Creationists have reason to doubt the classical theory of evolution

my girl crazy, man!

To Gkm:
thanks for your great comment. I understand your position. Please let me point to the fact that from the 3 theories we are juggling, maybe ONLY the "Intelligent Design by Humans like us" can be proven. Why? Because we are creating life in the laboratory right NOW (Craig Venter is on it). What are we going to do in 200 years from no? Create intelligent beings? On other planets?
On the other hand, macro-evolution (compared to micro-evolution) cannot be scientifically proven because of the timespans involved.

Regarding problem-solving algorithms by "evolution". There is a designer to the algorithm and to the machine that calculates the algorithm.

What the 3rd possibility introduced by the Raelian Movemnt says is very simple:
We have been created by people like us ("in our image"). No gods, no para-dimensional beings or such.
Our Intelligent Designers had contact with some people during human history (the prophets like Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, etc.).
Now is the time where humans can understand instead of being forced to blindly believe (Apocalypse = greek, revelation [NOT "End of the world"]).
The last prophet (Rael) was given a message that everyone can read for free downloading it from this website: www.rael.org

Make up your own mind! By puzzling together all the pieces, you can discover that this is the theory that explains all strange things (missing link, irreducable complexity, etc., including the "God" theory).

Just read it for yourself, don't rely on your own pre-opinion ;)

Personally, I find your comment very respectful. I find that this 3rd possibility at least deserves the respect to be discussed in a respectful manner and not exlcluded as absurdity without even giving any argument. Thank you for that!

Finally, please let me state that the aim of the Raelian Movement is not to convice, but only to inform. So thank you for your different opinion.

Love
Friend

Hello,

thank you for your interesting comments.

Please let me introduce the third possibility:
non-theistic intelligent design.

For further information, please see www.rael.org and download the free e-book. I reccommend not relying on second hand opinions about this movement, nor on any pre-judjments you might be tempted to have... ;) It just completes the array of existing possible explanations with this science-based option. This one can even be proven, as we as a humanity are building life in the laboratory already! Macro-evolution on the other hand cannot be proven because of the time-spans involved.

Love
Friend

Creationists will doubt the "classical theory of evolution" with or without a reason. It is their right to have personal doubt, but it is not of scientific interest.

For creationism to earn my respect as a scientific theory, it must provide something similar to what other new, up and coming theories must provide. A self consistant description that matches known observeables better than the old theory.

The new theory must be more accurate or match a broader set of observables, or predict new observables better than the old theory.

Is creationism self consistant? How can an observer test to find out if something is created or not? What are the characteristics of a created object versus a non-created object? Is this test self consistant? Could you and I apply this test to the same object and get the same result?

What observables does creationism match better than evolution or other theories?

What testable outcomes does creationism predict?

Where are the people who are making grants to study these questions?

Has anyone seen the movie Idiocracy? It portrays an interesting view of human evolution that disputes Fisher's fundamental theorem.

If one analyzes the creationism / Intelligent Design Discussions, that is the development of the idea and the basic corresponding arguments, one can use the instruments offered by numerous sociological theories. According to Jürgen Habermas, founding father of the well-known theory of the importance of an public sphere which allows open discussion of political matters and can thus influence the political system through public agenda setting, modern society inherits (based on the differentation of society in functional parts) a strong problem through the separation and shielding of the political, scientific and cultural systems into worlds of it's own which allow only experts to join the discussion. This means that, for example in modern science, most "normal" people lack the abilities to "learn" and "understand" all the basics and theories which are necessary to understand, discuss and rationaly judge the systems output. This means, that "ordinary" people, not being able to access the scientific argumentation, base their ideas and "life" on traditional ideas. On everything which stays in their system, after science, culture, politics, etc differentiated.
So if creationists try to counterclaim the theory of evolution, their arguments aren't based on scientific facts, but on traditional knowledge (like the bible, or even worse) *because* (and this is the important part) according to Jürgen Habermas theory, it was their lack of access to those scientific facts that directly led to the genesis of their ideas. This is the reason why their arguments always end up like "God said it, i believe it". Their accessing the full scientific system of knowledge would of course enlighten them in such a way, that the dispute would end (for example, they would understand, what a scientific theory actually *is*). Coming back to this actualy Blog entry, it would mean that, if they would use the above information for their cause (and totally understand the information and the theory around it) they wouldn't have a cause anymore.
I hope I could make myself clear, english is hardly my native tongue.