Creationism - what have we learned?

Scofflaw

It seems many of us feel that Richard Dawkins could do better in debate....and that perhaps a spell on the Creationism thread here might do him some good.

What about us? What, if anything, have we learned from the Creationism thread (and the other brushfire scuffles around these fora)?

What tips would you have for debating against Creationists? Any particular questions that should be asked?

inquisitively,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

I've learned that dinosaurs were around after the flood, thats right t-rex and man were alive at the same time

lookinforpicnic

I'm afraid, the only thing I've learned (from lurking about) is that I can only tolerate that tread for ten minutes at most before I become incredibly frustrated and confused...and any time i think of posting I just end up saying to myself "where do you start?" and quickly leave before I even begin to think myself into their shoes, and then i ban myself from looking at that tread again! It just frustrates me so much...I don't know where ye regular posters over there get the patience. I do enjoy ye're posts very much though but the bits in between Should be interesting to hear what ye have learnt from that crazy thread. Get some ammo for the real world.

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

What tips would you have for debating against Creationists? Any particular questions that should be asked?

Stick to science-based arguments, there is no logic there. Dinosaurs on the ark....honestly!

Zillah

I have learned that a huge percentage of the human race are completely insane.

Hivemind187

claim to be god.

You heard me. Claim to be god.

Faith, particularly that in creationism, requires unquestioning belief in a creator who is inscrutable and whose purposes and intents are unknowable.

BY there own argument they cannot disprove you are God by any other means than a denial of faith.

... it makes a real mess for them.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

It seems many of us feel that Richard Dawkins could do better in debate....and that perhaps a spell on the Creationism thread here might do him some good.

What about us? What, if anything, have we learned from the Creationism thread (and the other brushfire scuffles around these fora)?

What tips would you have for debating against Creationists? Any particular questions that should be asked?

inquisitively,
Scofflaw

I've learnt that you are never going to convince the Creationist that they are wrong because they aren't interested in science or truth or discovery, they are interested in convincing themselves that their particular religious faith is not being contradicted by science, the importance of which they grudgingly seem to accept.

The best one can hope to achieve is to produce such ridiculous explanations from a Creationists (plankton feeding lions who live at the top of mountains during ice ages) that their entire argument is seen as nonsense by anyone observing the debate.

But again even people who would consider themselves rational theists seem to be swallowed in by this stuff, as BrianC's recent comments that JC and Wolfsbane provide a different scientific perspective on the debate of the origin of life, seems to demonstrate.

At the end of the day it comes down to what people themselves are prepared to accept. If someone is not prepared to accept that Genesis is not literal then it seems that so long as they have something to hold on to, no matter how nonsensical or ridiculous, they will hold on to it and ignore the rest of the discussion lest it dislodge them from this comfort zone.

rockbeer

From my one fleeting visit to the creationist thread I've learned that life's too short.

Now if I could just figure out a way to get paid for hanging out there...

Tar.Aldarion

*To not bother with most of them, only talk to the rational few that actually think for themselves.
*That I don't have to write a long sciency post because son_goku is around
*Just how much upbringing affects most humans and thus how like other animals we are.
*Most people have a deep fear in them that I do not seem to share for some reason.
*JC is actually Jesus Christ
*How very little most people know about anything.
*That we humans have a long way to go before we can call ourselves learned.
Can we climb this mountain,I don't know, higher now than ever before.
*No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.

koneko

I have learned that bone structures being similar can prove some animals are ACTUALLY THE SAME (Rhinos are dinosaurs, right?), but they conveniently ignore this "logic" when it comes to other species' bone structures (humans and apes).

5uspect

Its not worth arguing with creationists as they only want to start an argument to validate their nutty ideas to the rest of the world in some weird way.

I haven't learned my lesson tho.

