Intelligent design and creationism

[MJLO]

You were not there when Hitler decided to invade Poland, yet you do have enough data and support to accept that event as true. The same wth evolution.

It's a cute arguement, but you can prove the haulocast, aside from documented acounts, there are people alive even today who lived thru it. Name one person that was alive, or one documented account of how the earth was forged. NOONE was around it's all theory.

Science is supposedly based on facts and proofs. If something is not provable, then it is trashed. Thus, a widely accepted theory such as evolution cannot consist of fabble.

Therefore the widely accepted theories in the past that had been proven wrong obviously couldn't have fabled. But if a bunch of "scientists" accept the theory, than it cannot be fable. Surely there must be an existence of PROOF.

[Inkdaub]

I'll just pipe in with the canned response of...

Intelligent design has no buisness being taught in the schools alongside scientific theory like evolution.

Unless they want to devote a chapter to elves and dwarves to all sections on vanished peoples or ancient cultures. Atlantis would be good as well. They can get JZ Knight to come lecture as Ramtha.

[GRDadof3]

"How to win friends and influence people" and just be a good all around citizen:

Chapter 1) Make fun of everyone else

[monsoon]

Therefore the widely accepted theories in the past that had been proven wrong obviously couldn't have fabled. But if a bunch of "scientists" accept the theory, than it cannot be fable. Surely there must be an existence of PROOF.

That is why they call it science. People seek to prove or disprove accepted beliefs about the physical world.

Contrast that to religion where one MUST accept the tenets of the religion without any proof and questioning the validity of religious scripture is not allowed. This is why it is called religion.

There is only one science of evolution in the world.

There are endless numbers of religions in the world and most claim the rest are wrong and many have different ideas on where life came from. Some do not believe there is a God that created everything. Which one is correct? Well the one that one believes.

This is why it is perfectly acceptable to teach the science of evolution. We can observe evolution by observation and change our ideas of it as we learn more through experimentation and continued observation. And this is why we can't teach religion in school because nobody agrees about it and attempts to repackage it as a science is nothing more than a disingenious attempt by zeliots to force their particular beliefs on everyone else.

[GRDadof3]

I'm in no way saying that I think Intelligent Design should usurp the study of evolution in schools, or that any religion should be taught in schools (unless multiple religions are studied for historical analysis and influence on different societies, but even that can get messy). I have yet to find a truly "objective" teacher or professor.

But ID does have some interesting concepts, and are not related to any specific "religion", and is not dogma that is unquestionable. One of which is Irreducible Complexity.

"the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" That from one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design.

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

(go down past the intro paragraph)

Anyway, interesting nonetheless.

[Gusterfell]

Remember when "science" said the earth was flat? Remember when "science" said we had reached the pinnacle of technology, and there was no possible way we could find any new technology at the turn of the 20th century? I dare anyone, to stand up to me, and be so arrogant as to say that "science" has found all the answers now. Anyone can rely on science, and throw science in my face all they want. I want PROOF, that there isn't a god, and I want PROOF that there is. I'm not trying to take a stance on either position in this argument. But for heavens sakes guys, stop belittling people, talking down to them just because they don't put there faith in "science".

Neither of your opening examples were ever scientific concepts. The flat earth idea was a pre-scientific holdover that was one of the earliest myths overturned by the scientific method. As for the "pinnacle of technology," that sounds more like some Victorian commentator's editorial opinion than any scientific statement I've ever heard of.

As for the rest of your statement, to believe in science is not to put "faith" in anything. It is to understand that decades of accumulated, verifiable, repeatable evidence is more likely correct than a several thousand year old fable. Faith requires accepting a given concept without questioning it. Science is all about questioning such concepts, and if credible evidence comes along that evolutionary theory is incorrect, science will have no problem with reworking the whole concept. That is the difference between science and religion.

[MJLO]

Neither of your opening examples were ever scientific concepts. The flat earth idea was a pre-scientific holdover that was one of the earliest myths overturned by the scientific method. As for the "pinnacle of technology," that sounds more like some Victorian commentator's editorial opinion than any scientific statement I've ever heard of.

As for the rest of your statement, to believe in science is not to put "faith" in anything. It is to understand that decades of accumulated, verifiable, repeatable evidence is more likely correct than a several thousand year old fable. Faith requires accepting a given concept without questioning it. Science is all about questioning such concepts, and if credible evidence comes along that evolutionary theory is incorrect, science will have no problem with reworking the whole concept. That is the difference between science and religion.

