It should be mentioned of course that evolutionary theory doesn’t really have anything to do with Dudeism. Nor does God. Dudeism makes no claims about theology or science. And this article only argued that Darwin was a dude. In this context, our individual opinions on God and science are just our opinions, man.

Dudeism is about the poetic and perceived “way” of “making this life significant” (Roger Ames’ translation of the title of the “Tao Te Ching.”) It is fundamentally humanistic. Thus, if questions about God and cosmology and science come up, then they should be looked at only metaphorically or poetically. Their literal truth or falsehood should have no bearing on our Dude worldview. Dontcha think?

I mean, Darwin was a scientist, not a philosopher, he set out to discover what was. Darwin I like, Dawkins really pee’s me off, he’s like the atheist version of a radical cleric (yeah, I consider atheism a religion, I mean, it’s a faith in an ideal, right?), the man’s got a beef against organist religion and he uses people’s modern belief in the lack of godliness as a front for his own shit. Darwin can be a Dude but Dawkins is the Anti-Dude if ever I saw one… man, I can’t abide that guy…

just curious what it is that peeves you about darwin/evolution. that’s the thing i don’t really get.

your two cents more than welcome, but if you want to throw in a few more cents that’d be great too. it sounds like you’re taking a bit of offense though. no hard intended. this is a family restaurant.

Whatever, dude. I added my two cents to the discussion and clarified when deemed necessary. That’s plenty.

I find it infinitely puzzling that people fine more meaning in a top-down approach to explain the world than a bottom-up one. For me the bottom up explanation is a tale of true adventure and beauty, and the notion that there is an organizing top-down principle to explain the world is hopelessly simplistic and dull.

Taoism is far more in line with Darwin and the theory of evolution than any creationist ever could be. Taoism supports the notion that there is a flow and development to life – not that it is predetermined, but that it unfolds naturally and in a myriad number of ways, all of them ultimately good, but not preordained.

Evolution in fact showed that man is vehemently not at the top of the pyramid, but a side branch of a growing bush.

It’s a shame that the actual poetry of the theory of evolution isn’t something that people were taught in school or encouraged to discuss openly. The consequence is that most people don’t actually understand what it’s all about. It’s far more beautiful, fascinating and complicated than the talking heads on TV would have you believe. It’s not a linear process with man on the top. It is in many ways in line with the mythological understanding of the world purveyed by Joseph Campbell – it’s a journey of heroic genes.

But then, what’s a hee-ro? That’s the real question.

The whole thing is just another part of Man’s feeling of superiority. Whether through religion or evolution humamns still think they’re at the top of the heap. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Noody shits in their own backyard like this species. If anything, we’re collectively at the bottom of the heap for arrogantly making such waste of our potential.

bottom line is that the intelligent design community is clutching at straws, desperate for a loophole to cling to. once in a while a muscular thinker like this michael behe cat comes along and throws a wrench into the system with his “irreducible” flagellum hypothesis. but it’s just a grain of sand which (if history is anything to go by) will produce another pearl of wisdom and insight in the scientific community when scientists without agendas attack the problem.

http://tinyurl.com/bjbsk3

and i slouch corrected, you’re way more in your element than i gave you credit for. you came off sounding like someone from the Kansas school board, now you sound like a much smarter feller than that other mcnuggetz.

of course, it seems you’re firmly in the intelligent design camp by championing the view that the “irreducible complexity” of the bacterial flagellum is a puzzle that science will never be able to explain via evolutionary theory.

however, if science just gave up and cried “God did it” every time it tripped over a two-by-four, we’d still be living in mud huts, eatin’ crawdad.

which, i believe is actually an argument in your favor. those mud hut crawdad days might have been pretty easygoing. except when there was no crawdad and we had to eat sand.

there’s no such thing as total unquestionable proof in science, but evolution on the “macro” level (as you call it) is pretty much in the bag, evidence- and proof-wise. not sure where you got your info but it was almost surely from the creationist camp, not science. sharks don’t turn into rabbits as you say, but a proto-shark turned into a proto-rabbit. that is, they shared a common genetic compeer.

how could darwin know about dna? it was discovered by watson and crick like 100 years later! the discovery of dna helped support darwin’s theories, by the way. so what’s your fucking point, walter?

also, darwin wasn’t into eugenics at all. if you read the article more closely you’ll see that that was addressed directly. that was a bunch of fucking fascists perverting the message, man.

finally, not sure which darwinists you’re referring to but i’m pretty sure nobody with half a brain cell ever said inbreeding was cool.

sorry mcnuggetz, but you’re out of your element.