Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[RogueUnicorn]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence 🙄

not an assumption.

 

[rockaction]

This is a good post and something I hadn't considered before. I'm not very good at apologetics, so forgive me if my response is clumsy and inarticulate. My first thought is that just because something isn't recorded, that doesn't mean it did not occur.

Another possibility..and the one I'm leaning towards...is the misconception that God isn't okay with people dying. In the Old Testament, especially, we see God raging wars and directly killing people at some points. If you have read the Old Testament, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture God just deciding not to jump in and claim His people(the Jews) for quite some time.

I'll probably respond to this again later once I have some more time to think about it.

All I know is that I wouldn't serve that God.

 

[Sesom]

I could not take part in this debate. I believe the term for what I believe in is "theistic evolution" and that, basically, God exists, He/She created the universe, as well as all of the biological processes within it, including evolution. Makes the most sense to me.

It doesn't matter where someone decides to plug god into the equation, it still makes no sense. That's why it's called faith I suppose.😱

 

[Old Grunt]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence 🙄

The problem with ID is that it assumes that every part of a novel phenotype had to evolve in a certain sequence to give rise to a new feature. That breaks one of the cardinal assumptions of ET, which is evolution is non-directional.

The argument about the flagellum is exactly that it evolved from other features that served other functions. As Miller points out, the base component of the flagellum protein is found in a prokaryotic injector. Thus, the assumption is that flagella evolved out of the injector, which had it's own purpose. Miller just uses the mousetrap analogy to dumb the issue down to a non-scientific crowd.

I don't have "faith" in evolution. That's another flaw of the ID crowd. They rely on faith (when you introduce the supernatural, you have to rely on faith) Those of us who accept ET, do so on the basis that it is supported by the scientific data and evidence.

No one can say whether or not ID is true. That is not the issue. The issue is that it is untestable. Therefore, it does not belong in the realm of science.

For ID to be science, the proponents of ID would first have to accept that the existence of God could be falsified.

 

[rockaction]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence 🙄

Are you seriously saying that the flagellum is irreducibly complex? Check out that video posted several posts up by the YouTube user potholer54. If you believe God invented the bacterial flagellum you also have to give him credit for the deaths that cholera, salmonella, e coli, campylobacter, and helicobacter are responsible for. Cholera kills you in 2 hours if you don't get an IV pumping fluids into you. Man, does God love us! Thanks for designing that flagellum!

 

[Geekchick921]

Another possibility..and the one I'm leaning towards...is the misconception that God isn't okay with people dying. In the Old Testament, especially, we see God raging wars and directly killing people at some points. If you have read the Old Testament, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture God just deciding not to jump in and claim His people(the Jews) for quite some time.

Side note: I sometimes refer to the New Testament as "After God finished His anger management course."

 

[medschoolfamily]

Evolution, in my opinion, does hurt religious beliefs. For the Christian pro-evolution people, answer me this:

You claim that ~2000-3000 years ago, God revealed himself to man and gave humans his divine revelation. It doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. But God gave it to man progressively only a couple thousand or so years ago, and this is a path to human salvation and you believe that humans should treasure the Bible as God's revelation.

Anthropologists would say that homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years (by a very conservative estimate). You mean to tell me that for 997,000 years God watched our species indifferently as it died in a horrific, bloody, and savage evolutionary arms race? He waited until then to drop by with the divine intervention? You call this God "loving"? God just watched as our ancestors routinely died at the age of 20 of starvation?

It makes more sense to me why Christians tend to accept creationism over evolution because then we wouldn't have this problem. If you mix Christianity and evolution, you have to deal with these issues.

I accept evolution perfectly fine but your post shows much ignorance toward Christianity. We don't deny that prior to the Incarnation was death, pain, and suffering. There is still death, pain, and suffering so why wouldn't there be that before the Incarnation? If you disobey you parents there's no reason why you shouldn't be reprimanded. Likewise, if you disobey your heavenly father you should be reprimanded and due to the gravity of this sin, the punishment should be greater than a timeout in your room.

Christians also believe that those who died before the Incarnation have just as much chance to get to Heaven as those who die after God's revelation. It's not like God just offers salvation to people after he came to earth, of course not. I'm not sure where you heard these things from, but they are incredibly misinformed.