So basically what your saying is that science has only been around for what 150 years or so? Therefore People like Socrates and Galileo, had nothing to do with science, progression and discovery. To me faith means trusting something blindly, and unless you can give me PROOF that evolution is a positive, form of beginning, than no matter how sure you are, you're still putting your FAITH into it. Therefore it is your religion. Religion has evolved dramatically over time. Even the bible as it has been lost in translation has evolved. Two hundred years ago a homosexual would have been burned at the stake by the religious, now, homosexuals even give sermons in some religions.

The point i'm trying to make is that perhaps you can't get the religions to prove the theory of ID, but you cant PROVE evolution either. So belittle people all you want saying they are just sheep or whatever if they go to church. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[monsoon]

...., but you cant PROVE evolution either. ....

Evolution has been proven. Easily. They did this long ago in experiments with fruit flys because they have very short generations. And today's drug resistant bacteria and viruses are another example.

Even in humanity it has been proven. Tens of thousands of years ago people that migrated to the northern climates developed very light skin because that enabled people to make vitamin D from the very limited sunlight in these areas. In the same token, people indigenous to the equator have dark skin to counter the ultraviolet rays of the sun. This happened because over successive generations, only those with the appropriate characteristics were able to pass their genes in the long term to successive generations. Those with dark skin in the north and those with light skin at the equator died off. Hence the human race evolved in these areas due to natural selection. This is provable and it did happen.

Evolution is nothing more than the passing of genes from one generation to the next in a selective process. There is nothing to prove here as this is a known fact.

[Neo]

I don't like to express my views on topics such as this very often and this is no exception but I do want to indulge this thread with some topics on a site I found the other day while searching this particular topic. It deals with the Bible's words more specifically than generalized religion or even Christianity but it does have some point regarding Christianity (you could loosely group what it says regarding Christianity and meld it with other religions of today for this particular purpose) and science.

I want to reinerate that I am not pushing one view or another because I honestly have no idea how life began and no one else on this planet does either and in pushing my view would only be pushing what I personally believe and not necessarily what is correct. The things gone over on this site are fairly interesting however, such as the topics of "Is the Bible compatible with modern science?" and "Did the theory of evolution disprove the creation taught in the Bible?"

The website:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/

[dimebag1980]

I don't like to express my views on topics such as this very often and this is no exception but I do want to indulge this thread with some topics on a site I found the other day while searching this particular topic. It deals with the Bible's words more specifically than generalized religion or even Christianity but it does have some point regarding Christianity (you could loosely group what it says regarding Christianity and meld it with other religions of today for this particular purpose) and science.

I want to reinerate that I am not pushing one view or another because I honestly have no idea how life began and no one else on this planet does either and in pushing my view would only be pushing what I personally believe and not necessarily what is correct. The things gone over on this site are fairly interesting however, such as the topics of "Is the Bible compatible with modern science?" and "Did the theory of evolution disprove the creation taught in the Bible?"

The website:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/

Thanks for posting those, Neo. I was extremely surprised to see you posting to this topic since I'd not seen you post to a topic like this since I first came on this website.

Thanks for the links, I plan to read them.

[Neo]

Thanks for posting those, Neo. I was extremely surprised to see you posting to this topic since I'd not seen you post to a topic like this since I first came on this website.

Thanks for the links, I plan to read them.

It's an interesting subject, the whole "where did life begin" saga. I honestly try to stay away from subjects like this but I wanted to chime in with that site I found the other day while doing a similar search on the net as the discussion going on in this thread. I honestly haven't read everything on that site but what I did read I found interesting. I believe both sides of the fence have an argument and to a degree I personally both are right which defies the teaching of either side.

We've been taught what we're supposed to believe and to never question it and I believe that is wrong. I believe we should question it and I personally think it should be taught in school in SCIENCE class. Evolution is science, so are dinosaurs, carbon dating, etc. Christianity and other religions around the world denounce the proof via carbon dating, evolution, etc. and I believe those topics should be taught in CHURCH. There is a place for each and considering carbon dating isn't seen as a real way of measuring time to most religions maybe it shouldn't be taught in school either?

[MJLO]

to be honest Neo, I have little opinion either. I'm agnostic, I can't discount the thought of Evolution. But I can't rule out the presence of a higher power. I'm all new agey. I guess that just makes me a big gay hippy, albeit a cute one!

[damus]

This is related to something I ponder now and then and cannot grasp. This goes beyond the big bang. How was the universe really created? When did time begin? If everything must be created by something, who or what created the universe? If he really exists, how was God created?

