PDA

View Full Version : Are Intelligent Design and Creationism the same?



jinxmchue
06-16-2008, 11:09 AM
Gauging CU member's attitudes towards this.

Vepr
06-16-2008, 11:24 AM
I am not a religious person (agnostic) but I would think they are separate. My understanding is that intelligent design does not necessarily mean the Christian God or Christian story of creation but that a higher power whether a god, or alien etc started things up.

wilbur
06-16-2008, 12:13 PM
In some ways yes, in others no. The modern 'pioneers' of ID are all old earth, common-descent believing 'semi-evolutionists'. Or so they say anyways. It really depends who they are talking to. One of these guys trying to pitch ID to a creationist crowd will make it sound very creation-like. If the ID'ist is trying to convince a scientist, he will attempt to make it sound scientific and within the realm of methodical naturalism. So its really hard to say. They arent consistent.

But ID, in many cases, as its been presented (or attempted to be presented) in the classroom is creationism:

http://www.youtube.com/v/GUB8Mv1SaKQ

I would say they arent really the same. But I would say ID is a watered down version of creationism with pseudoscientific jargon behind it (but no actual research) to get around constitutional restrictions against teaching religion in the classroom. It is always strange to see the alliance between ID'ists and creationists though. Creationists should be throwing Behe and the other leaders of ID into the same category they put most scientists: Evil people who've bought into the lies of Satan. But being allied is politically expedient I guess.

linda22003
06-16-2008, 12:18 PM
The poll is lacking the natural third option, which would get the most votes of any of them:

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 12:22 PM
I think coming up with another definition of what they originally believe is just a marketing ploy - easily countered by some whale species, which at one time had rear appendages. What great intellect would give limbs and then take them away? Simply a carnival shell game and needs to be exposed for what it is accordingly.

LibraryLady
06-16-2008, 12:32 PM
Here is what my Governor said yesterday. Will someone explain it to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFSg9yR6EqM


(I want my Youtube link back!!! - I don't want a blog)

megimoo
06-16-2008, 12:35 PM
Gauging CU member's attitudes towards this.

Intelligent Design and Creationism Are Not the Same
snip

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism"

is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329

linda22003
06-16-2008, 12:38 PM
That's easy to explain. He's walking a thin line and making everyone happy. He sounds like he believes in ID without saying so, and he says he wants his kids to be able to learn and question everything. The real nugget in his response is when he says that the federal and state governments should stay out of it and that individual school boards should decide it. The school boards of Greenwich, Connecticut, and Possum Crick, Alabama, might well make different decisions.

wilbur
06-16-2008, 12:42 PM
Here is what my Governor said yesterday. Will someone explain it to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFSg9yR6EqM


(I want my Youtube link back!!! - I don't want a blog)

What this means is that you should vote for the other guy in the next election ;).

This guy has fallen for the common fallacy that evolution somehow rules out or is mutually exclusive with a 'creator'. He also misrepresents it by saying evolution says everything is just accidental and random.

I do agree with him when he says 'he wants the kids exposed to the very best science'. Unfortunately, ID doesnt pass the test. There's not even much to debate on this point, seeing as how there isnt even any research to back up the claims. The biologic institute just recently (in the past few months) put up some research papers, but they actually don't really have anything to do with ID at all. So why should ID be the only scientific theory to be taught in school, that has absolutely zero research behind it... just a couple pop-science books?

Watch the video again, and substitute in your mind every instance of evolution with psychology, and intelligent design with astrology... then you can understand the silliness of what he is saying.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 12:43 PM
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities...


The concept of ID might be based on science but it is not science. It is a supposition that what cannot be explained scientifically is evidence of design. A huge leap and not at all scientific.


Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)


Michael Behe has admitted that his definition of a theory is so broad that under it astrology could be defined as theory. Funny stuff.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178.html

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 12:45 PM
Why would He do this?

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB182/Lecture02/figures/whale.gif

wilbur
06-16-2008, 12:48 PM
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329[/SIZE]

Like creationism, ID has already fallen on its own merits (lack-there-of really). Its supporters are just to woodenheaded to acknowledge it.

