Posted: 1/20/2009 6:43:03 AM EDT
|
I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right.
Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO! |
Oh....... WONDERFUL.  Darwinism is science. ID isn't. I believe in God and that He created the universe. Science describes how we see the process and results of Creation. Let the shitstorm between the idiots that think that science can prove or disprove God commence. 
|
|
One is a respected and reasonably valid theory that is accepted by practically every single highly trained/educated scientist in the field of biology, biochemisty, etc - both by academic researchers as well as scientists in the private sector (pharmaceutical companies, etc.) The other is a story (not a theory) that is largely supported by people without advanced training or education in the relevant biological fields, and is based on a religious view. Gosh - it's really hard to decide which is a more legitimate answer to a scientific question. 
|
|
Quoted:
I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right. Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO!
|
|
Yes, it is Tuesday again, isn't it?
Sure, Darwin's theory is full of holes. It's a good thing that evolutionary theory didn't stop there, then. We have all sorts of lovely things like genetics and modern cell biology to fill in those holes and it's now among the most supported scientific theories out there. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not only totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but is absolutely unscientific in the first place. It's untestable, it makes no predictions... all it is and all it ever will be is a way to disguise hard creationism in order to try to shove it into the science classroom, where it doesn't belong. By the way, before this gets off to the races: -Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life. It can only happen when life is already there (although once life, at least as we know it, is there, evolution is inevitable). Biogenesis, including abiogenesis, is not evolutionary theory. -Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing whatsoever. Don't like the big bang? Fine, but it has fuck-all to do with evolution. -Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not god(s) exist(s). The only implication it has for religion is for fundamentalists who believe every word of their holy book is literal, the earth is 6,000 years old, pi is three, etc. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right. Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO!
What? I simply gave an opinion and then acknowledged its something that I could stand to learn more about. So I present the question here hoping that someone would post some nice reading material on the matter. Would you prefer I just keep a closed mind and hold no desire to hear others opinions on the matter? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right. Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO!
What? I simply gave an opinion and then acknowledged its something that I could stand to learn more about. So I present the question here hoping that someone would post some nice reading material on the matter. Would you prefer I just keep a closed mind and hold no desire to hear others opinions on the matter? No, I think he'd prefer if you read Wikipedia and The Blind Watchmaker. 
|
|
I was actually impressed with Expelled.
And I did NOT see the people on the show saying they were Christians, and that they think Creationism is the only way. I actually think they could have been Agnostics (at best) who simply think that there are too many inconsistencies in pure Evolutionism to allow us to get where we are now. You don't have to be a Believer to think there has to be intelligence behind how we got here at this point in time. That was my major takeaway from the show. It wasn't forcing Creation theory down people's throats... Don't throw it out just because it doesn't immediately conform to your view of things... That's not very open minded, is it? |
|
Here's how it gets summed up:
Creation is an event. Evolution is a process Intelligent design is a strategy darwinism is a tactic to complete a strategy. Before the concepts were co-opted by both sides, they were not incompatible. Evolution fits within creationism (in it's purest form. Evolution = change over time. This is demonstrable. Dog breeds are a good example of accelerated change over time. Almost all domestic breeds of dog have wolf ancestors) I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I also believe that God uses evolution as a means to an end. The universe is not static. It's undergoing changes all the time. Likewise the earth is not static. Species have gone extinct. Climate changes, islands are created from volcanoes, etc., etc. Intelligent design seems to be evident in a lot of things, from Genetics to physics. Genetics is what makes evolution possible. Natural selection - here's an argument that demonstrates it is real: Ever since we started putting laws and safety measures in place that keep stupid people from killing themselves in stupid ways, the number of stupid people has increased. Mess with natural selection and this is what you get. just my NSHO |
|
I don't think they are the same thing. Intelligent Design gets into faith & religion. I don't think it can be tested by the scientific method. Evolution is a theory. It can an is tested. If it's found to be wrong it will be revised or scrapped completely.
On the other hand I don't think they are incompatible. When I was going through confirmation our Pastor said the original writings said period of time instead of day for creation. If you make that one change they both can be right. |
|
Quoted:
I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right. Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO! GO! back to school. |
|
Good luck discussing this in an open, public forum.
