Anyone else have a hard time believing in evolution?

[NickNaylor]

Disregarding everything Kirk Cameron and company suggest is sound logic. srs.

Disregarding everything Drs. Wells and Hebe say, is also fairly sound logic.

Thinking Evolution in its current form and accepted definitions is 100% proven and set-in-stone shows how little of a science background a person has.

Referring to Evilution as two parts, ie Macro and Micro components, shows a firm delusion and no understanding of the processes and mechanisms involved.

/thread

wut

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rentedmule]

I went to school in Texas and was never deprived of knowledge because of religion. I was deprived of knowledge because teachers are often subpar, the curriculum is poorly conveyed, tests are too easy and too many kids arent there to learn. I was taught about evolution in high school biology, it was just taught very poorly.

I did not mean to imply every single school district and school in Texas lol... Just the ones that think it's OK to put stickers on biology books that say evolution is "just a theory."

Disregarding everything Kirk Cameron and company suggest is sound logic. srs.

Disregarding everything Drs. Wells and Hebe say, is also fairly sound logic.

Thinking Evolution in its current form and accepted definitions is 100% proven and set-in-stone shows how little of a science background a person has.

Referring to Evilution as two parts, ie Macro and Micro components, shows a firm delusion and no understanding of the processes and mechanisms involved.

/thread

You mean Behe?

Regardless of spelling, I agree with most of your points.

 

[thedoctor8706]

It's almost not even worth the time to discuss this kind of stuff anymore... people are grounded in their ways. Entertaining to read though

 

[pradeepk]

its hard to not believe in a fact

 

[mauberley]

its hard to not believe in a fact

Which fact are we talking about?

 

[Simplify]

 

[NickNaylor]

Genius.

 

[KTownGT]

wut

wut, wut?

 

[BionicMan]

I agree with OP. As a bioengineer I'm definitely curious to know how living organisms work, but evolutionary theory as-is leaves me more questions than answers.

There are a lot of glaring holes in Chuckie D's evolutionary theory, but my favorite is the ever-true order cannot come from disorder. fully-functioning, self-replicating micromachines do not simply appear. wings do not simply appear. eyes do not simply appear. Desmosomes, anybody? It's freaking brilliant. Living tissues have the stamp of purpose.

Convergent evolution makes the whole idea twice as unlikely. And when you consider the fossil record, you must consider the elephant in the room that is "punctuated equilibrium." The dramatic overnight changes that must occur among so many different species all at once in discrete intervals drops the probability of evolution by random mutation to unfathomably low, yet it is purported to have happened multiple times this way.

In addition, geological and paleological sciences are barely a few hundred years old, and radioactive dating techniques are not dogma. There is not enough data to assert the accuracy of these methods. Even carbon dating was recently found to be error-prone, and that method is only good for 40,000 years or so. Extrapolating farther than your data is perilous. There is also the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to consider.

Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.

Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

There is definitely evidence for changing life on earth, but I am not prepared to accept the current theory and even those who love to get degrees in the soft sciences would be better served by considering the facts more closely than by ridiculing those who have.

 

[NickNaylor]

I agree with OP. As a bioengineer I'm definitely curious to know how living organisms work, but evolutionary theory as-is leaves me more questions than answers.

There are a lot of glaring holes in Chuckie D's evolutionary theory, but my favorite is the ever-true order cannot come from disorder. fully-functioning, self-replicating micromachines do not simply appear. wings do not simply appear. eyes do not simply appear. Desmosomes, anybody? It's freaking brilliant. Living tissues have the stamp of purpose.

Convergent evolution makes the whole idea twice as unlikely. And when you consider the fossil record, you must consider the elephant in the room that is "punctuated equilibrium." The dramatic overnight changes that must occur among so many different species all at once in discrete intervals drops the probability of evolution by random mutation to unfathomably low, yet it is purported to have happened multiple times this way.

In addition, geological and paleological sciences are barely a few hundred years old, and radioactive dating techniques are not dogma. There is not enough data to assert the accuracy of these methods. Even carbon dating was recently found to be error-prone, and that method is only good for 40,000 years or so. Extrapolating farther than your data is perilous. There is also the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to consider.

Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.

Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

There is definitely evidence for changing life on earth, but I am not prepared to accept the current theory and even those who love to get degrees in the soft sciences would be better served by considering the facts more closely than by ridiculing those who have.