LibraryLady
06-16-2008, 12:48 PM
I got it; I just felt he was beating around the bush.

He has angered a bunch of Republicans here with the big pay raise the legislature is voting on. I keep telling my friends, the representatives need some money to make up for the corrupt $ he has cut off!!

jinxmchue
06-16-2008, 12:58 PM
Michael Behe has admitted that his definition of a theory is so broad that under it astrology could be defined as theory. Funny stuff.

Uh, not quite. I responded to this claim on the IMDB discussion board for "Expelled." Here's what I wrote (for the most part):



Here's what Behe actually said UNPARAPHRASED AND IN CONTEXT:


Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

...

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

...

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.



Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 01:06 PM
Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 01:10 PM
Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that the mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?

I saw that movie: 5 Million Years To Earth.

http://www.horror-wood.com/pit_qu6.jpg

:eek:

wilbur
06-16-2008, 01:12 PM
Uh, not quite. I responded to this claim on the IMDB discussion board for "Expelled." Here's what I wrote (for the most part):

Here's what Behe actually said UNPARAPHRASED AND IN CONTEXT:

Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.

Still seems a valid comparison. Theory as it's used today in science has a specific meaning. Behe wants to redefine the word to mean something else... something much more loose, and much less useful. In his new definition, pretty much any crackpot idea someone may conjure up could be called a scientific theory. In short, he wants ideas to be understood as scientific theories, before they have evidence to support them. It's a fairly self-serving idea. He wants to give ID an illusion of credibility. But this redefinition of science and theory has implications beyond just the inclusion of ID a valid theory. Scientists will still know its bunk, but this is all about marketing. He wants to castrate the word theory to have the same weak meaning that creationists generally imply it has when they cast aspersions towards evolution (ie. "Its just a theory!").

He's referring to a time when there was no such thing as the scientific method, or what we would understand as science today. He's trying to make a fallacious connection between the science of today and a notion that astrology may have been considered a valid 'theory' at one time. However, the science of the middle ages is not very comparable to the science of our time, and its misrepresentative to suggest that science as we understand it today held astrology to be a valid theory.

He admitted as much in his little Q&A, that his redefinition of 'theory' and 'science' would include ideas like astrology... heck.. perhaps even tarot cards and other mystical crap would get caught under the umbrella too. He just tried to convince us that that is a good thing :confused:

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 01:17 PM
Not quite the same is it? In fact, it's totally different from what people are claiming Behe said.


What I claimed is that Mr. Behe's definition of scientific theory is so broad that under it astrology could be classified as scientific theory. That claim is confirmed in the exchange you cited...


Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

What more do you need?

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 02:08 PM
Jinx,

Take as much time as you need to answer the question in post #15.

Aklover
06-16-2008, 03:01 PM
Yes, backdoor creationism.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:00 PM
Why would He design a sightless cave crayfish?

http://www.ikc.caves.org/slideshow/images/slide30a.jpg

Cold Warrior
06-16-2008, 04:04 PM
Why would He design a sightless cave crayfish?

http://www.ikc.caves.org/slideshow/images/slide30a.jpg

Because, with a little cajun spice, they taste good? :D

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 04:05 PM
Because, with a little cajun spice, they taste good? :D

Oh. Didn't know that. Sorry. :o

jinxmchue
06-16-2008, 08:36 PM
Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?

Do I believe that? No, I don't believe that. Why do you ask? I'm not even an IDer.

In any case, there are evolutionists who believe that. Got anything to say about that?


Take as much time as you need to answer the question in post #15.

Don't be an ass. I have a life outside of CU.

jinxmchue
06-16-2008, 08:39 PM
What I claimed is that Mr. Behe's definition of scientific theory is so broad that under it astrology could be classified as scientific theory. That claim is confirmed in the exchange you cited...


Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

What more do you need?