99% of the atendees have preconceived notions. Information which supports those preconceived notions is automatically right, all else is wrong. You aren't dealing with scientists most of the time. My take on this, who cares? Whether there's a supreme creator or not, he does NOT control every detail, every second, across the entire universe. He, or whatever other powers that created this universe, sentient or random, delegated day to day, minute to minute responsibility all events to another entity. This universe runs on, and is controlled by math. Numerical relationships. Period. IF you can find hard evidence for any "miracles", I can whip you 95872554849937553527 to one with examples where the numerical relationships rule. You can see the math in the head of a sunflower, the arrangement of a spiral galaxy, the growth rates of bacteria or any other life form, in unfettered or conditionally limited environments, in the sheer elegance of Einstein's and Lorentz's work on relativity. Understand the math, and apply the math to day to day decisions, and you win. Use somebody else's interpretation, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Magna Charta, or even the US Constitution, and you win only so long as the non math based assumptions actually model the math that rules the process. Some models are better than others, but you're still betting on luck. Ignore the math, and you may get away with it in the short term, but in the long term big picture, ignoring the math gets you dead. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
There was a trial, Creationism/ID was given full access to present their case They lost––and lost big time:: Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that: Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. |
|
Quoted:
One is a respected and reasonably valid theory that is accepted by practically every single highly trained/educated scientist in the field of biology, biochemisty, etc - both by academic researchers as well as scientists in the private sector (pharmaceutical companies, etc.) The other is a story (not a theory) that is largely supported by people without advanced training or education in the relevant biological fields, and is based on a religious view. Gosh - it's really hard to decide which is a more legitimate answer to a scientific question. I find it funny that folks, who otherwise are reasonable and would believe simple proofs in this world as to how things came into being, eliminate the possibility of a creator for the universe around them. For instance, let's look at a computer. I'm sure you would acknowledge that the complexity, programming within the components, tight tolerances, and various other features of the items within it easily prove that there was an intelligent designer who thought of, designed, and built the components into a functioning computer that has various uses. Would you agree that only an idiot would say "I bet somehow the parts bin got shook really good and out popped this computer?" I don't know of anybody in this world who would look at a computer and believe that somehow lightning hit sand on a beach and cooked up the circuit board, which somehow got blown into a copper mine which also had traces of tin, aluminum, lead, and other chemicals to make the circuits which somehow also miraculously got the programming into the chips while they were being bounced around coming together, and then remarkably got assembled into a functioning form. Also during that time, somehow an infinite number of untrained monkeys also put together the operating system and all the software, and got it onto the hard drive that miraculously appeared within the computer. Laughable, isn't it? Something even as simple as a pair of scissors couldn't ever be formed by simply dropping a bunch of iron filings into a vat and shaking it... And yet, when confronted with the facts that there is more information in your DNA than in the library of congress, that in order for your body to function correctly metabolically thousands of processes must take place in the correct order and not get out of time, and will cause catastrophic problems if they do (think Cancer), and that nobody can really explain how that little 3 lb blob of jello between your ears can do things like contemplate the vastness of the universe, put together a symphony, and after all that still be able to find funny things in life like your kid picking his nose. If we were truly a product of random chance, then why do we have a sense of humor? That's not needed for survival of the fittest. Heck, why do we do/have so many things in life that aren't required for actual living, but we do/have them anyway. I don't need fingerprints, and yet I have them. Why do we need those for survival? Why are everyone's different? Everybody has two arms, two legs, two eyes, etc... but we all have different fingerprints. FWIW, it takes WAY the heck more faith to believe the theory of evolution than Creation. Believing that somehow space, the stars, planets, water, plants, animals, and man all came from something that came from nothing but some chemicals that got together and exploded (and where did the chems come from, btw?), and then the chemicals programmed themselves to create life, and then programmed themselves to morph into something higher, is patently illogical given the physical laws of nature and what humans have observed for millenia. Plus, to believe what a group of "highly educated.. blah blah" folks say who did not observe it happening, is simply putting faith in their guesswork and their