Intelligent design and creationism

[pvenne]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have faith in reason, and reason (not blind belief) has led me to confirm my faith in God. learning about our natural world does not require us to deny part of our metaphysical/spiritual beliefs. The two realms are completely unrelated in my opinion. And evolution most certainly is fact.

[MadVlad]

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

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?

This is yet another exercise in futility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some theories are more than theories....

[krazeeboi]

The entire I.D. vs. Evolution debate really isn't even about evolution; it's really about ultimate origins. Speaking within a strict scientific context, science cannot tells us ULTIMATELY where matter came from. The Big Bang theory starts with matter, but it cannot go back any further than that point. To assume that it's always been here is just that: an assumption. And because it is untestable, it does not belong to the realm of science. I.D. attempts to precede this point and introduce some sort of intelligence that introduced the raw materials into the equation to get life today as we know it. And because that is also metaphysically untestable, that critical point is also an unscientific one. So in the end, we're left not with two theories, but with two philosophies. In short, microevolution is not a point of contention between the two views, but macroevolution, specifically the ultimate origins of raw materials that eventually became assembled in just the right way to produce life as we know it, is.

[Viper]

Actually, evolution doesn't atempt to answer where matter came from. The Darwin Evolutionary theory only explains how humans, and all biological beings, evolve over time. It does not try to explain how the original bits of matter came to be. Macroevolution does not have to go all thw way back to the ultimate origin, that is a different theory entirely. macro simply refers to larger scale. How large of scale is specified in the theory. Darwin set the scale only from a basic species, not the origination of matter itself.

The process of Evolution is testable and has been thousands of times by scientists for over 100 years on every country of the planet.

Anyone familiar with science, especially forensics will be familiar with the following principle.

Ever hear of the Null Hypothesis? It's one of the basic scientific principles.

The null hypothesis is the one that is MOST easily 'disproven' and based on that, you are forced to accept the other hypothesis.

The two hypotheses are...

1. ID.

2. Evolution.

Since there are no true testing for IDs' hypothesis we have to rely on faith derived from an old book. The level of disprovability is high. We have already proven that Humans have evolved. The level of disprovability is almost nil. The conclusion is that after consideration of all possible variables regarding faith, nothing can be proven but much has been disproved and yet we cannot disprove evolution.

Hypothesis one, ID, is more disprovable than hypothesis number 2, Evolution.

We are then forced to give credit to hypothesis number 2 as being more plausible.

Does this mean that the other is incorrect? No, it doesn't. It simply means from the analytical data we have gathered, one hypothesis is less likely than the other.

[rusthebuss]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There you go again attacking someone for their religious beliefs. Didn't you just get banned for attacking someone? Evolution is a theory and thats it.

[rusthebuss]

I have faith in reason, and reason (not blind belief) has led me to confirm my faith in God. learning about our natural world does not require us to deny part of our metaphysical/spiritual beliefs.  The two realms are completely unrelated in my opinion.  And evolution most certainly is fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You contradict yourself. Listen to what you type it.

[Ruso]

There you go again attacking someone for their religious beliefs. Didn't you just get banned for attacking someone? Evolution is a theory and thats it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see how I attacked anyone. I am being honest, and if you get offended because of a reasonable criticism, then I can not do anything about that. Yet, by reading your so "enlightened" commentaries, am confirming my thesis. Please, think beyond your superticions. Again, am not going to convince you about evolution, because, as every fanatic would say, "I was not there".

If you say pvenne is contradicting himself, then why do you deny your lack of reason in your faith?If something, I salute the fact that he believes but still accepts facts.

[Ruso]

And no, I was not banned. I base my commentaries on arguments, something that seemingly a few remember to do.

[pvenne]

amen. why do we have to separate science and religion? one can lead us to the other. religion does not require that we ignore what's given to us in scientific evidence, nor does science refute a supreme being...it simply helps us understand our origins...I dont hate on anyone for believing what they do, but the inteligent design/creationism people should listen with open ears to evolutionary theory, because it is quite interesting, and they might learn something. AGAIN, it doesn't require you to deny God, it simply helps us understand how his plan has unfolded, or for the non religious, it helps us understand where we have come from in a long line of evolutions from lesser life forms. that is all I have left to say. believe what you will, either way, you are not really wrong, but one way (evolution) will lead you to be more informed that the other (creationsim)...in my opinion. I dont mean to bash anyone's beliefs, and I respect them all. That's all.