Indeed. Those are the embryos that die off before being born or the creation of individuals with a host of genetic defects.

 

[mauberley]

Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

Okay.

 

[NightGod]

Anyone else have a hard time believing in pre-meds who don't believe in evolution?

 

[binko]

Anyone else have a hard time believing in pre-meds who don't believe in evolution?

Prove it! Show me miracles that religions exists!

[YOUTUBE]jaCgrRVW1Gs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Suncrusher]

Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.

So you believe the bolded, yet you claim to be suspicious of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil records, which could be attributed to genetic bottlenecking just like in the bacteria you described? Perhaps evolution would sound more plausible to you if you were aware that there are explanations for the so-called glaring holes you brought up. There are lots of other ideas about the gaps in the fossil record other than applications of the idea of genetic bottlenecking. Look into them.

FYI, talk of evolving bacteria is not always silly, for instance, in terms of directed evolution experiments in a lab, where one can ensure that any mutations were not present to begin with. I myself am carrying out such an experiment.

And you're right, eyes do not simply appear. I'm sick of even having to respond to the completely discredited (edited due to below)intelligent design idea of irreducible complexity, so I'll leave you to figure out that one on your own.

When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

inb4 facepalm.jpg

 

[NightGod]

And you're right, eyes do not simply appear. I'm sick of even having to respond to the completely discredited intelligent design idea of irreducible complexity, so I'll leave you to figure out that one on your own

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye

Eyeball stuff. You're gonna have to pony up cash or have a school/job that has a sub to read it though. Sorry, no one said the pursuit of knowledge was cheap~ Breaks it down pretty well.

 

[BA11]

I agree with OP. As a bioengineer I'm definitely curious to know how living organisms work, but evolutionary theory as-is leaves me more questions than answers.

There are a lot of glaring holes in Chuckie D's evolutionary theory, but my favorite is the ever-true order cannot come from disorder. fully-functioning, self-replicating micromachines do not simply appear. wings do not simply appear. eyes do not simply appear. Desmosomes, anybody? It's freaking brilliant. Living tissues have the stamp of purpose.

Convergent evolution makes the whole idea twice as unlikely. And when you consider the fossil record, you must consider the elephant in the room that is "punctuated equilibrium." The dramatic overnight changes that must occur among so many different species all at once in discrete intervals drops the probability of evolution by random mutation to unfathomably low, yet it is purported to have happened multiple times this way.

In addition, geological and paleological sciences are barely a few hundred years old, and radioactive dating techniques are not dogma. There is not enough data to assert the accuracy of these methods. Even carbon dating was recently found to be error-prone, and that method is only good for 40,000 years or so. Extrapolating farther than your data is perilous. There is also the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to consider.

Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.

Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

There is definitely evidence for changing life on earth, but I am not prepared to accept the current theory and even those who love to get degrees in the soft sciences would be better served by considering the facts more closely than by ridiculing those who have.

While I agree that it is always good to question the established order and I myself have doubts about some aspects of the current model of evolution, much of this post can be likened to the juror who looks for reasonable doubt where there is none. Just about every "glaring hole" you talked about can be refuted with solid scientific evidence.

 

[BA11]

And you're right, eyes do not simply appear. I'm sick of even having to respond to the completely discredited intelligent design idea of irreducible complexity, so I'll leave you to figure out that one on your own

Let me preface this by saying that there is a difference between strict creationism and intelligent design. Creationists typically assert that a deity created everything in its current form by hand, whereas intelligent design claims only that a deity set up a system by which things would naturally arrive at their present state (and continue to advance beyond that). I have no problem believing that God used evolution as his pathway for creation.

That being said, I get tired of the eye thing getting brought up too (as well as the bacterial flagella example).

 

[NickNaylor]

Let me preface this by saying that there is a difference between strict creationism and intelligent design. Creationists typically assert that a deity created everything in its current form by hand, whereas intelligent design claims only that a deity set up a system by which things would naturally arrive at their present state (and continue to advance beyond that). I have no problem believing that God used evolution as his pathway for creation.

That being said, I get tired of the eye thing getting brought up too (as well as the bacterial flagella example).

I think that's an important point to make clear. Intelligent design is definitely an attempt by the religious to make their beliefs agree with scientific knowledge. Intelligent design =/= rejection of science. Creationism = rejection of science.