BTW: I also think that aliens are likely to have come down and influenced us in one way or another, and would not be surprised if they had something to do with Jesus. Were the creators of the pyramids all over the world decendants of the lost civilization of Atlantis (which was actually taught in history class) or worshippers of aliens? I've seen pictures of hyroglyphics from egypt that depicted helicopters...

[hood]

This is related to something I ponder now and then and cannot grasp. This goes beyond the big bang. How was the universe really created? When did time begin? If everything must be created by something, who or what created the universe? If he really exists, how was God created?

I think scientists generally view the universe being something that renews itself, the theory I keep hearing is that the universe was around before the big bang, it had just already cycled through a rapid expansion and then slowed and started to collapse in on itself until it was completely contained in an infinitely small point, then it began to rapidly expand again, i.e. the big bang. The thing that most people, including myself, have a hard time with is comprehending the concept of infinity, that time has no beginning and no ending and neither does space.

[GRDadof3]

Isn't it the Law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred from one form to another. If that's true, then how could there have been a Big Bang, or nothingness becoming energy? And if there were a Pre Big Bang Universe as suggested, then how did that universe come to be?

[dimebag1980]

Isn't it the Law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred from one form to another. If that's true, then how could there have been a Big Bang, or nothingness becoming energy? And if there were a Pre Big Bang Universe as suggested, then how did that universe come to be?

So many questions, so few answers.

But thousands of "internet experts" though. I have no doubt someone will give you the answers you seek.

[monsoon]

Isn't it the Law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred from one form to another. If that's true, then how could there have been a Big Bang, or nothingness becoming energy? And if there were a Pre Big Bang Universe as suggested, then how did that universe come to be?

The laws of thermodynamics apply to the existing universe. They don't make any statement about the conditions that existed prior to the universe being created.

[damus]

My head starts spinning just pondering how we got here. When you think the way man does, there is no logical way that anything exists, period. It all had to be started by something, but what? How could something have been around forever? Is time even real?

[hood]

Isn't it the Law of Thermodynamics that says energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred from one form to another. If that's true, then how could there have been a Big Bang, or nothingness becoming energy? And if there were a Pre Big Bang Universe as suggested, then how did that universe come to be?

The point is that, in theory (of course), the energy and matter in the universe was never created, it has simply always been in existance, no beginning, no ending, no creation.

[MJLO]

I didn't realize we had so many physicists on UP! I know nothing about that stuff. I'll stick to the easy.

[hood]

I rely purely on other physists opinions and theories, but all from pretty reliable sources, PopSci, discovery and history channels and enyclopedias. Just to disclose that I myself am not an expert on anything, but do know the more basic concepts.

[torgo]

Read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne is a good read too. Its all about that complicanted theoretical physics stuff. Relatively easy to read, too. I'm re-reading them right now.

[krazeeboi]

Evolution has been proven. Easily. They did this long ago in experiments with fruit flys because they have very short generations. And today's drug resistant bacteria and viruses are another example.

Even in humanity it has been proven. Tens of thousands of years ago people that migrated to the northern climates developed very light skin because that enabled people to make vitamin D from the very limited sunlight in these areas. In the same token, people indigenous to the equator have dark skin to counter the ultraviolet rays of the sun. This happened because over successive generations, only those with the appropriate characteristics were able to pass their genes in the long term to successive generations. Those with dark skin in the north and those with light skin at the equator died off. Hence the human race evolved in these areas due to natural selection. This is provable and it did happen.

Evolution is nothing more than the passing of genes from one generation to the next in a selective process. There is nothing to prove here as this is a known fact.

I believe that when most people speak of "proving evolution," they mean on a macro scale. The examples you cite are examples of microevolution, or evolution within a species. There are no living transitional species, and the fossils claimed as such are subject to vigorous debate on all sides of the issue.

The point is that, in theory (of course), the energy and matter in the universe was never created, it has simply always been in existance, no beginning, no ending, no creation.

That's a position I find to be philosophically untenable, although widely held.

[hood]

...There are no living transitional species, and the fossils claimed as such are subject to vigorous debate on all sides of the issue.

Every species is transitional, unless its a species that goes extinct without evolving into a new one.

That's a position I find to be philosophically untenable, although widely held.

According to the laws of physics it's the only way the Universe could exist, since matter can be neither created or destroyed.

[monsoon]

I believe that when most people speak of "proving evolution," they mean on a macro scale. The examples you cite are examples of microevolution, or evolution within a species. There are no living transitional species, and the fossils claimed as such are subject to vigorous debate on all sides of the issue.

That's a position I find to be philosophically untenable, although widely held.

If you take religious beliefs out of it, there is nothing to debate. There is no scientific basis to doubt evolution.