The entire exchange about the issue, that's what. Good thing I provided it. In context, what you are quote-mining has a massively different meaning.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 09:22 PM
Do I believe that? No, I don't believe that. Why do you ask? I'm not even an IDer.


The idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens is implicit in the ID hypothesis and I think that anyone who supports the ID being taught as science should be aware of that implication.


In any case, there are evolutionists who believe that. Got anything to say about that?

As long as the idea that mankind was designed by aliens is presented as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory, then I have no problem with teachers discussing it with students. Similarly, I'm not against students being exposed to ID as long as teachers don't present it as a scientific theory.

The Night Owl
06-16-2008, 09:23 PM
The entire exchange about the issue, that's what. Good thing I provided it. In context, what you are quote-mining has a massively different meaning.

The context does not contradict what I wrote about Mr. Behe. The important question now is... why do you want a concept which has, according to one of its main proponents, about as much scientific validity as astrology to be taught as science?

CLibertarian
06-16-2008, 10:03 PM
The idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens is implicit in the ID hypothesis and I think that anyone who supports the ID being taught as science should be aware of that implication.



As long as the idea that mankind was designed by aliens is presented as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory, then I have no problem with teachers discussing it with students. Similarly, I'm not against students being exposed to ID as long as teachers don't present it as a scientific theory.

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught as a theory as opposed to it being taught as if it is a fact.

megimoo
06-16-2008, 10:13 PM
Jinx,

Implicit in the ID concept is the idea that mankind may have been designed by aliens. Do you believe that mankind may have been designed by aliens?
IN your case the answer is obvious !

wilbur
06-17-2008, 07:14 AM
In any case, there are evolutionists who believe that. Got anything to say about that?


Who would that be? Scientists engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum don't really count.

noonwitch
06-17-2008, 09:00 AM
I'm not a scientist, I never did well in math or science class as a student, but I have always thought (at least, as an adult) that the theory of evolution had a certain logic to it.

I believe that my body is the result of evolution, and that my soul was created by God. The creation story in Genesis is an allegorical truth, not a literal one. It is an allegory to establish that mankind is different from the other animals, in that we have consciences and free will.

wilbur
06-17-2008, 12:16 PM
I'm not a scientist, I never did well in math or science class as a student, but I have always thought (at least, as an adult) that the theory of evolution had a certain logic to it.

I believe that my body is the result of evolution, and that my soul was created by God. The creation story in Genesis is an allegorical truth, not a literal one. It is an allegory to establish that mankind is different from the other animals, in that we have consciences and free will.

That and at the time, Moses's creation account was among the first clear examples of monism... that nothing else was pre-existent except God.

The Night Owl
06-17-2008, 01:22 PM
I'm not a scientist, I never did well in math or science class as a student, but I have always thought (at least, as an adult) that the theory of evolution had a certain logic to it.

I believe that my body is the result of evolution, and that my soul was created by God. The creation story in Genesis is an allegorical truth, not a literal one. It is an allegory to establish that mankind is different from the other animals, in that we have consciences and free will.

Yeah. I'll never understand why some people have difficulty accepting the theory of evolution. If one considers how drastically a human changes in a short span of time within the womb, one should have no difficulty believing that evolution can and does take place during immense spans of time.

The Night Owl
06-17-2008, 02:48 PM
Neil Tyson on ID...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPLn9nv26NM

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 09:20 AM
Neil Tyson on ID...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPLn9nv26NM

One can always be a comedian and point out the strangeness of our own design then take that as the premise for their preconceived conclusion that there is no intelligent design. It would be just as easy to reverse what he has said in order to conclude that our own design is a wonderous, special, and even intelligent.

The slip that this guy made while showing birth defects in aborted fetuses by referring to them as "feces" is rather disturbing to me. I've seen this guy on shows about the universe on the history channel. I just lost about all of the respect that I ever had for him.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 09:44 AM
Yeah. I'll never understand why some people have difficulty accepting the theory of evolution. If one considers how drastically a human changes in a short span of time within the womb, one should have no difficulty believing that evolution can and does take place during immense spans of time.