 

[Suncrusher]

I apologize for making the assumption that this guy was coming from an ID standpoint. I tend to make the mistake of automatically associating anyone who brings up irreducible complexity with ID, because that was certainly one of the most persuasive (if almost entirely discredited) ideas brought to the table by ID supporters, seeing as it convinced a lot of people a few years ago.

...intelligent design claims only that a deity set up a system by which things would naturally arrive at their present state (and continue to advance beyond that)...

...Intelligent design is definitely an attempt by the religious to make their beliefs agree with scientific knowledge. Intelligent design =/= rejection of science. Creationism = rejection of science.

Those statements, however, are also not fully accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design I wish to further distinguish between the many upstanding scientists who fully accept evolution (but reconcile that acceptance with religion using beliefs such as that there is a god who has a "plan" for evolution) and true intelligent design believers who do not fully accept evolution (believing that many phenomena currently explained by the theory of evolution are better explained by the prior existence of intelligence). The latter group is worthy of coming under scientific criticism because they currently have no legitimate ground to stand on; the former group holds a purely religious belief. Don't let the innocuous name of "intelligent design" (which sounds like it should apply to the former group of people as well) trick you into thinking intelligent design is more scientifically-benign than it really is, or that such a term accurately describes your own beliefs when, in actuality, you fall into the former group.

Fully accepting evolution but reconciling science with religious beliefs != rejection of science, because neither does it = "Intelligent Design."

"Intelligent Design" is a movement that does actually = rejection of science to a significant extent, and should not be confused with more mainstream, scientifically-benign religious beliefs.

 

[BA11]

I've never understood religious people who refuse to acknowledge science. Basically what they are saying is that they believe in a deceptive God who tries to trick his believers. Why else would God put all this evidence of evolution here if it wasnt in fact a correct theory? I just don't believe a caring God would do that, it makes no sense in any capacity.

 

[GooseWing]

Don't let the innocuous name of "intelligent design" trick you into thinking intelligent design is more scientifically-benign than it really is, or that that term accurately describes your beliefs when, in actuality, you fall into the former group.

The ID people are the one's who see the overwhelming evidence of evolution yet are unable to let go of the God they hold oh-so-dearly because mommy and daddy crammed it into their heads when they were too young to know any better.

 

[BA11]

The ID people are the one's who see the overwhelming evidence of evolution yet are unable to let go of the God they hold oh-so-dearly because mommy and daddy crammed it into their heads when they were too young to know any better.

I personally believe that the natural wonder that is evolution is just further evidence of the existence of a creator, a divine blueprint if you will. It's intricacy and precision is, in a sense, incredibly beautiful. To each their own I suppose

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I agree with OP. As a bioengineer I'm definitely curious to know how living organisms work, but evolutionary theory as-is leaves me more questions than answers.

There are a lot of glaring holes in Chuckie D's evolutionary theory, but my favorite is the ever-true order cannot come from disorder. fully-functioning, self-replicating micromachines do not simply appear. wings do not simply appear. eyes do not simply appear. Desmosomes, anybody? It's freaking brilliant. Living tissues have the stamp of purpose.

Convergent evolution makes the whole idea twice as unlikely. And when you consider the fossil record, you must consider the elephant in the room that is "punctuated equilibrium." The dramatic overnight changes that must occur among so many different species all at once in discrete intervals drops the probability of evolution by random mutation to unfathomably low, yet it is purported to have happened multiple times this way.

In addition, geological and paleological sciences are barely a few hundred years old, and radioactive dating techniques are not dogma. There is not enough data to assert the accuracy of these methods. Even carbon dating was recently found to be error-prone, and that method is only good for 40,000 years or so. Extrapolating farther than your data is perilous. There is also the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to consider.

Also, talk of evolving bacteria is silly. Natural selection, not "fortunate mutation in the nick of time just before extinction" leads to superbugs, because those defenses must have already been present in some strains. They did not appear just as the penicillin showed up.

Since evolution is, after all, a biomechanical process, it cannot simply be proved by pointing to rock formations and comparing similarities between animals. There must be a proven process. When you consider that according to current evolutionary theory the creation of new genetic material is due entirely to random mutation, any good engineer would laugh. Optimization requires careful planning. Things left to themselves fall apart.

