Is evolution stupid?

[Freodin]

If they are my arguements then by all means shoot them down. The question is: do they represent God or not. Do you feel qualified to know what represents God and what does not represent Him?

I don´t have enough informations to answer your question.

Can you cite the book, chapter and verse where God states "..."...if you have a creation, then you must have a creator...."?

 

[Battie]

All light is on the same wavelength. They just occupy a different place on that wavelength. I was a theater student in college and I worked on the lighting crew of the Ohio Ballet for three years. Also I have studied a lot about light because I have done a lot of photography. You can put a dancer on stage in white and use color gels over the light to make their outfit look any color that you want it to be. The audience will think that the costume is really that color.

Because you control reality in theater with the lighting, you have to take people into it, and then at the end of the performance you have to deliver them back into the world that they live in.

Slightly OT, but no, light all the same wavelength. Look at this:http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/education/reference/reflect/graphics/spectrum.gif

Light is just a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which in this chart is arranged from shortest wavelengths to longest. The colors are zoomed in so that you can see that each color is a different wavelength, in micrometers. There are even colors that the human eye cannot see (ultraviolet and infrared) because the wavelengths are too short or long.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In response to "so is everything black or white?"

Yes, that is correct, everything is black or white or something inbetween.

You don't proofread your own answers anymore, do you, Johnny?

 

[Lucretius]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

This OP is rather easy to answer. So many others have done it, but still I feel compelled to do the same.

Briefly, let's look at the defintion of the word stupid:

1)Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2)Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3)Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4)Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5)Pointless; worthless.

Notice how all of these are implying a lack of intelligence. Also notice that in order to lack intelligence, one must still have mental capacity. If you are still making the false correlation between evolution and atheism, then you cannot call evolution 'stupid'. As one person said, it is neither.

Something similar to this would be: People have morals, and trees don't. So trees would be immoral. The correct word would be amoral; Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.

In order for something to be stupid, it must be comparable to another thing that is related to it that has intelligence. If you believe evolution = atheism, you would have to compare one form of evolution to another. What would happen? You would find neither making claims that the process of evolution underwent any change that involved mental capacity, and so would be neither intelligent or stupid.

 

[Dragar]

We are talking about the design of the bike.

You say 'evolutionists claim life is not intelligently designed'.

And then, in your crazy little head, you come up with the only possible alternative: 'Evolutionists must claim life is stupidly designed!'

Does it never occur to you that life might not be designed?

 

[Dragar]

All light is on the same wavelength. They just occupy a different place on that wavelength.

Oh. Your. God.

 

[paulrob]

I could make the same arguement against Christianity and I'm betting it'd stick alot better than the messed up formula you've tried to manifest.

Evolution is not an intellegent design cause evolution does not think, it's just a process. A rock does not think, but that doesn't make it stupid. It's an inanimate object, incapable of thought.

But the product of evolution is not inanimate, so you've lost this point

 

[Lucretius]

But the product of evolution is not inanimate, so you've lost this point

He also said 'incapable of thought', which applies to evolution (at least in the atheistic sense.) If something is incapable of thought because it lacks mental capacity it is not stupid. It's just incapable of thought.

 

[paulrob]

False, I know evolution is a fact, but I also believe in the creator. God created a universe which would evolve us. Your logic is flawed.

I certainly don't agree

But that's not why I posted.

I was intrigued with your Karst post and can't find it. It seems (or at least I haven't found it) any way to search this site by words, subjects or authors, and posts with interesting and valuable information get lost in rabbit trails off other posts.

I've actually been thinking of a synthesis that might fit in with your karst explanation. But I'd have to throw myself upon your moral generosity as any attempt to develop my concept would by definition greatly modify yours; but on the other hand I do not have the experience to evaluate my concept by myself.

 

[The Seeker]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

in·tel·li·gent Audio pronunciation of "intelligent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jnt)
adj.

1. Having intelligence.
2. Having a high degree of intelligence; mentally acute.
3. Showing sound judgment and rationality: an intelligent decision; an intelligent solution to the problem.
4. Appealing to the intellect; intellectual: a film with witty and intelligent dialogue.
5. Computer Science. Having certain data storage and processing capabilities: an intelligent terminal; intelligent peripherals.

Intelligent as it is used in the term "intelligent design" refers to definition 1, having intelligence, i.e. sentience, whereas stupid is an antonym for definition 2. So no, evolution is not "stupid".