As a person with a science background, I have a problem with the theory of evolution being taught as if it IS a proven fact. Many have taken their belief in evolution as THE truth to the point that it is their de facto religion, which they deny, and then go out of their way to demean anyone that doesn't have the same level of faith that they have in believing that evolution IS a proven fact.

Example: I have been on forums where I described my high school biology teacher's approach to teaching the theory of evolution. First off, he stated that regardless of anyone's personal beliefs, it is a scientific theory and that we would be tested on it. While teaching about it, he described the strengths and weaknesses of the theory in a way that would let us make our own decision. He was also using it a a lesson in scientific thought and process. He also concluded that it has yet to be established that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

You wouldn't believe how many evolutionists jumped on this and started claiming that he should have been fired for teaching it in this manner and for even stating that there was any weaknesses in the theory. They were even more outraged by making the scientifically truthful statement that it has yet to be determined to be a proven fact. Their faith in evolution was insulted by the very scientific process of studying a theory.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 10:45 AM
Example: I have been on forums where I described my high school biology teacher's approach to teaching the theory of evolution. First off, he stated that regardless of anyone's personal beliefs, it is a scientific theory and that we would be tested on it. While teaching about it, he described the strengths and weaknesses of the theory in a way that would let us make our own decision. He was also using it a a lesson in scientific thought and process. He also concluded that it has yet to be established that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

No scientific theory is ever proven to the extent that it becomes indisputable. Scientific theories are founded on evidence, not proof. Proof is attainable only in mathematics.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 10:47 AM
The slip that this guy made while showing birth defects in aborted fetuses by referring to them as "feces" is rather disturbing to me. I've seen this guy on shows about the universe on the history channel. I just lost about all of the respect that I ever had for him.

Oh come on. You're going to condemn Mr. Tyson for a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately?

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 10:55 AM
No scientific theory is ever proven to the extent that it becomes indisputable. Scientific theories are founded on evidence, not proof. Proof is attainable only in mathematics.

Then tell that to your fellow evolutionists that have taken their belief in evolution to the level of religion.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 11:00 AM
Oh come on. You're going to condemn Mr. Tyson for a slip of the tongue which he corrected immediately?

I said that it disturbs me to the point that I lost respect for him. Condmenation would be even stronger disapproval. Of course, the fact that he showed birth defects using photos of aborted children in an easy and non-chalant (sp?) manner while making such a slip added to being disturbed.

I noticed that you didn't respond to the rest of my post.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 11:48 AM
Then tell that to your fellow evolutionists that have taken their belief in evolution to the level of religion.

Am I supposed to take it on faith that you're properly representing what "my fellow evolutionists" have written or said in defense of the theory? If you want me to join you in criticising someone for something that person said, then you've got to tell me what was said and who said it. I'm not going to address nonspecific claims. I just won't play the game that way.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 02:03 PM
As a person with a science background, I have a problem with the theory of evolution being taught as if it IS a proven fact. Many have taken their belief in evolution as THE truth to the point that it is their de facto religion, which they deny, and then go out of their way to demean anyone that doesn't have the same level of faith that they have in believing that evolution IS a proven fact.


But universal common descent is fact. Its as factual as anything can possibly be. Some specific processes in evolution still leave much to be discovered, but the idea that evolution happens/has happened is indeed fact.



Example: I have been on forums where I described my high school biology teacher's approach to teaching the theory of evolution. First off, he stated that regardless of anyone's personal beliefs, it is a scientific theory and that we would be tested on it. While teaching about it, he described the strengths and weaknesses of the theory in a way that would let us make our own decision. He was also using it a a lesson in scientific thought and process. He also concluded that it has yet to be established that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.