JimiTime

I've learned that some smart people can continue to argue with someone they consider 'an idiot'. I mean come on guys, who's the fool? The way you talk about JC, he might as well be saying the world is flat. If someone actually said the world was flat and was coming up with points to 'prove' this, would you still be going for 300 pages? I can't see a difference. You are wholly convinced that JC's arguements are as ludicrous, yet you continue in this venture. I wouldn't call it patience at all:p

5uspect

JimiTime wrote:

I've learned that some smart people can continue to argue with someone they consider 'an idiot'. I mean come on guys, who's the fool? The way you talk about JC, he might as well be saying the world is flat. If someone actually said the world was flat and was coming up with points to 'prove' this, would you still be going for 300 pages? I can't see a difference. You are wholly convinced that JC's arguements are as ludicrous, yet you continue in this venture. I wouldn't call it patience at all:p

The point is to point out to other readers that J C is lying. He misrepresents science and is quite rightly rebuked for it.
He is something of a captive creationist on public exhibit for the education of the world (i.e. boards readers).

stevejazzx

That arugments go around in circles and we never get anywhere.
The ingenius (for all the wrong reasons) phrase 'muck to man'.
The general nuttiness of christians, their tendency to withdraw from difficult arguments even with regular members. Their cowardice at trying to resolve the christian forum into a christian only forum, so the blind truly can lead the blind without any interference. Their incessant ability to take offence where none was warranted and their rigtheouness at posters who lose their patience. Most worringly of all though their ignorance (apart from a distinguished few) of their own religon, it's texts and history.

lookinforpicnic

JimiTime wrote:

I've learned that some smart people can continue to argue with someone they consider 'an idiot'. I mean come on guys, who's the fool? The way you talk about JC, he might as well be saying the world is flat. If someone actually said the world was flat and was coming up with points to 'prove' this, would you still be going for 300 pages? I can't see a difference. You are wholly convinced that JC's arguements are as ludicrous, yet you continue in this venture. I wouldn't call it patience at all:p

Well, it is interesting to see the extreme side of the delusional behaviour that religion can engender, as an atheist (probably speaking for most guys around here) we see all religious people as ultimately deluded, and observing the delusional behaviour of anyone who believes in creationism ultimately can shed some light on the more moderate delusions of the average religious person. So arguing with the likes of JC (even though i don't partake myself) isn't in vain.

JimiTime

5uspect wrote:

The point is to point out to other readers that J C is lying. He misrepresents science and is quite rightly rebuked for it.
He is something of a captive creationist on public exhibit for the education of the world (i.e. boards readers).

Hmmm. If you didn't reply, that thread would have disappeared long ago. Then your concern for the people looking in need not apply. I'm not so sure if everyone is replying for the good of mankind. At the end of the day, you have all basically said he hasn't a clue, but you feel his points are important enough to answer

Tar.Aldarion

I don't feel that they are. Apart from a few curt, short posts I have said nothing. There is no point in leading infants that will just say, 'god did it', to every argument you make - J C.

I see no point posting in that thread apart from the fun of it I imagine.

barfizz

Ask them the following:

If every thing in the universe was created, who created god.

If there is a god why was he so malicious in creating disease and hunger, does he despise people that much.

why did he create people and societies that never even heard of him, for so long people worshiped anything that was bright, shiny or they were unable to understand.

when you think about it most of us in this country come from the Judea religion (Jew, Christian, Muslim) yet we only account for a minority of the whole population of the planet, why did he waste his time creating the rest of the hell fodder, or does he want the devil to have more souls than him.

5uspect

JimiTime wrote:

Hmmm. If you didn't reply, that thread would have disappeared long ago. Then your concern for the people looking in need not apply. I'm not so sure if everyone is replying for the good of mankind. At the end of the day, you have all basically said he hasn't a clue, but you feel his points are important enough to answer

What about our concern for those reading the Christianity Forum in general?:D
I did stop posting there for a long time as I was sick of listening to him I only began posting there recently when there were some new posters there.

It has descended into something of a farce tho.