There is definitely evidence for changing life on earth, but I am not prepared to accept the current theory and even those who love to get degrees in the soft sciences would be better served by considering the facts more closely than by ridiculing those who have.

incidentally, that's my favorite too, because the way people like you use it shows how little you understand of the very thermodynamic concept you invoke. the very fact that i'm typing on a keyboard made from raw, 'disorganized' materials should be proof sufficient that your understanding is very flawed. further, here's your "order from disorder" proof-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

i don't have time for the rest of your post, but you need to study more.

I've never understood religious people who refuse to acknowledge science. Basically what they are saying is that they believe in a deceptive God who tries to trick his believers. Why else would God put all this evidence of evolution here if it wasnt in fact a correct theory? I just don't believe a caring God would do that, it makes no sense in any capacity.

exactly. reason is a faculty endowed by god, so why would god be unreasonable?

 

[BA11]

incidentally, that's my favorite too, because the way people like you use it shows how little you understand of the very thermodynamic concept you invoke. the very fact that i'm typing on a keyboard made from raw, 'disorganized' materials should be proof sufficient that your understanding is very flawed. further, here's your "order from disorder" proof-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

It seems like a large number of people who recite the "order cannot come from disorder" bit don't understand that natural law dictates only that the entire entropy of the universe cannot decrease, but any individual organism or group of organisms can become more ordered at the expense of universal order at some level.

Water freezing is always a good example. The water forms a solid, thus becoming more ordered, at the expense of the surrounding atmosphere which absorbs the heat from the water allowing it to freeze. That water itself has decreased it's disorder, but the disorder of the surroundings has increased due to the heat energy.

 

[Suncrusher]

"any good engineer would laugh" at another engineer who forgets about open systems vs. closed systems

 

[rentedmule]

I think that's an important point to make clear. Intelligent design is definitely an attempt by the religious to make their beliefs agree with scientific knowledge. Intelligent design =/= rejection of science. Creationism = rejection of science.

lolwut? Ever heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover?

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_31_of_139

 

[RogueUnicorn]

"any good engineer would laugh" at another engineer who forgets about open systems vs. closed systems

bio"engineer"

 

[BA11]

lolwut? Ever heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover?


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_31_of_139

Nobody here is arguing that ID OR creationism should be taught in schools, because the existence of a deity cannot be evidenced one way or the other. However, to deny the fundamental difference between creationism versus ID is to turn a blind eye for the sake of talking down to anyone who believes in God, belief in science be damned.

 

[rentedmule]

Nobody here is arguing that ID OR creationism should be taught in schools, because the existence of a deity cannot be evidenced one way or the other. However, to deny the fundamental difference between creationism versus ID is to turn a blind eye for the sake of talking down to anyone who believes in God, belief in science be damned.

I was addressing the argument that if A (ID is not Creationism and Creationism is rejection of science) is true then B (ID is not rejection of science) must be true. Since it has been proven over and over again (whether legally or otherwise) in the near past that ID is just a thinly veiled version of Creationism and Creationism obviously rejects science, then ID rejects science.

The comment was not about ID being taught in schools, just an application of simple logic.

 

[paul411]

ID and creationism are like the same ***** child dressed up in two different (equally *****ic) outfits.

 

[BA11]

I was addressing the argument that if A (ID is not Creationism and Creationism is rejection of science) is true then B (ID is not rejection of science) must be true. Since it has been proven over and over again (whether legally or otherwise) in the near past that ID is just a thinly veiled version of Creationism and Creationism obviously rejects science, then ID rejects science.

The comment was not about ID being taught in schools, just an application of simple logic.

I don't really care what some misguided yokel from a deep south school district considers ID to be, I'm telling you that true ID is inherently different than creationism. If some people want to pervert the truth and try and play creationism off as ID that is their issue, but it doesnt change reality. No matter how many times I claim that my RV is a speedboat, it will never in reality be a speedboat.

 

[rentedmule]

I don't really care what some misguided yokel from a deep south school district considers ID to be, I'm telling you that true ID is inherently different than creationism. If some people want to pervert the truth and try and play creationism off as ID that is their issue, but it doesnt change reality. No matter how many times I claim that my RV is a speedboat, it will never in reality be a speedboat.

I am really curious as to what the definition of "true ID" is. Please enlighten the rest of us who are misguided by the wolf in sheep's clothing analogy.