This is a problem. Why does he have to make this exception for evolution? It should be by default, taught and understood that almost all science is tentative in some way, or has a few assumptions built in. TTOE is no different than anything else in this regard, yet why is it just evolution that has to be presented in such a suspicious and appeasing way, to tip toe around a few peoples religious sensitivities? It's almost like watching some self-loathing rich white liberal trying to apologize to blacks for slavery. By singling out evolution, it leaves the impression that it more marginal in some way than your average scientific theory, which just is not true.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 02:19 PM
But universal common descent is fact. Its as factual as anything can possibly be. Some specific processes in evolution still leave much to be discovered, but the idea that evolution happens/has happened is indeed fact.

Then your belief that it is a fact is based solely upon your faith that is is indeed a fact..


This is a problem. Why does he have to make this exception for evolution? It should be by default, taught and understood that almost all science is tentative in some way, or has a few assumptions built in. TTOE is no different than anything else in this regard, yet why is it just evolution that has to be presented in such a suspicious and appeasing way, to tip toe around a few peoples religious sensitivities? It's almost like watching some self-loathing rich white liberal trying to apologize to blacks for slavery. By singling out evolution, it leaves the impression that it more marginal in some way than your average scientific theory, which just is not true.

Because, he knew that the theory of evolution is a touchy subject and he did his best to be respectful of others. This is a quality lacking in most evolutionists of today.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 02:24 PM
Am I supposed to take it on faith that you're properly representing what "my fellow evolutionists" have written or said in defense of the theory? If you want me to join you in criticising someone for something that person said, then you've got to tell me what was said and who said it. I'm not going to address nonspecific claims. I just won't play the game that way.

Yes. What I have said of the account is the truth as it occurred. Are you calling me a liar? I told you what was said and who (evolutionists on other forums). I can't remember their screen names after all of this time and don't expect me to.:rolleyes:

ConJinx
06-21-2008, 02:42 PM
Creationism or Evolution? I love that question, because it is so very personal. My answer. Its both. I cannot convince anyone of the oddly remarkable things that have happened to me in my paltry 37 years of existence. Simple yet complex messages sent into reality after proposing them in closed thought. And no, not self-fulfilling nonsense. For all intents and purpose, I shouldn't even be alive. I refer to it as the "Irony of my Existence." In my reckless life I've taunted Death and been kept alive, for what purpose; that is truly a perplexing question of which I've no answer, yet my faith guides me forward. I cannot, nor will I try to convince anyone which is the truth. I was created, and I continue to evolve. What sad arrogance it is to insist something so divinely singular en masse.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 02:51 PM
Then your belief that it is a fact is based solely upon your faith that is is indeed a fact..

Its based on years and years of study and research. UCD is so conclusively well supported by the evidence that has been gathered over the last 150+ years, that yes, it is considered fact. Faith is not an accurate label for this.



Because, he knew that the theory of evolution is a touchy subject and he did his best to be respectful of others. This is a quality lacking in most evolutionists of today.

Just reminds me of the saying, "Don't have such an open mind, that your brain falls out". Unfortunately, that's what the 'Teach the Controversy' crowd asks of us... and no offense, but it sounds like the platitudes of your teacher amounted to as much.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 09:06 PM
Evolution is not a belief system. You can subscribe to the theory - but understand that, in the main, that subscription is based on someone's unflinching work - and the respect thereof. Someone who tormented over each publication - its timing, competition, and peer pressure. For me - it's not a belief system - simply respect for (for his time - and ours) the balls to do it.

wilbur
06-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Evolution is not a belief system. You can subscribe to the theory - but understand that, in the main, that subscription is based on someone's unflinching work - and the respect thereof. Someone who tormented over each publication - its timing, competition, and peer pressure. For me - it's not a belief system - simply respect for (for his time - and ours) the balls to do it.