 

[VTBuc]

Side note: I sometimes refer to the New Testament as "After God finished His anger management course."

 

[Old Grunt]

Are you seriously saying that the flagellum is irreducibly complex? Check out that video posted several posts up by the YouTube user potholer54. If you believe God invented the bacterial flagellum you also have to give him credit for the deaths that cholera, salmonella, e coli, campylobacter, and helicobacter are responsible for. Cholera kills you in 2 hours if you don't get an IV pumping fluids into you. Man, does God love us! Thanks for designing that flagellum!

Why not? Dr. Behe argues for it, and he's a tenured professor at Lehigh.

I am kidding, of course, I think ID is absurd.

A scientist shouldn't be very proud of a layperson shredding their scientific theory to bits.

That's exactly what happened to Behe.

 

[Practitioner]

I find it interesting that so many people buy into this lie. No, not the lie of creationism. No, not the lie of evolution. But the lie that the two are in contradiction with each other. What the people in this thread are calling evolution is not Darwinian evolution. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. He did not in fact attempt to even address the origin of life itself. Those who say so should get their heads out of Richard Dawkins anus and read for themselves. What the world knew of biology in 1859 isn't exactly the same as what we know now.

Darwinism in and of itself (as a theory or fact depending more on your politics sadly than anything else) begins after life began. Sure many people try to stretch Darwinian theory to include the origins of life but its lacking in any real source. I have no problem fully accepting the idea of evolution and even Darwinian evolution as defined by Darwin himself. However, to apply this theory to the beginnings of life is unreasonable and unfounded. If neither "creationists" nor "evolutionists" really know how life actually began, why the emotional reactions and arguments? The real problem is the beliefs that run with most "evolutionists" that also run in opposition with things like religion and "creationism" and thus ID. I find the idea of ID no more preposterous than "seeding" or "crystal theory".

Evolution strictly defined is in fact, a fact. (yes, I said fact twice). Change over time doesn't really address the beginnings of life. Why people have such a problem with people offering suggestions or asking questions about something no one has yet been able to figure out or prove (the beginning of life) is beyond me. Why people have such emotional and physical responses to faith leads me to think its less about science and proof and more about a clash of beliefs and world views.

This. Time and time again. The friction between religion and "evolution" is created by people who are as fanatical about "evolution" as some devout people are about "creationism" or "intelligent design". Those concepts are practically political ones. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, certainly not in the broadest topics and issues describing life, and not necessarily with evolution.

In the epistemology as related to religion, there are basic tenants of faith that are established as a requirement for that faith that are immutable regardless of the observation of reality (God exists and created this universe -- nothing of how, not in the human perception of how). Evolution in concept is the means by which life came to be as it is known today, whether by God or natural law. The perception of it as either "this" or "that" is based entirely on the premise of whether you accept the concept of God or not.

This view may be one of post-modern deconstructionist thought, but it most accurately represents the ID vs Evo debate. Either side is inherently wrong in trying to deny the other or defend itself with the religious fervor they share. Getting to the "origin of life" as an absolute (vs a process) is never going to be something objectively observable. The puritanical elitist attitude of many "evolutionists" is as obtuse (and annoying) as an evangelical "creationist" attitude, both sides are wrong in as much.

To the OP, for your purposes Dawkins or is the best bet. Take out his inherent anti-God arguments, and explain that ID isn't "scientific" but more geared toward philosophy. Since this last year was the two hundredth anniversary of Darwin's birthday (150th for Origin of Species), I read that and was surprised at how detailed and extensive Darwin's work is. If you have a chance that would be a great resource, although he had some of the basic biology misunderstood at that point. Dense reading too, I couldn't finish it although I intend to. It is purely about evolution/adaptation/etc and has no political or anti-religious undertones, refreshingly.

 

[medschoolfamily]

I'm not going to get into an apologetics discourse here. It's neither the time nor the place for such material. I always enjoy seeing the direction these threads take from the original intent. It always seems to come down evolutionists "proving" the existence of things no one has ever seen while at the same time discrediting creationists foolishly buying into religious jargon. Like I said before in my original post, I believe that evolution is happening all around us but it cannot, has not, and will not prove the origin of life.