JimiTime

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I see no point posting in that thread apart from the fun of it I imagine.

which is really what I'm saying. All this 'I post there to out JC's lies' or 'So that a new reader can see it for what it is', is nonsense IMO. I don't believe people post there out of concern for others, in case they're taken in by JC etc. If that was the case, they would have let that thread die long ago.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

The general nuttiness of christians, their tendency to withdraw from difficult arguments even with regular members. Their cowardice at trying to resolve the christian forum into a christian only forum, so the blind truly can lead the blind without any interference. Their incessant ability to take offence where none was warranted and their rigtheouness at posters who lose their patience. Most worringly of all though their ignorance (apart from a distinguished few) of their own religon, it's texts and history.

stevejazzx, that's too much of a damning generalisation for my liking. Whatever about the creationism thread, here isn't the place for rants about a whole forum and it's members, even if you feel you can't take your arguments over to Christianity.
Remember the charter if you would.

Ciaran500

Scofflaw wrote:

What tips would you have for debating against Creationists?

Don't bother, they are completely close minded and will twist any fact no matter how petty to fit their ideas. Once they have been disproven beyond any doubt they just move on to another point like nothing happened and continue.


Its just like arguing with a 911 "truther" :rolleyes:

JimiTime

5uspect wrote:

What about our concern for those reading the Christianity Forum in general?:D

Awww. Didn't know ye cared:D

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote:

Awww. Didn't know ye cared:D

The creationist thread is one of the longest running threads on boards.ie. There are a few longer ones but they aren't actually arguing just people randomly saying things.
I don't think anybody has had a major change of mind on that thread so one would wonder what the point has been alright.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

The creationist thread is one of the longest running threads on boards.ie. There are a few longer ones but they aren't actually arguing just people randomly saying things.
I don't think anybody has had a major change of mind on that thread so one would wonder what the point has been alright.

I changed my mind.

I used to believe that Creationists had a considered opinion that should be respected, however barking mad it might seem to those who base their position on rationalism and logic.

I no longer believe this.

I now believe that Creationists are deliberatly blinding themselves to the evidence and have every intention that we should be coerced into doing the same.

5uspect

JimiTime wrote:

Awww. Didn't know ye cared:D

Of course we do.
Think of the thread as our Iraq!

JimiTime

5uspect wrote:

Think of the thread as our Iraq!

Brilliant!

Galvasean

I have learned that i am a glutton for punishment and I often let my morbid curiosity get the better of me.
I'll probably post in that thread in the next 5 or 10 minutes

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I changed my mind.

I used to believe that Creationists had a considered opinion that should be respected, however barking mad it might seem to those who base their position on rationalism and logic.

I no longer believe this.

I now believe that Creationists are deliberatly blinding themselves to the evidence and have every intention that we should be coerced into doing the same.

I can't believe that those Christians actually go into a public forum and get their opinions disected and torn apart. Most Christians stay in tiny little cosy clubs and avoid all enviroments where their opinions are challenged.

I do think J C though is working for some Creationist propaganda and is testing his propaganda out in that thread.

I can't understand how anyone with a remote interest in Science can push creationism or ID. My only guess is that they are trying to exploit and make money out of a huge market of suckers who will buy this nonsense, in the same way as faith healers also try to exploit and make money out of gullible people.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

which is really what I'm saying. All this 'I post there to out JC's lies' or 'So that a new reader can see it for what it is', is nonsense IMO. I don't believe people post there out of concern for others, in case they're taken in by JC etc. If that was the case, they would have let that thread die long ago.

Actually, the thread does a good job (in my opinion) of showing how ridiculous the Creationist 'case' is, and JC is a major player in that.

There are other factors that keep one posting (it's nice to have a few-holds-barred discussion thread, for example), but the above is probably the strongest motivation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

I've learned that atheists are some of the most patient people in the world.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, the thread does a good job (in my opinion) of showing how ridiculous the Creationist 'case' is, and JC is a major player in that.

I think quite the opposite.

Just take J C's latest "Rhinos are a kind of 'devolved' Triceratops" claim.

This actually takes us on a very interesting journey of discovery - how many people understand the synapomorphies of dinosaurs and could intelligently explain why the claim is ridiculous?

While many of us have a knee-jerk or gut reaction "He's wrong", how many of us actually understand why - on all the points he's raised? That's why the thread is so fascinating, and why you can learn so much from it, everything from physics, astronomy, geology, maths, statistics, biology etc. etc.