[krazeeboi]

Actually, evolution doesn't atempt to answer where matter came from.  The Darwin Evolutionary theory only explains how humans, and all biological beings, evolve over time.  It does not try to explain how the original bits of matter came to be.  Macroevolution does not have to go all thw way back to the ultimate origin, that is a different theory entirely.  macro simply refers to larger scale.  How large of scale is specified in the theory.  Darwin set the scale only from a basic species, not the origination of matter itself.

You are correct. Macro- and microevolution are components of organic evolution, whereas the subject of the origins of matter is moreso related to the realm of inorganic evolution.

[dixiecupdrinking]

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}>

Why couldn't it have happened "by chance?" We're talking about literally an infinite amount of time during which this world could have been created. In fact, when you think about how miniscule our lifespan is in terms of the history of the species... and then how miniscule the lifespan of our species is in the history of the planet... and so on and so forth, it seems clear to me that as long as there was even the smallest statistical possibility that the world would develop as it has, it inevitably would occur.

You might as well say that you couldn't have been born by chance. "How could I be me? What are the odds, 1 in 6 billion?" To me it seems a bizarre sort of narcissism that dismisses evolution as statistically implausible.

[dixiecupdrinking]

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. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, there is nothing ironic about the students' behavior, let alone interesting or relevant. It would be pure stupidity to believe that several rocks, which the students likely knew weren't even present hours earlier, were formed in the shape of an arrow by some higher being. If you took those same students to a desert island devoid of intelligent beings for centuries, and showed them a rock formation that closely resembled an arrow, then their reaction might be relevant to a discussion of evolution. I think in that circumstance you'd find they would be much more willing to accept the formation as a random marvel.

But the "experiment" you're talking about is inflamatory nonsense. As long as people take such blatantly ideological stupidity as evidence of anything, any progress on these issues will be impossible.

[dixiecupdrinking]

The entire I.D. vs. Evolution debate really isn't even about evolution; it's really about ultimate origins. Speaking within a strict scientific context, science cannot tells us ULTIMATELY where matter came from. The Big Bang theory starts with matter, but it cannot go back any further than that point. To assume that it's always been here is just that: an assumption. And because it is untestable, it does not belong to the realm of science. I.D. attempts to precede this point and introduce some sort of intelligence that introduced the raw materials into the equation to get life today as we know it. And because that is also metaphysically untestable, that critical point is also an unscientific one. So in the end, we're left not with two theories, but with two philosophies. In short, microevolution is not a point of contention between the two views, but macroevolution, specifically the ultimate origins of raw materials that eventually became assembled in just the right way to produce life as we know it, is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for what is by far the most reasonable and productive response on this topic. You're absolutely right that at the base of this issue are two competing philosophies that are unprovable and thus basically irrelevant. 95% of the heated argument that occurs over this topic is ideological and political rather than scientific, and conducted by people who really don't know what either theory proposes.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Personally, this is the belief I subscribe to. in terms of the origion of life. (See Link)

[MR-2]

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".

If a theory had been developed over hundreds of years of testing and analysis that found lots of physical evidence that a few college students placed the rocks there, would it be rational for kids to be taught "God put them there" in schools?

[Viper]

We know that there are many naturally formed rock formations due to erosion. That rock experiment has no basis, no control value, no evidentiary reslts that can be repeated under peer review and I would have failed them from my class.

You cannot just assume by ignorance. That is not science.

Lack of proof proves nothing.

[RiversideGator]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. And, it will always remain thus since the scientific method requires that any theory, to be proven, must be recreated and we can never do this. The truth is no one knows with certainty what happened. And, even if evolution did occur in some sense, this doesnt eliminate the possibility of intelligent design through some form of evolution.