I don't know about CLibertarian, but I hear this constantly: "Evolution is just the faith of naturalism/atheism blab blah blah" from religious folk. It's quite ironic, but the religious want to insult and marginalize evolution because they consider it to be a faith. If it were actually faith, you'd think theyd be more agreeable towards it.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 10:41 PM
If it were a faith then no one would scientifically challenge it, month after month, year after year - for a century and a half now. The scientists, (you know - the folks that actually work at such tasks?), question everything during their education and then attempt to stand on Darwin's shoulders and/or elaborate on this theories or prove them folly. Belief doesn't perform this task - belief simply repeat the same mantra, over and over, and eventually beat down any resistance to 'The Body', the vessel of said faith. If evolution were a faith - it would have been relegated to the same stature as astrology - long before the beginning of the last century.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 10:47 PM
Its based on years and years of study and research. UCD is so conclusively well supported by the evidence that has been gathered over the last 150+ years, that yes, it is considered fact. Faith is not an accurate label for this.

You stated:

Some specific processes in evolution still leave much to be discovered, but the idea that evolution happens/has happened is indeed fact

So, you extrapolate this to evolution is a fact while admitting that there are holes in the theory that have yet ot be discovered. That's called faith.



Just reminds me of the saying, "Don't have such an open mind, that your brain falls out". Unfortunately, that's what the 'Teach the Controversy' crowd asks of us... and no offense, but it sounds like the platitudes of your teacher amounted to as much.

So, you are saying the my high school biology teacher was wrong? Please elaborate how he was wrong for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution in a way that his students could arrive at their own conclusion. Are science students not allowed to do this wrt evolution? If not, please elaborate. Do ypu believe that evolution should be taught as a fact with no weaknesses in it's theory?

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 10:51 PM
If it were a faith then no one would scientifically challenge it, month after month, year after year - for a century and a half now. The scientists, (you know - the folks that actually work at such tasks?), question everything during their education and then attempt to stand on Darwin's shoulders and/or elaborate on this theories or prove them folly. Belief doesn't perform this task - belief simply repeat the same mantra, over and over, and eventually beat down any resistance to 'The Body', the vessel of said faith. If evolution were a faith - it would have been relegated to the same stature as astrology - long before the beginning of the last century.

That's BS. Faith is always being scientiifically challenged. It's also been a phenomena throughout the cenutires that scientists resist anything that bucks the core of their group think.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 10:56 PM
I don't know about CLibertarian, but I hear this constantly: "Evolution is just the faith of naturalism/atheism blab blah blah" from religious folk. It's quite ironic, but the religious want to insult and marginalize evolution because they consider it to be a faith. If it were actually faith, you'd think theyd be more agreeable towards it.

I merely believe that it's a disserve to the science student toteach evolution as if it were an undiputable fact because, it has yet to occur. Your posts have further p[ostered my original claim that many evolutionists think the may high school biology teacher was wrong for teaching evolution in the manner that he did even though it was true to the scientific process. He dared to state the the theory of evolution had weaknesses and would not teach it as if it were a proven fact. Many evolutionists has taken their belief in evolution to the level of religion.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 11:06 PM
That's BS. Faith is always being scientiifically challenged. It's also been a phenomena throughout the cenutires that scientists resist anything that bucks the core of their group think.


No - that's not what I said. What I said was faith never challanges itself. It gets back to 'the rice bowl' theory. In the Middle Ages people were drawn and quartered for making waves in the church. That's why the time was referred to as 'The Dark Ages.' Not so in science. In the church you never, ever bite the hand that feeds you.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 11:20 PM
I don't know about CLibertarian, but I hear this constantly: "Evolution is just the faith of naturalism/atheism blab blah blah" from religious folk. It's quite ironic, but the religious want to insult and marginalize evolution because they consider it to be a faith. If it were actually faith, you'd think theyd be more agreeable towards it.

I don't believe that evolution is a faith, but I will say that some adherents to evolution it treat it as if it were. Some Christians want Christian morality and viewpoints taught in school to the exclusion of other points of view. Some supporters of evolution feel the same way regarding the teaching of evolution. There are important questions that evolution doesn't answer that until such a time as they can be answered there will be doubts and holes in evolutionary theory. I don't disregard evolution. In fact I believe that it is probable but that opinion doesn't preclude me from investigating other explanations and if I was in school now I would appreciate the opportunity to compare both intelligent design and evolution side by side and then come to my own conclusions. If the purpose of school is to teach critical thinking skills then this would be a good test of those skills. If ID is so flawed and improbable then it will not stand the test of public scrutiny. If, however, it gives factual answers to real questions it will win out.