 

[Old Grunt]

I accept evolution perfectly fine but your post shows much ignorance toward Christianity. We don't deny that prior to the Incarnation was death, pain, and suffering. There is still death, pain, and suffering so why wouldn't there be that before the Incarnation? If you disobey you parents there's no reason why you shouldn't be reprimanded. Likewise, if you disobey your heavenly father you should be reprimanded and due to the gravity of this sin, the punishment should be greater than a timeout in your room.

Christians also believe that those who died before the Incarnation have just as much chance to get to Heaven as those who die after God's revelation. It's not like God just offers salvation to people after he came to earth, of course not. I'm not sure where you heard these things from, but they are incredibly misinformed.

"Christians" believe a lot of things, many of which do not mesh with your post and views.

 

[MichaelRW]

I have a debate this week. I'm on the Evolution side. Any good resources, especially for debunking the watchmaker analogy?

Watch this excellent documentary produced by PBS outlining the 2004 Dover Area High School trial which pitted so-called “Intelligent Design theory” against Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. This documentary is fairly long (just under two hours), but I can assure you that it is one of the best programs ever produced on the topic. In this program not only are the personalities and institutions involved in the ideological struggle interrogated, but also the theory of evolution and “intelligent design” are explained in clear and concise detail. I can almost guarantee that you’ll enjoy this engaging program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

 

[rockaction]

If you disobey you parents there's no reason why you shouldn't be reprimanded. Likewise, if you disobey your heavenly father you should be reprimanded and due to the gravity of this sin, the punishment should be greater than a timeout in your room.

What did I do? I didn't do anything wrong. I was born: that was my sin, apparently.

Christians also believe that those who died before the Incarnation have just as much chance to get to Heaven as those who die after God's revelation. It's not like God just offers salvation to people after he came to earth, of course not. I'm not sure where you heard these things from, but they are incredibly misinformed.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Way to add to the words of the Bible. NO ONE gets to heaven except through Christ.

Now anyway, everything I said about Homo sapiens and evolution is true. Homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years and have been butchered and pruned by natural selection. It wasn't until a couple thousand years ago (when people started making settlements and stopped being nomadic - which would have been a great time to start writing stories down by the way) that God suddenly stepped in to tell everyone his rules. Why didn't God step in the moment humans became sentient? Instead, he let countless members of our species suffer for no damn reason at all. What did we do? What made us deserve this? Why do you worship this God again? He seems indifferent to human life.

The universe is indifferent. It doesn't care if we die. Life makes no sense in light of all the horrible things that happen to us (natural disasters, disease, etc) that we do not deserve if there is a personal God up there. Deism and atheism make way more sense to me.

But you apparently believe that humans are fallen and deserve all of this pain that is inflicted needlessly on us. I probably can't change your mind on that point.

I was a Christian until my second year of college, by the way

 

[futIDdoc]

I don't know of many Christians holding that the 6 day creation narrative in Genesis is 6 24 hours periods of time. We believe that it's symbolic and just shows the process of desiging the world in which we live. As a theology/pre-med major, I spent quite a bit of time on this topic from both sides and found alot more evidence favoring ID. The one biological mechanism that stands out to me is ATP Synthase (especially the proton pump). Evolutionary theories constantly state that mutations favoring survival persist while mutations that serve no function and that do not enhance survival do not remain. The proton pump has many subunits and moving parts seen nowhere else on the cellular level, so that would mean that all these parts would have had to come together at the same time and fit perfectly and work immediately. If the subunits came together one at a time, there would be no functional use for them and they would disintegrate and not evolve any further. I hope you see what I'm trying to say here, it's very hard to put into a semi-short post. Also I still haven't heard a convincing argument for how matter existed without someone or something creating it, it's just something I cannot wrap my brain around. There ultimately has to be an unmoved mover.

Anyway, Catholicism teaches that we are all a part of creation and that it is ongoing, meaning that the creation narrative in the Bible is not finished, meaning that evolution has been and is at play in the world. We just hold that it was God's design to use evolution and place a rational soul in man at the time of his "appearance" in the evolutionary process. Of course there are varying degrees of belief in evolution in the Catholic Church and among other Christians, but it goes to show that Intelligent design and evolution can mutually exist and actually benefit eachother. As Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God," and I have to say that I feel the same way.


