Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

The only way is up in other words. Even if biological complexity went down so as to result in life-to-non-life abiogenesis could restart it again. A kind of biological big bang/big crunch thingEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

i think the problem is fundies don't want to accept other answers than the biblical creation, science has nothing to do with god, but it doesn't conflict with god eather,only with a literal genesiswhich by the way is unsupportible, but people won't get over this with their black and white views

evolutionism sounds like a boogieman to me robin, it sounds like creationists are trying to make stuff up claiming some nasty threat doens't exist in reality
evolutionism sound like some origin myth people made up using science and trying to pass it off as evolutioncombining the BB formation of objects in space, earth life,etcis a pure strawman and made up by the fundies

Well, the ideas of evolutionism are very plausible, so it's not a very good straw man. It's just a matter of looking at the way nature works as a whole.

If you compare the universe 10 billion years ago to the universe today, you see a lot more complexity.ABE: might we also add that there are more discreet objects?Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

well guess what? no one trying to argue for evolution combines the ideas you claim they do.i would rather call this making stuff up than a strawman

What am I making up? There might be some difficulties, as Nosyned has observed, about the simplicity-to-complexity idea, but the rest of it is based on what the scientists say about biological evolution, cosmology, and so forth.

combing diffenent theories about things and claiming its what everyone believes, when you have no evidence of this thing called "evolutionism" is questionablewhy not just call a spade a spade and make the ol' "science is athiestic argument"this what i'm reading, maybe you can explain things in a better way?

I don't know what everyone believes. I'm just saying that the ideas of evolutionism are extremely plausible.

wait a minute everybody--there's no need for evolutionism. why?we already have ontological naturalism, which explicity denies God, and puts natural procedures as the cause for everything. This is the philosophy the creationists or whoever it is who fears the removal of God from the picture should be fighting. At best, evolutionism (as robin defines it) is but a subset of this overarching philosophy.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

Eastern religions are vague: vagueness can accomodate anything.

---

So?

Well, Schraf, if the ideas are vague enough, it could mean most anything we like, and so it means nothing at all.

wow--um, dude, eastern religions aren't as vague as you make them out to be. They just have a different focus as to what's important in life. Tell me how the eightfold path is vague. Tell me how mu is vague. I can't wait for archer to read your post.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

Well, Schraf, if the ideas are vague enough, it could mean most anything we like, and so it means nothing at all.

---

But your point was that scientific findings are devastating to religion.Buddhists don't have a problem with science.Buddhism is a religion (with many millions of adherents).Therefore, your premise is invalid.Perhaps you'd like to narrow your premise?

I meant it was logically devastating to religion. People might not have any "problem" with it, but these people are wrong.The liberal Christians don't have any "problem," but they are wrong.