Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cityboi

Intelligent design and creationism

Recommended Posts

If you've seen the news lately you will notice that president Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design along side with creationism in schools. The idea of creationism is that God created man and he created man arccording to the biblical account. The intelligent design theory basically says that man was created by an intellegence but does not say God. I think when you say that an intellegence created us and you dont say its God, then basically you are saying E.T.s created us. Does it mean that the government admits that it believe in UFOs and extraterestrials or is this just a ploy to overturn the evolution theory? But obviously if you say an intellegence created us and you dont say its God, then you are saying its E.T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't think that the reasoning behind this development is that the US government is endorsing belief in E.T.s, its about bringing multiple viewpoints into education, something that will need to be expanded apon in the comming years. People need to hear both sides in full, ignorance can not be acceptable anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cityboi;

I think that he wants to teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution. Intelligent Design is Creationism. The reason that God is not used is that you have various different religions and you don't want to have one or more coming down on the theory due to the fact that it uses the wrong name for God. It is Government getting involved with tying Religion in with Education. Create a Sudoscience and veil it as a Scientific Theory and force religious education on everyone. Evolution does not refute Religion. The Bible says that God created the world in seven days. What are seven days to a being that lives forever? It could be centuries, eons, whatever. I have to say that Brickell has it right when he says that we should have separation of Church and State. If churches want to raltionalize, then they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I always enjoyed learning about religion in church.. and science in science class.

There is no quantifiable evidence that "intelligent design" was involved in the history of life... unless this "designer" erased all traces of evidence.

In order to be a scientific theory and to be taught in science classes, there needs to be something to prove or disprove. You simply cannot prove or disprove that God created the earth (And that's what the intelligent design theory is. A souped up way to say that God created the earth without actually saying God so all the other people who reject evolution but don't believe in God will bite. It's a political ploy.)

To "believe" that God created the earth, you need faith. And you cannot prove or disprove something that requires faith with science. That's why we need to keep religion out of science and science out of religion.

If you are faithful that God created hte earth.. great. Teach your kids that at home or in church. We needn't be turning our nation's science classrooms into religious debating grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! So evolution is the only theory that is "scientific"??!?!? :blink:

What many of these evolutionists want is for the theory to be taught as fact, a law. The purposes of teaching more than just one theory is to increase knowledge and open people's minds...this is more than just religion! Aye Kurumba...why do I even bother?

:sick:

This is yet another exercise in futility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science is science.

intelligent design is not.

we were always taught multiple theories in science class where they were applicable, but they were scientific theories, not political mandates. Do you really not see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another topic that, if turned into a debate, will never end, and will be the cause of insults and mutual hatred. So, trying not to get involved in all that, I'll just say what I believe. Not a while ago, the most important scientists in the field of evolutionism came to my country. Their purpose was to meet in the Galapagos Islands(where Darwin wrote his theories) and organize conferences about this so interesting topic. For many of them, evolution was not a theory anymore, it was a fact. Their reasons, evidence. But evidence, as the bible,is vulnerable to interpretations.

It will never be a fact, because it will always be controversial, and it will nver be proved concretely(is that the correct word?). No matter how much they try to prove it, faith will always arise. As it is shown in the current political troubles of the world, reason has no power over faith.

I would not say it is a fact, but I do believe in evoltuion, I think the evidence is undeniable. Intelligent design, at least, accepts the process of evolution, and that s a progress. It is not purely scientific, but it is something. At the end, nothing that has to do with God will ever be classified as scientific, (maybe math) so religious people with knowledge about evolution, have to create something to believe in both, God and evolution.

Anyways, faith and reason can not be confronted in a debate, it is, again, useless.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's what the intelligent design theory is. A souped up way to say that God created the earth without actually saying God so all the other people who reject evolution but don't believe in God will bite. It's a political ploy.

Exactly, I don't think when he says intelligent design he means aliens. I think he means God, but isn't aloud to say God without millions of people going to court.

I guess you're right about religion not being taught in science class, but I also believe that everyone should be given all the aspects of creation. Not just what scientists think they can prove. You don't need to read the whole book of Genesis in school, just give kids the option of what to believe in.

I believe in a mixture of both. I know that God created the Earth and everything else, but I also believe that he didn't just make it go poof. He very well might used the Big Bang theory as a way to make the Earth.

That's just my theory. Believe it or not. It's your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! So evolution is the only theory that is "scientific"??!?!?  :blink:

What many of these evolutionists want is for the theory to be taught as fact, a law. The purposes of teaching more than just one theory is to increase knowledge and open people's minds...this is more than just religion! Aye Kurumba...why do I even bother?

:sick:

This is yet another exercise in futility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is the science world's theory of our universe's beginnings. It is the only theory that is widely tested and believed by scientists worldwide. If you're taking a SCIENCE class, one should learn SCIENCE'S theory on the beginning of the world.. not Christianity's.