P.S. I don't want anyone to feel like I'm trashing you're ideas or beliefs and I am not meaning to start a debate, just offering another point of view for the OP.

Your explanation that God fills in the the missing holes that we cannot explain (i.e. ATP synthase) is a laughable as it is incorrect. As a person with a graduate level degree in microbiology and papers published involving said protein, I can tell you that we actually do have a pretty good idea how it evolved (as well as the eye and clotting factors or most other so-called 'irreducibly complex' processes). Over the past 5 years or so science has proven that massive evolutionary changes can occur over very short periods of time. The main issue with ID is that it puts god in direct competition with science in that the unknown is attributed to the supernatural, while the known can be explained by natural phenomenon. Too bad for god that science advances forward every day, and as the unknown becomes known, the role of god shrinks. If you want to have faith to help you deal with unknowable questions (meaning of life...yada yada yada), by all means go ahead. However, if you are going to use faith to describe natural phenomena instead of science, know that talented and inquisitive scientific minds will eventually explain away your god.

 

[MichaelRW]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence 🙄

Are you seriously saying that the flagellum is irreducibly complex? Check out that video posted several posts up by the YouTube user potholer54. If you believe God invented the bacterial flagellum you also have to give him credit for the deaths that cholera, salmonella, e coli, campylobacter, and helicobacter are responsible for. Cholera kills you in 2 hours if you don't get an IV pumping fluids into you. Man, does God love us! Thanks for designing that flagellum!

Furthermore, if you watch the pbs documenary on this, you will see that the flagellum was presented to have been used as a method of transferring exotoxins and endotoxins prior to the evolution of the functioning basal apparatus...

 

[NNukibw77]

i went to catholic high school and they taught us intelligent design...but they defined it as god creating the universe and that his plan was for evolution to take place to lead to us.

so man wasn't created in god's image, but evolved to god's image.

 

[elgin]

s

 

[neurosnap]

.

 

[Lokhtar]

Those who say so should get their heads out of Richard Dawkins anus and read for themselves. What the world knew of biology in 1859 isn't exactly the same as what we know now.

No, Dawkins does not claim that, neither does anyone else. Everytime he has been asked about that, he has been honest and said that we don't know yet and that evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity and history of life. I don't know anyone who claims evolution explains the origins of life except, oddly, creationists, who repeatedly say it as an excuse to misrepresent the theory.

Darwinism in and of itself (as a theory or fact depending more on your politics sadly than anything else) begins after life began. Sure many people try to stretch Darwinian theory to include the origins of life but its lacking in any real source.

I am seriously interested in which scientist says evolution explains the origin, including where Dawkins said it. I actually only hear that from the other side, but would be happy to be shown to be wrong.

 

[g2daizh]

There is no debate. It is 100% fact that species evolve over time. However, sometimes we need to use rare candy or a thunder stone to speed up the process.

 

[thedoctor8706]

awesome, the last time i saw a thread on evolution vs. intelligent design was right before i took my MCAT. now i can just watch this one unfold 🙂 which is also ironic because i write this while sitting in my historical biology class lol!

 

[Lokhtar]

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. I'm not really sold on his "mousetrap" analogy to discredit irreducible complexity though.

It's funny how some people have so much faith in some of these evolutionary processes even though there is no hard proof or evidence of them (a flagellum's parts all serving other functions before coming together to form the flagellum for example). Sounds like other people having faith in something in which there is no hard factual proof of existence 🙄

Irreducible complexity is simply "God of the gaps". This process is yet unexplained so God must have done it and the 100,000,000 processes that are explained are all wrong. Then when we explain that process, people latch onto another unexplained process. And since there are virtually an infinite number of processes in biology, it's going to be an undefeated argument.

Hey, God causes lighting and you have no idea why.....damn that's now explained...hey, God causes hurricanes and you have no idea why....damn, that's now explained...hey, God causes the flagellum, etc.


My question would be if theists want to cheapen their God so much so that he hides in progressively smaller corners of the unknown? Such squabbles seems quite an affront to the God responsible for all of creation. I'm an atheist, so that's fine by me, but I'm surprised so many Christians are willing to use that argument.