There is so much to be learned from that thread, both from posters knowledgeable in certain areas (such as yourself) and from using his claims as a starting point to find out the truth for oneself.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

which is really what I'm saying. All this 'I post there to out JC's lies' or 'So that a new reader can see it for what it is', is nonsense IMO. I don't believe people post there out of concern for others, in case they're taken in by JC etc. If that was the case, they would have let that thread die long ago.

What's the real reason we do it then? You aren't leading up to the "because we know the truth in our hearts" response are you?
I learned good deal of geology from Scofflaw's posts, interesting sociological stuff from robindch's posts, e.t.c. In truth I post because I love explaining things and I enjoy how random JC can be. (He's actually a nice old soul at root I guess, he's just funny.) There's a lot of humour in the thread.

Overall definitely worth the time.

As for what I've learned:
1. Certain people have the ability to reboot from start. After acquiring new information, the will purposefully forget it and repeat some slogan. I don't know how many times I've explained the Big Bang and a week later get "how could nothing explode!".
2. People think the ridiculous or the unimaginable don't actually occur. If something sounds over complicated or bizarre, then that thing is wrong.

Galvasean

pH wrote:

I think quite the opposite.

Just take J C's latest "Rhinos are a kind of 'devolved' Triceratops" claim.

This actually takes us on a very interesting journey of discovery - how many people understand the synapomorphies of dinosaurs and could intelligently explain why the claim is ridiculous?

*Raises hand*
I showed pictures and everything

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

What's the real reason we do it then?

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground. As I said, I don't think its as some have said, because of concern for people getting mislead by JC's 'lies'. IMO. Its obvious you enjoy it. Then you see posts about JC being an idiot etc, and thats disingenuous IMO. If that is truly the feeling, then one would not be replying. You are basically saying he is a 5 year old, and then proceeding to argue your points with him. You either proceed in debate with him and accept that you enjoy it, or you call him an idiot and cease correspondance. Thats the way I see it anyway.

You aren't leading up to the "because we know the truth in our hearts" response are you?

Ehhh, no.

I learned good deal of geology from Scofflaw's posts,

Good reason to post there so.

In truth I post because I love explaining things and I enjoy how random JC can be. (He's actually a nice old soul at root I guess, he's just funny.)

thats really what I'm saying. You like showing people the things you have learned, and you basically laugh at JC. If one really thought he was an idiot, you would not be frustrated etc, because you would expect nothing more from an idiot.

There's a lot of humour in the thread.

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that. Sometimes I really think, 'who's the idiot'. Or is it that they don't believe he is an idiot, they just resort to name calling in frustration?

And for the record. I have learned I'm not a creationist. i always assumed that a creationist was someone who believed in creation, which I do. That thread showed me that it is something alot more!

Sangre

'Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'

That thread is 6000 posts of people arguing at JC not with him. Every 2 weeks he'll come up with a claim, it will be de-bunked and he'll drop it then suddenly he'll use it again 2 weeks later. I remember he did it to myself on the point of 'legally' being a scientist. After explaining what he was saying was a nonsense he seems to have accepted this however he used the claim again 2 weeks later to add weight to his arguement. When challenging him on what we discussed he replied that we had agreed in his favour. Wtf?

Another classic is his 'muck to man' claim.

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

stevejazzx, that's too much of a damning generalisation for my liking. Whatever about the creationism thread, here isn't the place for rants about a whole forum and it's members, even if you feel you can't take your arguments over to Christianity.
Remember the charter if you would.

Sorry about that...I was going to delete it and and rephrase but after a couple of re-reads and being completely honest with myself, everything I described i.e. withdrawing from difficult arguments, the attempt to turn the forum into a chrsitian only forum and the incredible lack of knowledge regrading their own religon (I highlighted that there were exceptions) everything was true, 100% true and each point could be backed up with countless examples.
I will however endeavour to express my indifference more diplomatically henceforth....