 

[BA11]

I am really curious as to what the definition of "true ID" is. Please enlighten the rest of us who are misguided by the wolf in sheep's clothing analogy.

The definition of ID is as follows:

n.
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes

All this means is that evolution, selection, etc. were implemented by a creator as a mechanism for creation, not that they do not exist. All other definitions are either pervertions used by creationists to try and legitimize their position or by the anti-religion crowd who wish to throw all religious individuals, scientists or not, into the same boat and sink it.​

Creationism on the other hand is defined as:​

n.​

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Now, if you have read the bible you know that a literal interpretation means that one believes God created the world in seven days around 6,200 years ago, created everything in its current form and evolution simply does not occur at the species level. This is fundamentally different than ID and to say it isnt is an insult to the thousands of respected doctors, scientists and researchers who acknowledge science while maintaining their personal belief in God.

 

[Suncrusher]

The definition of ID is as follows:

The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes

undirected natural processes rules out evolution by natural selection. Selection, when directed, is termed "artificial selection."

 

[BA11]

undirected natural processes rules out evolution by natural selection. Selection, when directed, is termed "artificial selection."

That's simply a matter of perception. Artificial selection is only perceived as artificial by the entity doing the selecting. To the entity being selected for or against it appears entirely random. Unless everyone on earth is prepared to acknowledge us as God's bacterial plate, the manner in which species are selected for or against will continue to be natural in our eyes, as it should.

 

[rentedmule]

That's simply a matter of perception. Artificial selection is only perceived as artificial by the entity doing the selecting. To the entity being selected for or against it appears entirely random. Unless everyone on earth is prepared to acknowledge us as God's bacterial plate, the manner in which species are selected for or against will continue to be natural in our eyes, as it should.

Hold on... I have to take 5 minutes to recover from how un-intelligently designed your argument is.

 

[Suncrusher]

BA11, if you believe in the existence of god and find a personal, non-evidence-based confirmation of that belief in the intricacy, precision, and wonder of the natural world and do not believe that certain observable phenomena currently described by the theory of evolution necessitate or can be better explained by the existence of a prior intelligence, then fine. That is a perfectly unassailable personal belief, and that is the sense about your beliefs that I have gotten from your previous posts, although I apologize in advance if I am wrong and please correct me if I am.

But your belief is not what 99% of people who talk about intelligent design are talking about. They are saying that there are flaws or holes in the way the theory of evolution describes certain observable phenomena and that those phenomena are best described by purposeful design by a prior intelligence. That is, at its core, a creationist belief (albeit not a young-earth creationist belief). You can say that everyone else is misconstruing what "true" ID is, but then you are disagreeing with the creators of ID theory themselves, and US court rulings, and the leading scientists who are trying to make arguments for ID, so...

If you go back and read post 320, I get the sense that you fall into the first group of people that I talked about. Again, I apologize in advance if I have gotten the wrong idea about the specifics of your beliefs.

That's simply a matter of perception. Artificial selection is only perceived as artificial by the entity doing the selecting. To the entity being selected for or against it appears entirely random. Unless everyone on earth is prepared to acknowledge us as God's bacterial plate, the manner in which species are selected for or against will continue to be natural in our eyes, as it should.

No, the definition of intelligent design was specifically formulated to rule out pure, godless natural selection and your argument is a semantic one...one that the vast majority of ID-proponents, including the creators of the movement, would disagree with.

 

[Suncrusher]

I believe the term you are searching for to describe your own beliefs might be "theistic evolution" (along the lines of Francis Collins) rather than "intelligent design." Again, I apologize if I have gotten the completely wrong idea about your beliefs and I await further clarification.

All this means is that evolution, selection, etc. were implemented by a creator as a mechanism for creation, not that they do not exist. All other definitions are either pervertions used by creationists to try and legitimize their position or by the anti-religion crowd who wish to throw all religious individuals, scientists or not, into the same boat and sink it.... an insult to the thousands of respected doctors, scientists and researchers who acknowledge science while maintaining their personal belief in God.

What you describe here perfectly fits the definition of theistic evolution, not intelligent design. I think your beliefs, along with the thousands of respected doctors/scientists/researchers whom you talk about, fit with theistic evolution, and you, like most of them already have, would do well at this point in time to embrace that term. If you continue to utilize the term intelligent design to describe your beliefs, people will continue to be very confused by what you mean.

