Some of you believe in it, some of you don't. Instead of respecting each other's beliefs, lets have a big fight and see who wins.
Err, I have a quibble with this (as much as I like the idea of a fight, and despite the fact that I am wading into that fight with all guns blazing!). My gripe is that evolution is not something to be 'believed' in, for two reasons.
First, it is demonstrable fact, and is the only explanation which fits the accumulated evidence of two centuries of research, from the early geologists and naturalists to the modern biochemists and biologists. Which means that asserting evolution is a myth is tantamount to claiming that the Earth is flat or that the moon is a chariot pulled across the sky! It flatly contradicts the evidence, and anything that contradicts the evidence in so flagrant a fashion (
i.e., Biblical creationism) does not deserve the respect it is usually given.
And secondly, there is nothing of evolution which can be believed in. Belief implies a subject which cannot be understood on the basis of facts. It is an appropriate expression to use in terms of religious tenets, but it is meaningless in the face of science. I do not 'believe' in evolution, because to assert that I did would deny that evolution is a science, and science is not intended to prove anything! The answers of science are
always provisional and depend upon the data continuing to conform to the theoretical framework. If you 'believed' in a framework, you would be unable to see the errors and anomalies which might crop up; which means that
no scientist 'believes' in evolution. They accept it because it explains the data. End of story!
God pwns Science, the power of the devil. End.
So... why are you using technology? Get off the fucking Internet before the Devil infects your soul through his corrupting tools of science.
I'm an evolutionist, however I'm indifferent to people not believing in it and I will respect the wishes of the electorate if they decided that christian creationism be taught in schools instead of evolution.
Which means that the facts are irrelevant to you? That it's okay to spread ignorance and superstition, irrespective of the weight of evidence to the contrary? How is this any better than saying, "I think slavery was wrong, but if they want to teach racial theories of African inferiority in schools that's okay with me." Which is, in turn, almost as bad as saying, "I don't agree with slavery, but if someone wants to grab some Senegalese and make them his bitch, that's okay." Meaning, we have to draw the line somewhere, and cut off the demonstrably false and stupid beliefs of our ancestors.
I believe in that something created Us all that was Intelligent and smarter than We are in the end.
Why? That's the question I always have when this comes up, and no-one seems able to answer it. It's almost like it's an emotional need that cannot be communicated if you don't share it. Can you explain it?
Well if I am going to be absolutely insane I would suggest an omnipotent God (can control time obviously) that creates a world with evidence towards evolution, with fossils and everything already there. This is to entrap people and make them think that God doesn't exist, where that God can punish those who found his planted evidence for not believing in him all along. That would make me laugh and really isn't realistic, but fun to think about.
That's a sick idea of fun!
It's sorta like describing the Holocaust in terms of theodicy...
All animals have adapted over time but have not evoled over time.
Given that we have the same basic instructions,
i.e. DNA, how is it, then, that bacteria can be observed
evolving, rather than merely 'adapting'?
Besides which, as observed above, there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Adaptation, meaning the changes in an organism to make it better suit its environment,
only happens through progressive and undirected evolution. The Lamarckian notion of an organism changing to suit its environment has been disproven for most of a century. Changes occur in an organism
irrespective of its environment, through random mutations (
e.g., transcription errors) in DNA, and then the ones best suited to the environment survive and procreate. Nothing adapts but through evolution.
Science specifically prevents itself from
such speculation, taking certain assumptions for
granted (as most theologians will with the existence
of God), and working from them. I see no fundamental
difference, except in the choice of axioms.
Wait, how?! Science presumes a natural explanation, and that's about the beginning and end of its 'assumptions'; everything else is open to debate. And even that does not fit the context you are describing.
By presuming that something is natural,
i.e. understandable, science is setting out its epistemological parameters only. If something does not have a natural explanation, it cannot be
disproven, and that is what science is all about in the end. Science is not supposed to provide answers; it is supposed to dispel bad answers, and point toward solutions which better fit the evidence. If someone wants an answer to a fundamental question, science is not an appropriate tool, which means that its assumptions are of an entirely different kind from the false dichotomy you have constructed above. The assumptions of science never presume to describe the fundamental nature of the universe, or even to describe
anything. Assumptions of that kind have no place in the scientific world.
[edited to correct a typo. I saw in that last paragraph.]