JimiTime

stevejazzx wrote:

the attempt to turn the forum into a chrsitian only forum

wen did that happen?

pinksoir

Many people read that thread without actually posting. It is good to see two sides of the debate in action as this allows the reader to make up their own mind about the topic.

If you would care to take a quick gander over at the conspiracy theory thread you would see that much the same process goes on there. One person argues for the truth of a conspiracy giving what they consider to be supporting evidence, and then another person, usually someone who has some knowledge of the science behind what is being discussed, will put forward their explanation, more often than not debunking the conspiracy.

Now, while I don't post in that forum either, I still read it for much the same reason I read the thread on Creationism. And after all, creationism is much the same as any conspiracy theory; it is argued for by people who

a) don't (even attempt to ) understand modern science, and
b) want something to support their belief system so badly that they will simply overlook or dismiss anything that doesn't fit in

Yes, I have learned that creationism is the greatest conspiracy theory of them all.

Tar.Aldarion

A while ago, not too long, it was in the feedback forum wasn't it?

JimiTime

Sangre wrote:

'Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'

Always liked that quote.

That thread is 6000 posts of people arguing at JC not with him.

Hmmm. Not sure if thats not just a play on words.

Every 2 weeks he'll come up with a claim, it will be de-bunked and he'll drop it then suddenly he'll use it again 2 weeks later.

OK, but surely if that happens, and its brought to his attention, then he does it again, and it is brought to his attention again. the next time he does it, should he not just be ignored?Example:

'The world is flat because a and b.'

'No its not, because your a and b are not correct and here is why, and further more here is how we know its round.'.
A week on:

'The world is flat because of a and b.'

'Sorry, maybe u missed the reply last time but here it goes again.'

1 week later.

'the world is flat because a and b'

'Tea anyone'

I remember he did it to myself on the point of 'legally' being a scientist. After explaining what he was saying was a nonsense he seems to have accepted this however he used the claim again 2 weeks later to add weight to his arguement. When challenging him on what we discussed he replied that we had agreed in his favour. Wtf?

so why bother? most here seem to be learning from each other, I.E. Son Goku learning from Scoflaw etc.

Another classic is his 'muck to man' claim.

I agree, its a bit of a buzz phrase. But its something i would associate with inanimation to life, which is something that i would argue also. I always took the phrase Muc to man an meaning Inanimate object to life. Which must have occurred from an evolution point of view no? Or is that term just an oversimplification? I might take that over to the dreaded thread:D

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground. As I said, I don't think its as some have said, because of concern for people getting mislead by JC's 'lies'. IMO. Its obvious you enjoy it. Then you see posts about JC being an idiot etc, and thats disingenuous IMO. If that is truly the feeling, then one would not be replying. You are basically saying he is a 5 year old, and then proceeding to argue your points with him. You either proceed in debate with him and accept that you enjoy it, or you call him an idiot and cease correspondance. Thats the way I see it anyway.

thats really what I'm saying. You like showing people the things you have learned, and you basically laugh at JC. If one really thought he was an idiot, you would not be frustrated etc, because you would expect nothing more from an idiot.

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that. Sometimes I really think, 'who's the idiot'. Or is it that they don't believe he is an idiot, they just resort to name calling in frustration?

Well, there's elements of scratching post/punch bag, of course, but there is also the intellectual challenge. Many of the questions JC poses are those that occur to many non-scientists, and to students approaching science for the first time.

The questions themselves, then, are worth answering, although anyone could ask them. What makes JC an idiot is that he thinks his extremely silly make-believes are the answers, and that he is cunningly asking us because he reckons we don't.

When you answer questions by offering proven knowledge, this is called 'teaching'. The guy who keeps interrupting with nonsense from the back of the class is what's called an 'idiot', even if he was the person who asked the question - indeed, perhaps particularly if he was, and more so if he thinks he's being clever by doing so.