 

[NickNaylor]

Just so I understand, the only difference between "theistic evolution" and ID is the idea that there is a purpose in the mechanism of evolution, right? Or am I missing something?

In other words, the TE idea doesn't necessarily require all the business about man being God's ultimate creation (instead, evolution is just a process that arose in the creation and happened to make man) vs. ID which seems to state that evolution was created SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of producing man. Amidoinitrite?

 

[BA11]

I can't think of any respected scientists who have openly argued against selection using ID as their reasoning. I'm sure there are some, but I would be surprised if they are not in the minority among God-fearing scientific minds.

I personally question several aspects of evolutionary theory as it stands today (such as the over emphasis on natural selection as opposed to other natural factors that participate in the process as well), but only to the degree that I believe it is necessary for us all to question any part of a scientific idea that we have less than iron-clad evidence of. I don't really see any "holes" though, at least none that are glaring as others have suggested.

 

[Suncrusher]

Just so I understand, the only difference between "theistic evolution" and ID is the idea that there is a purpose in the mechanism of evolution, right? Or am I missing something?

No...ID explicitly rejects that evolutionary processes alone could have produced certain features of life/living organisms. It thus does not avoid the science-religion conflict.

 

[BA11]

What you describe here perfectly fits the definition of theistic evolution, NOT intelligent design. I think your beliefs, along with the thousands of respected doctors/scientists/researchers whom you talk about, fit with theistic evolution, and you, like most of them already have, would do well at this point in time to embrace that term. If you continue to utilize the term intelligent design to describe your beliefs, people will continue to be very confused by what you mean.

To me, theistic evolution just takes ID to it's logical ends. God created everything and evolution is a process within that creation and life came about via that process. I may be wrong, but as I understand it theistic evolution also claims that God intentionally used evolution to bring about life as he saw fit, which as you said technically rules natural selection at least from God's perspective. Thus I really don't see the difference in the two terms, other than one explains the idea and the other takes the idea and implements it. I think intelligent design gets a bad rap because there are creationists who cling to it.

 

[Narmerguy]

No...ID explicitly rejects that evolutionary processes alone could have produced certain features of life/living organisms

I don't get how anyone can have the balls to argue something like this when the evidence behind all of this is non conclusive and mostly dependent on whether or not you're willing to accept that a highly unprobabilistic event in fact occurred through random chance or with some help. There's no way to know and I think anyone that tries to pretend they know what did not happen is equally bigoted (if not more arrogant as well) than someone who posits what did happen.

No one wants to admit that they don't know and that they have a good chance of being wrong. Everyone's logic and reasoning is infallible, surely anyone who disagrees is just mentally ******ed or in denial. Give me a break. Have some respect for the intelligence of those around you and consider that maybe something that seems plainly evident to you is actually deeply wrong.

The religious-like zeal behind both stances clearly represent leaps of faith being taken. I think it's disappointing that one group won't own up to the fact that they're operating off of faith themselves but the truth is that no one knows for sure and at the root of our arguments is a piece of faith upon which everything else is built.

 

[Suncrusher]

To me, theistic evolution just takes ID to it's logical ends. God created everything and evolution is a process within that creation and life came about via that process. I may be wrong, but as I understand it theistic evolution also claims that God intentionally used evolution to bring about life as he saw fit, which as you said technically rules natural selection at least from God's perspective. Thus I really don't see the difference in the two terms, other than one explains the idea and the other takes the idea and implements it. I think intelligent design gets a bad rap because there are creationists who cling to it.

no, ID explicitly conflicts with science and the idea that evolution and natural processes alone can fully explain everything. This is why most scientists, doctors, researchers, etc (who, like many of us, thought ID sounded perfectly reasonable at first glance) have abandoned ID.

Theistic evolution does not conflict with science at all. It is a religious belief that all natural mechanisms, which on their own fully explain phenomena such as evolution, were created by a god.

 

[BA11]

No...ID explicitly rejects that evolutionary processes alone could have produced certain features of life/living organisms

See, this is where we differ. I've never heard this as part of a serious ID discussion. I've heard that SELECTION alone could not have produced life as we see it today, but there are just as many people who don't beleive in God that claim this as those that do. All evolutionary processes together are sufficient for life as we know it and I can't really see how anyone who acknowledges the science could deny that. Every fathomable crack in the evolutionary armor has been addressed with at least moderate scientific evidence and evolutionary processes have stood up every time. Could we discover something to change this? Certainly, but dollars to donuts says it will simply be an as of now unknown evolutionary process, not an outside force.