 

[austinap]

Your explanation that God fills in the the missing holes that we cannot explain (i.e. ATP synthase) is a laughable as it is incorrect. As a person with a graduate level degree in microbiology and papers published involving said protein, I can tell you that we actually do have a pretty good idea how it evolved (as well as the eye and clotting factors or most other so-called 'irreducibly complex' processes). Over the past 5 years or so science has proven that massive evolutionary changes can occur over very short periods of time. The main issue with ID is that it puts god in direct competition with science in that the unknown is attributed to the supernatural, while the known can be explained by natural phenomenon. Too bad for god that science advances forward every day, and as the unknown becomes known, the role of god shrinks. If you want to have faith to help you deal with unknowable questions (meaning of life...yada yada yada), by all means go ahead. However, if you are going to use faith to describe natural phenomena instead of science, know that talented and inquisitive scientific minds will eventually explain away your god.

^ This, also known as God of the Gaps.

I also love how all of the ID supporters continually sidestep the fact that their "theory" produces no testable hypothesis whatsoever. Until your pet theory can predict something that hasn't already been observed, it isn't science.

Since apparently all of you ID people don't seem to understand what a predictable hypothesis actually is, I'll bring up an example that was talked about earlier in this thread: irreducible complexity. ID says that irreducible complexity exists, and therefor there must be a creator. This produces no testable hypotheses (unless you can directly look for a creator). On the other side, evolutionary biologists say "for our theory to be right, there can't be any irreducibly complex structures, so there must be intermediates in nature that provide some sort of benefit. Let's look for these." So, they go look around, and what do you know? They find such intermediates. THAT is a falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Howisbabbyformd]

Does this school also hold debates on reproductive theories? You know, the biological theory vs. the stork "theory"?

 

[elgin]

[s

 

[Lokhtar]

Yes, the difference being there is no way to know if it is true, and as valid as a fairy in my cupboard theory and thus not suited for any serious consideration in any actual discussion. Because nothing can be proven in the negative.

It's why I can tell you unicorns don't live in the asteroid belt even though I can't prove it - it's just so unlikely that it makes no sense to believe it. I'd be happy to change my mind if you proved they did exist, but until then, it's not a notion worth consideration.

 

[Howisbabbyformd]

This is true. I have no qualms about people saying ID or God isn't science because it can't be proven. But i do take issue with people who assume that, because it can't be proven, that it must not be so and is therefore fantasy.

Case in point....

You absolutely cannot prove whether or not I am currently imagining smurfs iceskating on saturn's rings.

In fact I am actually. Can you prove it? No? Is it so despite that lack of proof? Absolutely.

So are you asserting that because science can't prove the non-existence of deities that there must be deities?

 

[elgin]

s

 

[elgin]

s

 

[Lokhtar]

I like how people always try to say that if you believe in something like god you have to believe in far-fetched ideas like unicorns, santa, and lawn gnomes coming to life too or you must treat them both with the same serious. Or that, in contrast, that if you don't take santa seriously, you see no reason to take god seriously.

Yea, so why is the idea of a God any more serious than a unicorn?

My point is...there are plenty of things that are true (that aren't unicorns or santa), such as a person's thoughts, that cannot be revealed with science. So you absolutely have to admit that there are things that do exist, that are facts, that cannot be proven. period.

That statement is contradictory. They are facts because they can be proven.

You can pretty conclusively prove that thoughts exist....

 

[g2daizh]

I like how people always try to say that if you believe in something like god you have to believe in far-fetched ideas like unicorns, santa, and lawn gnomes coming to life too or you must treat them both with the same serious. Or that, in contrast, that if you don't take santa seriously, you see no reason to take god seriously.

Not because there's any real reason to do it, but just because they are being argumentative, traying desperately to insult the believer's intelligence, and trying to play the devil's advocate.

No, but your avatar picture is a scarily accurate reflection of your intelligence.

hmmmmmm

 

[elgin]

s

 

[7starmantis]

No, Dawkins does not claim that, neither does anyone else. Everytime he has been asked about that, he has been honest and said that we don't know yet and that evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity and history of life. I don't know anyone who claims evolution explains the origins of life except, oddly, creationists, who repeatedly say it as an excuse to misrepresent the theory.

