relatively little about religion, but as he quite rightly points out, when it comes to zoology, Harun Yahya is palpably a complete ignoramous. He’s a polemicist posing as a scientist. Fact: home sapiens are primates!

By: Thersites

Thersites — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 00:35:42 +0000

“Weaker species”? There are few species- or groups of species- weaker than tapeworms, yet they have survived and flourished for millions of years. How do you decide what are ” Species that are intermediates between other species”? All of our ancestors are intermediates between us and our earlier ancestors- does that mean they are all intermediates, or does it mean that our ancestors several million years age, with very few of the attributes we classify as human, were the same species? These aren’t rhetorical questions- just what is a species is a very awkward question, but it is no more relevant to evolution than the definition of just what is a motorcar is relevant to mechanics.

“gradual evolution with time theory” What gradual evolution with time theory? The standard definition of Darwinian evolution is “descent with modification through natural selection”. In an environment that does not change over a very long time those that are fittest to survive are probably those that most resemble their ancestors so any change that takes place is very slow.

By: M Risbrook

M Risbrook — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:29:19 +0000

Darwinism in practice is more a case of weaker species becoming extinct rather than existing species evolving into new species.

Fossil records show vast numbers of well formed species that existed over many thousands or millions of years with only minor changes throughout that time. Species that are intermediates between other species are VERY rare occurrences. This completely blows the gradual evolution with time theory out of the water.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:05:37 +0000

Darwinian evolution is “a fashionable theory among scientists” because there’e an enormoous amount of evidence to support it and because work based on that theory produces very effective results. The theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system is another “fashionable theory among scientists” with just as little evidence to support it. What other “form[s] of natural selection” do religious people accept? Do they think that humans came to be as they are as a result of those forms of natural selection? If they do, would they consider it an example of evolution? If not, why not?

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:58:54 +0000

Well, yes. A fashionable theory with an absolutely enormous amount of evidence behind it.

Humans and the other apes share an enormous amount of DNA, which we’d expect if there was common ancestry. The human form itself bears hallmarks of it’s long evolutionary past: problems with our legs that are easily explained by the fact they didn’t first evolve to support our entire weight, the remains of a tail. Sure, it’s conceivable a creator god could have thrown all those things in, but we’d have to ask why that god would leave so many clues pointing away from his involvement.

If there were no other species on earth that were similar to humans, I’d accept the possibility of independent creation but there are similar species and we weren’t. We evolved, our creation is no different than anything else on earth, get over it. It sounds like you’d only be happy if you got to go back and watch it happen, yet you accept the idea of separate creation without the same reservations and with a whole lot less real world evidence: why is that?