 

[Suncrusher]

I don't get how anyone can have the balls to argue something like this when the evidence behind all of this is non conclusive and mostly dependent on whether or not you're willing to accept that a highly unprobabilistic event in fact occurred through random chance or with some help. There's no way to know and I think anyone that tries to pretend they know what did not happen is equally bigoted (if not more arrogant as well) than someone who posits what did happen.

No one wants to admit that they don't know and that they have a good chance of being wrong. Everyone's logic and reasoning is infallible, surely anyone who disagrees is just mentally ******ed or in denial. Give me a break. Have some respect for the intelligence of those around you and consider that maybe something that seems plainly evident to you is actually deeply wrong.

The religious-like zeal behind both stances clearly represent leaps of faith being taken. I think it's disappointing that one group won't own up to the fact that they're operating off of faith themselves but the truth is that no one knows for sure and at the root of our arguments is a piece of faith upon which everything else is built.

Since when has a high-improbability of a natural mechanism occurring to explain a phenomenon been equatable with inventing a metaphysical being to explain that same result?

That's the nature of science. You go with the best explanation you have. When you think the best explanation you have for the diversity of life necessitates overt actions by a being outside of the physical universe, you're no longer within the realm of science.

 

[BA11]

no, ID explicitly conflicts with science and the idea that evolution and natural processes alone can fully explain everything. This is why most scientists, doctors, researchers, etc (who, like many of us, thought ID sounded perfectly reasonable at first glance) have abandoned ID.

Theistic evolution does not conflict with science at all. It is a religious belief that all natural mechanisms, which on their own fully explain phenomena such as evolution, were created by a god.

Fair enough, I can accept that. Maybe I've just had sheltered exposure to ID I believe in the framework interpretation of Genesis, and after looking up theistic evolution that is in fact part of it.

Now what happens when Jim Bob from Pampa, Texas finds out about theistic evolution and takes that too?

 

[Narmerguy]

Since when has a high-improbability of a natural mechanism occurring to explain a phenomenon been equatable with inventing a metaphysical being to explain that same result?

You're asking me why I don't see much difference between two groups spouting highly improbable explanations? In hypothesis testing, a probability value past a certain threshold signals that random chance likely cannot account for the observed phenomena and that there is likely some non-random explanatory forces. This is one of the foundations of science research and without this theory we could never assert anything because people would simply say "yeah it's unlikely but it appears that it must be true huh?".

You're asking me why I find it odd that there is no statistical threshold that will convince one group that it could not be the result of random chance isn't absurd? I'm not saying the group is wrong, I'm merely pointing out that at least the other side's attempt at an explanation is consistent with a probabilistic approach similar to what we use in science and research.

 

[Narmerguy]

Since when has a high-improbability of a natural mechanism occurring to explain a phenomenon been equatable with inventing a metaphysical being to explain that same result?

That's the nature of science. You go with the best explanation you have. When you think the best explanation you have for the diversity of life necessitates overt actions by a being outside of the physical universe, you're no longer within the realm of science.

And why is this the limitation?

Are you saying if it cannot be explained by science it cannot be true? Can you scientifically depend that statement?

That's my point, you cannot scientifically defend everything no matter how scientists try. Science takes faith, we believe in a certain way the world works and we believe that way because it's always worked out for us and it allows us to do powerful things. But it's a mistake to lord smugly over others for making leaps of faith without being willing to acknowledge the leap we all make as scientists.

Scientists try to present themselves as the ultimate in objectivity and unbiased analysis and it simply is impossible to measure up to that ideal. Science's explanatory powers are vast but limited and when we reach its limits we see the objectivity most profoundly.

 

[Suncrusher]

Interesting points. But once we venture into the metaphysical, anything is equally likely. Thus I personally find it completely pointless to venture there and think it makes sense to use the the realm of science as a practical limitation for any discussions, so that I can comfort myself with lies that I am not completely wasting my life here on earth

I apologize if I belittled anyone who believes in ID while trying to explain the difference between intelligent design and theistic evolution.