Intelligent design is not a theory.. merely an idea. There is no proof that a higher being created the world. In fact, I have yet to find any convincing evidence of a created world.

My state has passed laws that requires science teachers to teach all the theories of evolution. But everything else is taught as if the "big bang" theory of evolution were true. You can't go around teaching 10 or so complete different versions of every little thing in biology class.

While it is not unconstitutional to offer an alternative scientific theory to evolution, suggesting any bit of religion in class to students is clearly illegal and against our 1st ammendment rights.

The far right fundamentalists have gone too far in this country infringing upon the rights of American citizens, and I think it's time that the courts put a stop to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science is science.

intelligent design is not.

we were always taught multiple theories in science class where they were applicable, but they were scientific theories, not political mandates.  Do you really not see the difference?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is intellegnet design not science?

I read a report by some college students one time who had to take an evolution class. As one of their experiments, they placed several rocks on the campus grounds in the shape of an arrow. Ironically, every single one of the students asked "Who put those there".

Ironic that the same people who cannot believe a line or rocks forming an arrow could have happened by chance and yet have no trouble believing that all life just "formed" from a pile of ooze. And then not only formed but improved itself through reaction to outside conditions. And then have no trouble believing that the food to nourish that life form also formed at the exact same time and then even "evolved" simultaneously to feed it. And then as it changed it knew to form male and female to pro-create. Yep! That's science all right. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID has no place in a class of science.

The nature of science is to let evidence lead you to hypothesis to testing and theory to law. ID attempts to go backwards and that is not sceintific procedure. ID takes a preconceived notion and attempts to find evidence to 'fit' that notion including leaving out contradictory evidence....such as all evolutionary evidence.

Evolution was not an idea first, it was the culmination of testing which lead to the overwhelming conclusion to one thing based on all the gathered evidence.....evolution. It was theorized "after" all testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is intellegnet design not science? 

I read a report by some college students one time who had to take an evolution class.  As one of their experiments, they placed several rocks on the campus grounds in the shape of an arrow.  Ironically, every single one of the students asked "Who put those there". 

Ironic that the same people who cannot believe a line or rocks forming an arrow could have happened by chance and yet have no trouble believing that all life  just "formed" from a pile of ooze.  And then not only formed but improved itself through reaction to outside conditions.  And then have no trouble believing that the food to nourish that life form also formed at the exact same time and then even "evolved" simultaneously to feed it.  And then as it changed it knew to form male and female to pro-create.  Yep!  That's science all right.  :rofl:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? Some organisms don't have male or female... but they reproduce with THEMSELVES.. oh dear.. now there's something that should clearly be outlawed by the hand of God.

You have everything backwards.

Something doesn't just happen and then the rest evolves to adapt to IT.. IT evolves to adapt to its surroundings.

An example of adaptation of humans in the more modern world: The American Indians of northern Minnesota are often predisposed to health problems and weight gain from alcohol consumption because they lack an enzyme that European descendants have that helps the body process alcohol. This is clearly a small sign of humans adapting to their environments.

When someone just sits there and mocks hte work of thousands of scientists and 150 years of research, I think they are extremely ignorant. You believe what you believe because you want to.. not because it's necessarily true or right.

And I think life just "forming" from a pile of ooze is a more credible explanation than trying to explain life being created from absolutely nothing by something you can't prove is even there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction?  Some organisms don't have male or female... but they reproduce with THEMSELVES.. oh dear.. now there's something that should clearly be outlawed by the hand of God.

You have everything backwards.

Something doesn't just happen and then the rest evolves to adapt to IT.. IT evolves to adapt to its surroundings.

An example of adaptation of humans in the more modern world:  The American Indians of northern Minnesota are often predisposed to health problems and weight gain from alcohol consumption because they lack an enzyme that European descendants have that helps the body process alcohol.  This is clearly a small sign of humans adapting to their environments.

When someone just sits there and mocks hte work of thousands of scientists and 150 years of research, I think they are extremely ignorant.  You believe what you believe because you want to.. not because it's necessarily true or right.

