It's amusing how sciencefags are so desperate to distance themselves from any hint of religiosity that any mention of 'design!' is condemned, rightly, as simplistic religious fundamentalism. At the same time, completely shutting down the sciencefags' possibility of exploring the question from a broader perspective. And that the religio-fundies are feverishly driven by religious fervour to deny science's clear (albeit not complete) insights into the mechanisms of evolution.
So here's a thought for both of you.
What if the mechanisms of evolution, both as they are currently described by science and as they will continue to be elucidated by scientific method, ARE the agents of 'design'? What if there isn't actually a dichotomy here, and your arguments are nothing more than adherance to limited models on each side? What if 'design' is inherent in nature, a function of existance, a quality of the creator and its creation, call it what you will. And evolution is the emergence or manifestation of that design.
Jayden Miller
If you think any of this shit makes sense I got a fat dick you can suck on
Adam Williams
Science is concerned with evidence. Maybe design by a higher being is inherent in nature, but since there is no evidence and no current way to test it Science doesn't concern itself with it
Jonathan Ortiz
Evolution is guaranteed to happen to any system that self replicates imperfectly. Given a long enough time, anything that makes copies of itself and messes up occasionally will gradually evolve according to selective pressures in the environment. There is no extra mechanism that causes evolution to happen so it doesn't make sense to say that evolution was a part of any design. That's the same as saying "evolution happens because it was meant to happen" which just isn't true, it happens because its an inherent feature of life in general
Christopher Edwards
Perhaps it is an inherent feature of life on purpose.
Maybe DNA replication is imperfect by design.
I agree that it cannot be proven and so is beyond the scope of science though.
Luke Brown
>it happens because its an inherent feature of life in general That was implied by me saying, science's insights into the mechanisms of evolution. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm not questioning evolution.
>Maybe design... is inherent in nature, but since there is no evidence and no current way to test it Science doesn't concern itself with it And if science keeps a neutral attitude to the possibility, it might find the evidence. But if it doesn't allow itself to look, it won't. I don't know where that evidence might be; math, biology, physics, whatever, but I trust the scientific process and human curiosity. Entrenched positions don't foster exploration.
Nathan Wilson
>imperfect by design. Since when is imperfection a choice? You are assuming that the alternative is possible which is one of the wildest claims made in this thread so far.
Xavier Morales
A being capable of making the entire universe could make a DNA replication method that was perfect.
Once again though, I'm not saying this is how it had to be. Just that it is possible. It's also totally untestable and thus is not science, and so does not belong on Veeky Forums.
Carter Jackson
I really think you need to try to understand how crazy of an idea you are suggesting is. You are suggesting that, possibly, the phenomenon of life was created and the creators had the option to either make them reproduce flawlessly every time or to let their genes mutate once and a while. The fact that this is an option is crazier than the concept of a creator itself. In what universe do we live in that there would be a possible mechanism for reproduction that never fails?