Careful, I didn't claim Dawkins said that, I said they need to get their head out of his anus. Many who hold Dawkins as their ultimate authority tend to try and use evolution as theory of life. Of course, I am sure none of the smart and savvy people on this forum do. However, its disingenuous to claim that "no one would ever" claim evolution to explain origins of life and then be involved in a debate about creation vs evolution. In that debate either evolution is being used to explain origins of life or creation is being used to explain diversity in life. The problem is neither of those are correct. Creationism attempts to explain how life began. Evolution attempts to explain how life become diverse. They are simply attempting to answer different questions. Both of which I think are seriously lacking factual evidence. That is of course unless we oversimplify "evolution" as solely "change over time".

Misrepresenting either theory is a gross misunderstanding of the true question. The premise of the OP's original question is flawed, any debate that takes place further is trite and moot.

I am seriously interested in which scientist says evolution explains the origin, including where Dawkins said it. I actually only hear that from the other side, but would be happy to be shown to be wrong.

I never said any scientists or Dawkins said it. Although, Dawkins does tend to use his support of evolution as "proof" of sorts, for his case against the existence of god, which is really pretty flawed logically if you ask me, which no one did. Also, it may be true that no one is claiming evolution to cover how life began, it doesn't stop the use of evolution to fight against or disprove creationism. If you or anyone else honestly believes evolution doesn't even address the issue of the origin of life, why are they actively participating in a flawed discussion about two totally different ideas being pitted against each other?

No one has of yet shown to me in a logical and factual manner how ID opposes or contradicts Darwinian evolution. I see no connection.

 

[BBender716]

loma linda?

Beat me to it.

 

[BBender716]

There is no debate. It is 100% fact that species evolve over time. However, sometimes we need to use rare candy or a thunder stone to speed up the process.

Or a friend to trade with (see Machamp):

 

[DrSmooth]

A dichotomy is splitting a whole into two parts and saying there is no overlap and that they are exhaustive..not just splitting a whole into parts. What my opinion is that the Genesis account doesn't have to be taken literally but that does not make the spiritual aspect of Christianity false. Your "all-or-nothing" approach is an example of such a dichotomy.

Whether Jesus drank wine or orange soda at the last supper doesn't negate what he said about how to live or treat others or the consequences of his martyrdom on mankind...most would agree what he drank was unimportant and irrelevant. That is similar(an an admitted gross oversimplification) to my beliefs regarding the Bible and the origin of species.

Yes, I understand. I also read the Wikipedia entry on dichotomy. You are missing my point. My point is that beyond just Genesis, when you look at the Christian scriptures and Christianity as a whole, it is a belief system rooted in history and "science", and is therefore falsifiable using the methods of historical criticism and scientific inquiry. You can't just "pick up your spirituality toys and go home". Christianity, by its own claims (e.g. the Genesis flood, genealogies, miracles, prayer), has to face up to its historical and scientific inadequacies. You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but as a scientist don't try to fool yourself into thinking your Christian beliefs are somehow beyond the scope of science.

 

[thamsenman]

ID is not falsifiable.

Evolution is. Here: If you find me rabbit bones in the permian period, it's all over.

Nothing can disprove ID that it's proponents will accept.

 

[Tots]

We all know evolution is false, I mean just look at your peanut butter:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]

 

[creativename]

Yea, so why is the idea of a God any more serious than a unicorn?

And who's to say that God isn't a unicorn? Seriously though Jesus' magic was real.

 

[thamsenman]

Christopher Hitchens or "the hitch" called religion "fossilized philosophy"

 

[RogueUnicorn]

eventually, we'll have a strong workable theory on the beginning of life as well. it's already starting with evidence of spontaeous formation of micelles & simple organic compounds

 

[thamsenman]

eventually, we'll have a strong workable theory on the beginning of life as well. it's already starting with evidence of spontaeous formation of micelles & simple organic compounds

That lion is looking exasperated. I hope he doesn't accidentally claw his eyes out.

 

[298609]

This is a good post and something I hadn't considered before. I'm not very good at apologetics, so forgive me if my response is clumsy and inarticulate. My first thought is that just because something isn't recorded, that doesn't mean it did not occur.