And I think life just "forming" from a pile of ooze is a more credible explanation than trying to explain life being created from absolutely nothing by something you can't prove is even there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You my friend have it totally backwards. But we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've read many many evolution books back when I was really into that. But then I woke up and realized it couldn't have happened by chance. There are many many good resources out there that prove beyond any doubt that evolution is pseudo-science at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution didn't happen we would not have a different cold and flu virus every year. Do people actually think there is some God up there creating these things out of nothing and then releasing them in China for the rest of the world to catch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic that the same people who cannot believe a line or rocks forming an arrow could have happened by chance and yet have no trouble believing that all life just "formed" from a pile of ooze. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's not ironic. It's semiotics. If biology transferred meaning through cultural signifiers, maybe you'd have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who believe in the biblical account that the world was created in seven days, that would also mean that human beings co-existed with dinosaurs. There are even a few biblical references to what many scholars believe refers to dinosaurs. However there are some that believe that seven days thats mentioned in the book of Genesis doesnt mean 7 days as we know it. There are several passages in the Bible that say ten thousand years is like a day in God's time. So if you look at it that way maybe a day could have been a million years. The Bible says God created the world in seven days but maybe seven days in "God's Time" This is not to say that God isnt capable of creating the world in seven days our time. There are alot of metaphors in the Bible and its not meant to be a history book where every piece of information is suppose to be understood as it reads. Its suppose to be a guide to the way you live your life. Also dont forget that the Bible has been translated many times from its origional hebrew text so alot of words have lost its meaning through the translations. Even homosexuality has been misinterperted in the Bible. Jesus talked about all kinds of sins in the Bible but he never mentions homosexuality, at least not in the text. There are very few reference to homsexuality, I think there only one reference to it being a sin but its also mentioned in the verses that say we must sacrifice animals and women are not allowed to participate in the church. Its interesting becasue in orinal hebrew text it talks about two men kissing one another and now the modern translation is that they shook hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! So evolution is the only theory that is "scientific"??!?!?  :blink:

What many of these evolutionists want is for the theory to be taught as fact, a law. The purposes of teaching more than just one theory is to increase knowledge and open people's minds...this is more than just religion! Aye Kurumba...why do I even bother?

:sick:

This is yet another exercise in futility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is a theory that has been accepted as fact. No educated person on the face of the earth disagrees. I feel bad for the children that are brainwashed into thinking that creationism is responsible for human beings in the form we are today. Do you realize how much they lack in understanding? Evolution is a theory that has been supported time and time again and never refuted. And you have to be scientific to be a theory. evolution does not say God didn't have a hand in things, it simply explains to the highest degree of accuracy how we developed thereafter. re-do your homework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is intellegnet design not science? 

I read a report by some college students one time who had to take an evolution class.  As one of their experiments, they placed several rocks on the campus grounds in the shape of an arrow.  Ironically, every single one of the students asked "Who put those there". 

Ironic that the same people who cannot believe a line or rocks forming an arrow could have happened by chance and yet have no trouble believing that all life  just "formed" from a pile of ooze.  And then not only formed but improved itself through reaction to outside conditions.  And then have no trouble believing that the food to nourish that life form also formed at the exact same time and then even "evolved" simultaneously to feed it.  And then as it changed it knew to form male and female to pro-create.  Yep!  That's science all right.  :rofl:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow....you make the best argument i have ever heard for the other side. I still disagree with creationism though. It is not unlikely that "God" of some sort exists and has played a role in the development of the universe. I dont think this way because of any particular religion (though I am Roman Catholic) but anyone who has ever held an infant in their arms and stared down into their eyes, or fallen in love (truly) or experienced the natural "high" feeling of a breath taking scenic view has to admit that none of this can be totally chance. However, no one says life formed from a pile of ooze, in fact, no one even knows how life formed. Once it formed, however, this is where the theory of evolution begins. If God played a role in setting the ball in motion, evolution explains how that motion has transpired over time...it doesnt refute God at all.

Creationism says God took a rib from Adam to make Eve, am I right? Well, males and females have the same number of ribs...it is a common mislbelief that males have one less than females.

It is very hard to believe "science" underlies everything we see infront of us today...and it is easy to give God all of the credit (which he is due, imo, just not as creationists believe he is due). However, we must remember that what we are seeing is the product of over a million years of evolution from lower primates into human beings, and biliions of years before that for the development of intelligent life on earth. One thing that is nifty about the pattern of life, and which helps explain the evolution of mankind, is that when something "works" in nature, then it sticks. whats more, when something "works" in nature, it becomes more attractive...i.e. big breasts, wide hips, and for men: wide shoulders and a muscular physique. this is how natural selection (the basis of evolution) works in a nutshell. and after many millenia, something develops so that it can, as you put it "life improved itself through reaction to outside conditions and the food to nourish that life form also formed at the exact same time and then even "evolved" simultaneously to feed it.." . it works the other way around. the food didnt evolve at the same time miraculously, we evolved based on the food available. That's why we have canine teeth, to eat meat. the people without canine teeth starved and died, thus they did not pass on their genes to future relatives and we dont know anything more about them. Imagine if a one legged man was born in the wild, he would die because he wouldn't be successful without too much help from others. However, imagine a man was born in the wild with super human strength, he would adapt well, mate with many females who found this trait attractive, and then leave a long trail of genetic DNA to filter throughout the human race...after time, as you can see, there are no one legged brands of human, yet if we all worked out a little more (like we should) then we would all see ourselves as the tremendous athletes we were meant to be genetically. natural and sexual selection is based on adaptaion capabilities and is the basis for evolution. It is quite simply fact. the end. But although I disagree with you, I do like your reasoning for thinking the way you do, it sounds quite convincing if you don't have all the information avalliable at your disposal (which it seems you didn't). I hope you don't take this the wrong way, and continue believing whatever you want, but please take my view into consideration and think about it for a while. Tell me what there is about it that you disagree with and we can discuss it in more depth if you wish. I will keep an open mind as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:

The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.