[Viper]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory.  And, it will always remain thus since the scientific method requires that any theory, to be proven, must be recreated and we can never do this.  The truth is no one knows with certainty what happened.  And, even if evolution did occur in some sense, this doesnt eliminate the possibility of intelligent design through some form of evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To that, I fully agree. The problem I keep encountering is that most ID supporters are out to totally debunk Darwin and evolution. They provide no evidence to support it either, just assumptions and conjecture. At least Evolution has testable evidence that can be duplicated by other peers in the scientific community.

I have no qualms that a deity of some form created the big bang knowing full well what would come about in 13.7 billion years. I say this because I, and other scientists, have no proof to contradict that possibility.

[Ruso]

The problem is that there is never going to be a scientific explanation in which God is included. Maybe hypothetically, with math, but in a long time. Have you seen the movie pi? I dont know how to write the symbol, sorry, it is the ever so famous: 3.14.......

You should have come to the evolution meeting in the Galapagos. As a few of you might know, that is where Darwin wrote his theories. They came from all over the world, and for most, evolution is fact. I, personally, agree.

[krazeeboi]

The scientific definition of evolution is change in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time. This simple definition does indeed prove that evolution is a fact, as we can actually SEE it occurring. The theory of evolution proclaims not simply that it happened in the past, but that it is STILL happening at present. However, admitting this (the obvious) does not automatically affirm random, chance processes that make this all come about. Currently I am taking an organic evolution course and although the semester has just begun, right now the biggest problem I have with the theory is that it is supposedly purposeless, that there is no "point" to evolution. There are no notions of progress and regress. Evolution happens "just because." I do not see any good reason to believe this. Frankly, I think that this notion must be preserved because when teleological language becomes part of our vocabulary within an evolutionary framework, an active, actual, intelligent agent of change must be considered. This is why it is absolutely imperative that we understand that science is a way of learning about our world, but it is not the way.

[Viper]

Any notions outside scientific method require faith. That doesn't make them wrong, simply less plausible by definition. At this moment in time, we don't scientifically see a point to evolution as you say but that doesn't mean at some point we won't.

Look at all the past scientific notions we've rewritten with new evidence. Over time, many notions that seemed pointless, with the limited data we knew, eventually became very meaningful with new data.

Simply stating it must be the work of ID where we have yet to understand is like giving up and is the opposite of the point of scientific study and analysis.

ID cannot be proven because an Intelligent Designer will not leave behind evidence. It would not autograph it like a painter would.

Ruso, you want a really mind boggling number? Try 1.618......

[Ruso]

That is my whole pointl. There will never be a scientific explanation for ID. If you include God in what you believe, then it is not about reason, it is about faith. I am not saying that is bad, but am just staing the difference.

Phi? I have heard of it, yeah it is complex

You really should check out the movie Pi, it is about that---God in numbers, God written in a formula...

[monsoon]

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution has been proven and observed many times in microbiology, fruit flys, etc. Drug resistant bacteria have evolved in just he last 20 years because doctors and patients abuse anti-biotics. The lifespan of these creatures is very short so we can readily observe it.

Even in humanity, evolution can be observed. If you accept the fact that every human on the earth has the same set of ancestors (doesn't even christanity say everyone is related to adam & even) then you have the delimma of explaining the various races on the earth. Well over the tens of thousands of years that mankind migrated to all points on the earth it has been discovered that people evolved to have light skin at the points closet to the poles to allow UV in so their bodies can make vitamin D. A necessary trait do the the angle of the sun. Likewise people living at the equator developed dark skin to protect the body against UV radiation. i.e. Evolution.

[krazeeboi]

Any notions outside scientific method require faith.

[RiversideGator]

Evolution has been proven and observed many times in microbiology, fruit flys, etc. Drug resistant bacteria have evolved in just he last 20 years because doctors and patients abuse anti-biotics. The lifespan of these creatures is very short so we can readily observe it.

I am not disputing that small scale, micro-evolution occurs as someone stated earlier. But, this is a far different thing than to argue that we are descended from monkeys who are descended from mice who come ultimately from mud. You can never recreate this and therefore it can never be proven. But, even if this did occur, it does not disprove the existence of God. I do find it amusing how atheists cling to the notion of evolution at least as strong as Christians do to the virgin birth. Thus evolution has assumed many of the characteristics of religion.