But this thread is.

Very.

 

[Anovah]

You always have the option of coming up with another adj. But in this case we are starting off with the premise that evolution is NOT intelligent. At least evos are trying to make the claim that it is NOT intelligent. For me the logical conclusion is if something is NOT intelligent, then it must be stupid.

Hello John,

Thank you for responding.

Either answer of stupid or intelligent would still require a creator. Wether you believe something was a stupid design or an intelligent design, you are still stating there is a design (where I propose a third option of neither).

Do you wonder if perhaps this line of line of thought could come from a difficulty thinking outside a world view of theology?

 

[JohnR7]

Either answer of stupid or intelligent would still require a creator. Wether you believe something was a stupid design or an intelligent design, you are still stating there is a design (where I propose a third option of neither).

What you do have is at least a pattern. For example snowflakes or frozen water when it crystalizes does form a very distinct pattern. It all happens according to natural laws. They claim that we do not know where the laws come from that regulate the universe.

 

[At Peace Without God]

What you do have is at least a pattern. For example snowflakes or frozen water when it crystalizes does form a very distinct pattern. It all happens according to natural laws. They claim that we do not know where the laws come from that regulate the universe.

'They' do NOT claim this *YOU* claim this.

Can I make a suggestion? I would strongly advise you write up a big sign with 'the end of the world is nigh' or some such and start wandering about whatever city you live in, shouting creationist claptrap at random people Because you aint gettin' much joy in here. At least on the streets people can look you in the eye and you'll know straight away they think you're mad.

 

[corvus_corax]

What you do have is at least a pattern. For example snowflakes or frozen water when it crystalizes does form a very distinct pattern. It all happens according to natural laws. They claim that we do not know where the laws come from that regulate the universe.

Well, "they" obviously dont understand natural law and are apparently confusing it with man made law.

"Dont drive through a red light" is not the same thing as "Water boils at 100 C at sea level".
Im sure "they" will try to say that all "laws" have to be created.
But "they" are obviously too stupid to see that natural law isnt an imposition (like the red light above), but rather (read this carefully) a description of the way things are.

Im hoping that "they" can actually see the difference.

 

[Anovah]

What you do have is at least a pattern. For example snowflakes or frozen water when it crystalizes does form a very distinct pattern. It all happens according to natural laws. They claim that we do not know where the laws come from that regulate the universe.

Hello John,

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like the cornerstone of your argument is that there is a creator, so therefore if the design is not intelligent, it is stupid.

Is this fair?

 

[Bushido216]

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

I know you are, but what am... oh.

 

[grmorton]

I certainly don't agree

But that's not why I posted.

I was intrigued with your Karst post and can't find it. It seems (or at least I haven't found it) any way to search this site by words, subjects or authors, and posts with interesting and valuable information get lost in rabbit trails off other posts.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/karst.htm

I've actually been thinking of a synthesis that might fit in with your karst explanation. But I'd have to throw myself upon your moral generosity as any attempt to develop my concept would by definition greatly modify yours; but on the other hand I do not have the experience to evaluate my concept by myself.

I am willing to listen to any idea that doesn't deny observational data.

 

[Loukuss]

Ok. When are christians on these boards going to realize that they are making themselves look ridiculous by just stating anything they desire about evolution? I, myself, do not believe in the evolutionary model. But I do not see a point in telling evolutionists that what they believe is stupid. Not very christian at all.
I know some very smart people that believe in evolution. I know some real dumb people that believe in God. Where does that get us? No where.
You're only stupid (my opinion) if you follow something without really learning about it, searching out the truth in it.
God bless,
Lucas

 

[JohnR7]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like the cornerstone of your argument is that there is a creator, so therefore if the design is not intelligent, it is stupid. Is this fair?

First of all we start off with the premise that evolutionists reject the concept of intellegent design. They have never studied the theory of intelligent design, so they really do not know what they are rejecting other than to say the design is NOT intelligent. So if it is not intelligent what is the design? It must be a stupid design. Of course their response to this is the same response you will always get out of them, denyal and evasion.

As far as I know the theory of intelligent design says nothing about a creator. That would be creatonism that talks about a creator. Intelligent design is willing ot accept that natural laws could be the creator, but that question then is where did or does the natural laws come from?

 

[JohnR7]

But I do not see a point in telling evolutionists that what they believe is stupid.

If something is not intelligent then what is it?