The origin of novel traits in a lineage.

The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this. I my forum has the same topic of discussion going on so this makes it convenient for me as I'll copy/paste some of my posts from there. Sorry for the length and jumbleness of the paragraphs and quotes.

***********

Check out this 1996 quote from Pope John Paul II:

Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

Even a former Pope supported evolution.

A quote from unknown source.

Doesn't creationism deserve to be evaluated on scientific grounds?

Some versions of creationism have been evaluated on scientific grounds. In fact, various types of creationism were assumed in western science until the 19th century. Geologists, for instance, used tried to explain all the earth's geological features in terms of Noah's Flood. In a famous series of debates in England, Geological Society members Adam Sedgwick and Charles Lyell carefully sifted the evidence, and in 1829 Sedgwick ended up giving up on the Flood theory, writing "I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established [is] that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period." A few thousand years simply is not enough time, for example, to explain the amount of sediment at the bottoms of rivers. Thus, YEC has been given a fair shake and proven incorrect.

When faced with this type of difficulty, creationists often respond by making their claims more vague and harder to check. IDCs are the champions at this kind of strategic fuzziness. They claim, for example, that a peacock's plumage is impossible to explain in terms of evolution, but that it is a perfectly reasonable thing for a whimsical God to create. The problem with this "theory" is that it is immune to contrary evidence. Any living form that seems functional to our minds is used as evidence that God designed it for a purpose; anything that seems nonfunctional is interpreted by saying that God is whimsical, or that God's mind is too complex for us to fathom.

How does ID explain evolutionary accidents? Vertebratees have blind spots in their retinas yet invertabraes do not. Humans are loaded with traits, characteristics and physical abnormalities that do not lend well to ID but evolution.

Let me guess, you'll counter with "Evolution can't be proven because no one was there." How right you are BUT, we can't see atoms either but we accept their existence from theory, No one has been more than a few thousand feet below Earths crust but we know what's there and no one doubts those theories.

ID was created simply because evolution contradicted religion and theologists wanted something to counter it hence ID was born. Yet ID is flawed because it was theory before it was science, before it was evidentiary substance. ID followers when cornered with Evolutions overwhelming facts and support, will fall back onto the same notions that theologists do..."If man can't explain it, must be God"....but once man does explain it, it becomes, "Oh, that's Gods plan. He made it that way".

ID works by takign what we don't yet know in science and claiming it's only possible creation was God. For every hole you claim in Darwanism, evolution or Big Bang, ID has one extreme flaw that can never be corected. Science never stops achieving new answers that we hadn't known before that were once 'Gods work'.

Evolution explains how an eye changed from simple to complex over millions of years but doesn't explain how the eye came to be. ID believes that God created the eye. Evolutionary theory was never meant to explain where the eye came from so any attempt to use that as proof against evolution is completely fraudulent.

In time, as with all science, we will begin to understand how the first creatures began to use nerves that were photsensitive and that will easily plug right into evolutionary theory.

These are very telling. Phillip Johnson is one of the originators of ID theory.

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism versus evolution to the existence of God versus the nonexistence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.' "

Stephen Meyer is a well known ID proponent.

After two hours of debate over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. Dembski has also told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer is the God of Abraham.

Something I learned since I study forensics.....

Lack of proof is proof of nothing.

ID is like this. "I believe that Peanut Butter cures cancer." <- Theory before evidence.

Evidence is supposed to lead to theory. You gather up all this data and you begin to draw plausible conclusions. That is unbiased and means you've accepted all data without prejudice and agenda.

When you begin with theory you start taking into account anything that remotely falls into your theory and that leaves massive gaps. It also means the evidence is not corroborative of the means or is very thin. You also exclude evidence that contradicts or disproves your preconceived theory.

Take forensics for example. The moment you belief a suspect is guilty or innocent, you start overlook contradictory evidence. you gather all evidence until you've repreatedly exhausted all resources of evidence and then you draw conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You my friend have it totally backwards.  But we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I've read many many evolution books back when I was really into that.  But then I woke up and realized it couldn't have happened by chance.  There are many many good resources out there that prove beyond any doubt that evolution is pseudo-science at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution is a fact. But then again, faith and reason are rarely found together so convicing a fanatic christian is impossible.

Viper, you mentioned the already famous "were you there?" response. Seemingly, every christian was there and saw God's creations.

But hey, here you can see how easy it is to manipulate people.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.