User talk:Jdhunt/evolutiondiscussion

Somebody called me a dummy
When I was trying to refute content in the evolution article, I was told I was a dummy and to find one credible person who supported my view of Creation. And that creationists or inteligent design advocates were quaks and idiots. Well, I got tired of all the stuck up folks so I gave up.

Well I found this article from Time Magazine hosting a debate between the beloved Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Francis Collins is no dummy or wack-job. He has been the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint. He's a Creationist, must be a quak or an idiot?

If you guys will connsider opening your mind for a billionth of a second, then here is the transcript of the debate:

Collins-Dawkins Time Debate -

J. D. Hunt 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not saying who won in this debate. Evolutionists will view the debate evidence and probally come up with a win for Dawkins, just as creationists will say collins won. Wow sounds just like how the evidence of the earth is interpreted one way by evolutionists and another way by creationists. J. D. Hunt 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, among other issues, Collins isn't a creationist by most definitions. If you want to debate evolution and creationism I suggest you go to the newsgroup talk.origins or some other forum. This talk page is not to debate the topic. JoshuaZ 01:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Skimming the article, I would say that Collins is in no way supporting creation, but arguing that evolutionary theory may be compatible with God, and that he might, for example, have used evolution in the way Dawkins describes to get the results he wants. That's certainly not a typical view of creationism, and in fact it takes pains not to argue against evolutionary theory at all.  bikeable (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * actually he says evolution and God creating the earth are incompatable.J. D. Hunt 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC).J. D. Hunt 02:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating debate. But please note that the Collins does not say evolution is wrong.  He says that evolution is compatible with his view of God.  His view is that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explanied this fact.  He believes that God set this process in motion (ie: that eventually we would evolve from apes), but that is a theological argument with no way to prove it (ie: not science).  So Collins in no way would find this Wikipedia article objectionable.  His objections to evolution are entirely theological.  He strongly rejects Intelligent Design and Creationism in general.  He believes in Theistic evolution, a philosophy (in my opinion) that is the last refuge of the faithful.  Evolution has happened exactly as science says it does, but God still could have set it up.  In short, Collins would find nothing wrong with this article, no matter how much you would want him to.  Great scientist, too.--Roland Deschain 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the article and he clearly states that evolution does not go together with God creating the universeJ. D. Hunt 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Evolution does not have anything to do with the beginning of the universe. So if Collins said that, I'd have to say he does not understand what evolution actually is.  However, provide the quote and prove me wrong.--Roland Deschain 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the universe is related to evolution and is part of evolutionary theory. It is not the all and all of it, but it is a part of its theory, science and philosophy. And everything has a philosophy connected to it, so don't say there is know evolutionary philosophy. J. D. Hunt 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable. CMacMillan 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While a personal attack is never justified - you should never be called "dummy" on Wikipedia - there is little room for creationist rhetoric in the article on Evolution. The subject of religious controversy is covered, and your arguments are better placed in the Creationism area. It is always best to limit your involvement to areas you don't feel passionate about, and to consider whether your contribution may be to incite rather than educate. It is, perhaps, you who should be opening your mind. CMacMillan 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am open minded. I believe that 'God could also have activated evolution', but I believe that there is sufficient valid interpretation of the beggings evidence that could lead you to the opposite view than what evolutionists have come up with!J. D. Hunt 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not use these pages for such pointless discussion. You started off on a bad foot (wrongfully saying Collins is a creationist, forgetting to check his own Wiki page which clearly states that he is fervently opposed to creationism).  Now you have gone further downhill by the above vacuous statement.  I will quote CMacMillan for his great insight: "It is always best to limit your involvement to areas you don't feel passionate about, and to consider whether your contribution may be to incite rather than educate."--Roland Deschain 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Collins is a theistic evolutionist. His views are compatible with the science of evolution described in this article. You see, that is why it is called mainstream science, it covers a broad swath of reasonable people, some of who believe, some of who do not believe, in a higher order. It is only the fundamentalists who draw a line between reasonable people of faith and science. More to the point, Collins' personal views vis a vis theistic evolution are not relevant and/or sufficently covered in this article. JPotter 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The concept that evolution is necessarily related to the beginning of the Universe kind of depends on when you think the Univerise began, but much like peanut butter and jelly have something in common, they don't start at the same point. In any event, I'm certainly willing to entertain this discussion as I've never really spoken to anyone with an opposing viewpoint, but not on the Evolution talk page. It no longer has a place there. CMacMillan 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, who called you a dummy? I can find no record of that. CMacMillan 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Skimming through this old page, I saw this last statement by CMacMillan. No one used the exact words dummy to my face. But they inferred it in their smart and cheeky comments, either directly to me or indirectly to those who believe what I believe. P.S. Collins believes in theistic evolution or evolutionary creation (which is still creation, but via evolutionary factors.) J. D. Hunt (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)