interpretation of what they see around them through their pre-conceived ideas. Therefore, if they've denied the existence of a Creator, they only have one alternative as to how things came about, and that is to explain this universe through evolution. So, either God created this world and everything in it, and He created everything from nothing and spoke it into existence through omnipotent power and we are ultimately going to answer to Him on what we do here since He created us, or through the process of evolution, which must be explained and governed by physical laws to the exclusion of all things supernatural, everything came from chemicals, which always were, and somehow accidentally formed everything in this universe, and did so in just the right order, and miraculously had all the dependencies in place when it came time to "upgrade" to the next level as to sustain whatever life it was becoming. Please explain to this "uneducated person" how evolution is more logical and uses less faith to believe in than Creation. I sure as heck don't see it. |
|
What is it about a significant portion of creationists/ID supporters that makes them unable (or unwilling) to grasp the definition of the word "theory" as applied to the sciences? I swear, a lot of this whole argument could be averted with an understanding of that one word.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and never will be. It does not, and cannot, meet the requirements to be considered one. It is a belief. I will never try to argue with anyone over their own beliefs, there's no point in doing so, but intelligent design is not any kind of science and should not be treated as such. Quoted:
BIDEN YOU FUCKING SLIME, I SAW YOU BLINK AND SKITTER OVER CONSTITUTION edit: oops, wrong thread :S sorry! Best post in the thread. |
|
A rather orderly progression of development(almost as if it was guided). I don't see it as problematic or at odds with ID. |
|
First, its evolutionary biology, not "darwinism". The term darwinism is used to make it seem like a faith rather than a field of science.
Modern biology is based upon evolution, any reputable biologist will tell you this. Every theory has holes, that's why we continue to experiment and make discoveries. I don't see how you can lean towards intelligent design which has no evidence or experimentation to back it up. I suggest you read this site www.talkorigins.org |
|
Quoted: I watched Ben Stein's "Expelled" last night which is about the scientific communities blacklisting of scientists who show any possible belief in the theory of Intelligent Design. Personally, I'm an agnostic who leans in the direction of intelligent design because IMHO Darwin's theory seems to full of holes/unanswered. With what I've learned over the years my feelings for Darwinism are the same that I hold for religion. I have not seen enough evidence to say they are wrong, but I haven't seen enough evidence to prove they are right. Its still a subject that I don't know to much about though so arfcommers...discuss. Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design GO! Do you see what's wrong, logically, with the part in red? It makes zero sense. You are saying "because a scientific theory doesn't offer all the explanations but a religious theory answers ALL the questions, the religious theory is the one I will believe in." |
|
Quoted:
A rather orderly progression of development(almost as if it was guided). I don't see it as problematic or at odds with ID. I agree. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. |
|
Quoted:
Oh....... WONDERFUL.
Darwinism is science. ID isn't. I believe in God and that He created the universe. Science describes how we see the process and results of Creation. Let the shitstorm between the idiots that think that science can prove or disprove God commence. We recently had a thread here about an oil drilling accident that drained a lake and radically changed the topography of the area in a matter of hours. I can see it now. Five hundred years in the future geologists will describe how it took millions of years to create that lake bed and the very interesting topography. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Oh....... WONDERFUL. Darwinism is science. ID isn't. I believe in God and that He created the universe. Science describes how we see the process and results of Creation. Let the shitstorm between the idiots that think that science can prove or disprove God commence. We recently had a thread here about an oil drilling accident that drained a lake and radically changed the topography of the area in a matter of hours. I can see it now. Five hundred years in the future geologists will describe how it took millions of years to create that lake bed and the very interesting topography. I'm so glad I have stories like that to help me rationalize my beliefs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh....... WONDERFUL.
Darwinism is science. ID isn't. I believe in God and that He created the universe. Science describes how we see the process and results of Creation. Let the shitstorm between the idiots that think that science can prove or disprove God commence. We recently had a thread here about an oil drilling accident that drained a lake and radically changed the topography of the area in a matter of hours. I can see it now. Five hundred years in the future geologists will describe how it took millions of years to create that lake bed and the very interesting topography. I'm so glad I have stories like that to help me rationalize my beliefs. What are your beliefs? What are mine? |