Comments on: 'Dodos' film pecks holes in evolution debate

Documentary filmmaker issues a wakeup call to scientists--and stirs up a shouting match--in the battle over intelligent design.
Images: Which side loses out?

[ianmorris]

evolution debate

What about open minds? Reason can enable us to progress, but
can reason alone at any particular time get it right. Reason once
said that the earth is flat, and no way could a mountain with snow
on the top exist in the center of Africa.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

A sad fact...

This debate will never end, as humans with our
highly evolved brain are unable to concieve of our
own end, thus necessitating a need to grasp at
mythology in order to maintain an illusion of
immortality.

[Neph]

really?

its still not the same, you are starting with a working model. and im a little skeptical about your claim here (while it may be completely correct) i would need a refrence

[Neph]

eyes

woops - this comment was supposed to be in reply to earls comments on redesigning the eye

[inouyde]

I MADE IT!

FINALLY read through all the comments thus far. ID and evolution may end up in the same boat as trying to find a unified theory in physics, approaching things from opposite ends to try to get to that all-inclusive answer.

But the real Tech question is... Was the universe designed on a Mac or PC?

[Michael G.]

Congrats!

I'd like to add that after reading through enough comments to fill a book, the dialogue ends with an uncertainty of tone---as if there is a third piece of the puzzle missing. Evolution scientifically and theoretically makes sense. Intelligent Design intuitionally and rationally makes sense.

Those that believe PC users created the universe will faithfully believe so, and those that believe that Mac users created the universe will also. It's all a matter of faith, whether you're wearing rose-colored, or blue-tinted specs.

[kdouma]

Interesting spin with politics

I usually try to not think about politics, since it just depresses me, but I never thought about what would happen if there were NO political parties. I know that in most socialist/democratic governments there are multiple parties, such as labor, economy and inustry, etc. that get the same air time to convince people that their issues are worth paying attention to for the next few years...and although this seems much more appealing than only two parties that are like "two sides of the same coin...one management team bidding for control of the CEO position of Slavery Incorporated" to quote an interviewee of Waking Life, the movie...it still means that politicians will be rewarded for pushing one concern over and over, regardless of whether labor or industry or whatever really should be the main focus of the next few years. If there were no parties at all, there would be no fall back for someone with no real mind or contribution to humanity, and no one would be stuck having to push only the concerns of their party regardless of what the US really needs at the time. Hmm...something to think about.

We could even take that idea of politics and apply it to people, which I'm sure you already have, and argue that each of us dispenses propaganda when we feel defensive...such as all this debate about evolution vs. intelligent design. Most of the people arguing each point seem to be arguing for a party that they feel superior being a part of, not for an aspect of an idea that they personally identify with...and even then aren't there always checks and balances in personal evolution? Each of us ultimately strive to integrate rather than eliminate.

Thanks for the new thoughts.

Kat

[royman1]

The difference between ID and science.

It's my belief that, by definition, science is the attempt to explain through the laws of nature the things that we don't understand and that we often attribute to an intelligent designer. I am certain that early man, before he understood the concept of fire, believed that it was a punishment cast down in lightning bolts by an angry god to destroy the wicked. What if no one had ever questioned this idea? I am sure that for every man who did, there were man who thought that such questioning was evil or blaphemous. I don't believe that man will ever be able to explain in a logical scientific way all of the aspects of our universe, but that does not mean that that is not what science should endeavor to do. Philsophy and religion are what they are: science is what it is.

[Shoppingkart]

Was going through this stuf last fortnight!

And yet, there exists a third view of evolution. I thought I'd point that out :(
http://ufocasebook.com/Roswell1.html
http://ufo.whipnet.org/creation/ancient.aircraft/vimanas.html
http://www.bibleufo.com/
http://www.bibleufo.com/zlinks2.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/indiavimanas.html

All evidence on it and how they have been helping us all along. Sadly though I hate to say it, it makes more sense logically.

[royman1]

You can't be serious!

You believe this crap? Please tell me this is tongue in cheek.

[royman1]

You can't be serious!

You believe this crap? Please tell me this is tongue in cheek.

[kdouma]

Looking at the facts

Interesting point of view. I have a friend who believes we are descended from aliens aboard a crashed vessel who accomplished great physical feats long ago, whose evidence we can now find in land formations and acient buildings, who then ran out of a power source and de-evolved into us.

There's so much evidence that it makes me wonder if that is really the case, or something similar to it. But I find myself forgetting all the articles I read to comfort myself and think, all is well, I know what my world is made out of.

So to those who dismiss this all as stories believed only by the very gullible, who is the more jaded by their philosophies? Dismissing evidence is never going to get the bottom of anything.

Kat