Interestingly, there are a lot of examples of such students in Jack Chick's tracts, but there the 'evilutionist' is invariably dumbfounded or furious. I think JC may see himself as the hero of such a comic strip.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

JimiTime wrote:

I agree, its a bit of a buzz phrase. But its something i would associate with inanimation to life, which is something that i would argue also. I always took the phrase Muc to man an meaning Inanimate object to life. Which must have occurred from an evolution point of view no? Or is that term just an oversimplification? I might take that over to the dreaded thread:D

It's not like a rock suddenly turned into a rabbit, maybe we should take this to the other thread for a detailed explanation. There is not that much difference between us and a plant, and in teh future a computer(:)) and we are just electrochemical machines.
It is only mysterious when people think that life is some sort of special spark like a soul being put in something.
Read this for a basic start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

5uspect

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It's not like a rock suddenly turned into a rabbit, maybe we should take this to the other thread for a detailed explanation. There is not that much difference between us and a plant, and in teh future a computer(:)) and we are just electrochemical machines.
It is only mysterious when people think that life is some sort of special spark like a soul being put in something.

Biological computers could be the next big thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358822.stm
Especially since us engineers can't be bothered to pull the finger out and cool existing silicon chips properly.

Ekancone

You should NEVER debate with a creationist. It gives them an air of credibility. Dawkins knows this as do most sane evolutionary biologists. Just leave them rot in ignorance.

Tar.Aldarion

Careful not to create something that will become the dominant species on the planet!

Crucifix

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Careful not to create something that will become the dominant species on the planet!

Are you talking about biocomputers or creationists?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that.

The reason to call JC an idiot is to provoke a response when you have cornered him in a mistake, lie or logic trap.

If you don't he just won't reply to you and ignore your posts until you eventually give up pointing out that he was wrong/lying.

But if you add in the odd insult he seems compelled to reply, but he is still stuck replying to something he doesn't understand and just makes a fool out of his argument. Thus you actually get some what of an acknowledgment that he was talking nonsense to begin with.

Other wise JC would just switch off any time he encounters an argument against Creationism he doesn't understand or cannot counter, which happened for a large chunk of the first hundred pages or so.

At least that's why I do it.

So while it may seem like a sign of frustration it is actually a useful tactic to get him to actually face questions.

Though I'm sure a couple of times it was said in genuine frustration

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground.

What? I think we all like talking a bit of science, not demonstrating how much we know in an attempt to show off.
Is that what you are saying, that we like showing off how much we know? I could have read you wrong, but I'm not clear on what you're saying.

Besides, why do you post about how pointless it is for us to post there. Is that not doubly pointless? We post because we like it, why do you care?

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

What? I think we all like talking a bit of science, not demonstrating how much we know in an attempt to show off.
Is that what you are saying, that we like showing off how much we know? I could have read you wrong, but I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I would not be certain on such a thing, but I would suspect it from some posters. Could be way off the mark, but i certainly don't believe its done for the benefit and concern of others. i think wat you have said is the best explaination, you enjoy it and you like sharing your knowledge.

Besides, why do you post about how pointless it is for us to post there.

i didn't say that. I challenged the idea that it was somehow a crusade for the good of the people. I think your explaination that you enjoy it, is a more hnest assesment of why you post there. TBH, its not even posting there. its the arguing with JC that I'm talking about. And I'm not even saing if its futile or not. I'm more saying, if you reall think he's an idiot, then why bother rebutting hm again and again and again etc.

We post because we like it,

and thats gr8, but i think you got the wrong end of the stick. i hope the above clears that up.

why do you care?

I'm just a caring kind a guy:D

UU

I know a lot of people bash Richard Dawkins but I think he argues very well. I know he is very outspoken but that is what we need. Why should religion be handled carefully and treated with uttermost respect? Dawkins made this point clearly. I liked his book The God Delusion. It was very interesting and he explained his position well.

Well to answer the question, from what I have learnt about Creationism and Intelligent Design, these positions are extremelly weak and highly flawed. It poses many questions, who designed the designer? And God would have to be very very complex to create something as complex as existence and all. It all leads to an infinite regress. I think Evolution by Natural Selection is the only real alternative. It provides a logical and rational way of explaining life. although much is still unknown about the world, universe and the many life-forms, science is there to discover, explore, uncover. A universe that was designed would be a very different one.

Just my views!!!