Another possibility..and the one I'm leaning towards...is the misconception that God isn't okay with people dying. In the Old Testament, especially, we see God raging wars and directly killing people at some points. If you have read the Old Testament, it's not a stretch of the imagination to picture God just deciding not to jump in and claim His people(the Jews) for quite some time.

I'll probably respond to this again later once I have some more time to think about it.

hey!!!! that's ME! 🙂

 

[Lokhtar]

Creationism attempts to explain how life began. Evolution attempts to explain how life become diverse. They are simply attempting to answer different questions.

No, that is being disingenuous. ID textbooks very clearly attempt to replace the theory of evolution by claiming the structures existed in their present form, and that they did not change over time. Have a read at Pandas and People, the de facto textbook that they are trying to put into a classroom. To say creationism and ID only deal with origin and not diversity is not really listening to what they themselves are saying.


Both of which I think are seriously lacking factual evidence. That is of course unless we oversimplify "evolution" as solely "change over time".

why are they actively participating in a flawed discussion about two totally different ideas being pitted against each other?

No one has of yet shown to me in a logical and factual manner how ID opposes or contradicts Darwinian evolution. I see no connection.

Dover trial. It was clearly an attack on evolution's explanation for diversity of life. Behe, the ID champion, believes there is no speciation, and all life existed in its present form, and he argued that in court.

ID is saying exactly what you're saying it doesn't. Unless your version of ID is different than what people are trying to peddle in every school, in which case there's no point.

The OPs invocation of the blind watchmaker is a reference to EVOLUTION's attempt at explaining the diversity of life. So by definition, there is that attack.

Both of which I think are seriously lacking factual evidence.

Haha how? What isn't there evidence for?

/Evolution major, this topic really annoys me.

 

[morning]

I find it interesting that so many people buy into this lie. No, not the lie of creationism. No, not the lie of evolution. But the lie that the two are in contradiction with each other. What the people in this thread are calling evolution is not Darwinian evolution. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. He did not in fact attempt to even address the origin of life itself. Those who say so should get their heads out of Richard Dawkins anus and read for themselves. What the world knew of biology in 1859 isn't exactly the same as what we know now.

Darwinism in and of itself (as a theory or fact depending more on your politics sadly than anything else) begins after life began. Sure many people try to stretch Darwinian theory to include the origins of life but its lacking in any real source. I have no problem fully accepting the idea of evolution and even Darwinian evolution as defined by Darwin himself. However, to apply this theory to the beginnings of life is unreasonable and unfounded. If neither "creationists" nor "evolutionists" really know how life actually began, why the emotional reactions and arguments? The real problem is the beliefs that run with most "evolutionists" that also run in opposition with things like religion and "creationism" and thus ID. I find the idea of ID no more preposterous than "seeding" or "crystal theory".

Evolution strictly defined is in fact, a fact. (yes, I said fact twice). Change over time doesn't really address the beginnings of life. Why people have such a problem with people offering suggestions or asking questions about something no one has yet been able to figure out or prove (the beginning of life) is beyond me. Why people have such emotional and physical responses to faith leads me to think its less about science and proof and more about a clash of beliefs and world views.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

[298609]

as a side note about all this: there is a big interactive computer display somewhere in our city that has an actor portraying darwin answering real life questions and experts weighing in. one of the questions was: "what do you think about the scopes monkey trial?"

darwin's answer: "what?! putting monkeys on trial?!!!! that's preposterous!"

 

[Ultimeaciax]

Watch this excellent documentary produced by PBS outlining the 2004 Dover Area High School trial which pitted so-called “Intelligent Design theory” against Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection. This documentary is fairly long (just under two hours), but I can assure you that it is one of the best programs ever produced on the topic. In this program not only are the personalities and institutions involved in the ideological struggle interrogated, but also the theory of evolution and “intelligent design” are explained in clear and concise detail. I can almost guarantee that you’ll enjoy this engaging program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Thanks! I saw this a while ago already...and this is probably my most important source.

Also, I never intended to make this thread into a debate on SDN, but it is now quite entertaining. Thanks to all that replied.

 

[Howisbabbyformd]

yup

 

[madamebovary]

if you get stuck in that debate, argue that God is an intelligent design that is so complex so He must have been created by something else as well, so this argument doesn't really prove that God does or doesn't exist.