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 11:22 PM
If ID is so flawed and improbable then it will not stand the test of public scrutiny. If, however, it gives factual answers to real questions it will win out.

And if it is found to be factual - it should.:)

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 11:40 PM
And if it is found to be factual - it should.:)

Please understand, when I weigh the evidence I see evolution as a probability but since there are important unanswered questions I can't fully get behind it. The same applies to intelligent design. Each seems to explain some aspects of reality and leave unanswered others. Also because imperfect beings are assessing and interpreting the evidence their conclusions will always be suspect until such a time as the majority of questions can be answered.

At any rate I view this as an exercise in determining the divine purpose. To understand the methods that God used to bring about creation is to know something of the nature of God. Thus I have a vested interest in knowing the truth to this matter.

CLibertarian
06-21-2008, 11:57 PM
No - that's not what I said. What I said was faith never challanges itself. It gets back to 'the rice bowl' theory. In the Middle Ages people were drawn and quartered for making waves in the church. That's why the time was referred to as 'The Dark Ages.' Not so in science. In the church you never, ever bite the hand that feeds you.

That's BS too. Otherwise, there would be only one religion.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 12:08 AM
That's BS too. Otherwise, there would be only one religion.

Then please tell us what happened to the first fellow to translate the Holy Bible into English.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 12:09 AM
I merely believe that it's a disserve to the science student toteach evolution as if it were an undiputable fact because, it has yet to occur. Your posts have further p[ostered my original claim that many evolutionists think the may high school biology teacher was wrong for teaching evolution in the manner that he did even though it was true to the scientific process. He dared to state the the theory of evolution had weaknesses and would not teach it as if it were a proven fact. Many evolutionists has taken their belief in evolution to the level of religion.

What weaknesses? If he told you common descent is not fact, he mislead you. Did he offer any alternative explanations?

Again, why single out evolution? All science should be approached and understood with an open mind. I don't think that means treating evolution in a disingenuous manner to appease some people who can't interpret their Bible correctly and defy millenia of thought and philosophy regarding their own religious book.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 12:16 AM
That's BS too. Otherwise, there would be only one religion.

Martin Luther challenged faith in a big way and not only did he not die, he founded the protestant movement and give birth to the majority of Christian denominations that exist today. Luther viewed the salvation and grace doctrine of the Catholic Church to be wrong and demanded correction. John Calvin, John Wesley, John Smyth and Thomas Helyws all challenged their faith. The whole protestant movement was a correction to the decadence and arrogance of the Catholic Church and is a prime example of faith being challenged by faith.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 12:17 AM
Then please tell us what happened to the first fellow to translate the Holy Bible into English.

Luther was the first person to translate it in to German and we know what happened to him.

CLibertarian
06-22-2008, 12:22 AM
What weaknesses? If he told you common descent is not fact, he mislead you. Did he offer any alternative explanations?

Again, why single out evolution? All science should be approached and understood with an open mind. I don't think that means treating evolution in a disingenuous manner to appease some people who can't interpret their Bible correctly and defy millenia of thought and philosophy regarding their own religious book.

The weaknesses were mainly centered around holes in the geological record and lack of actual proof. Now start actually answering my questions instead of answering with questions.

CLibertarian
06-22-2008, 12:24 AM
Luther was the first person to translate it in to German and we know what happened to him.

LP is spewing lots of easily detectable BS.:D

ConJinx
06-22-2008, 12:24 AM
If I could for one moment, borrow this coward. Simple as he is, a man none the less
"Who, I say, among you have Faith."
and.. Able to compose thought." Staggard; Please, Thomas Staggard." A sigh echoed a distant weak response.
"Was it worth the Death?"
Broken, his thoughts went to when his daughter was young.Her laughter; That last ray of light, cresting upon mountain tips, insisting upon innocence and truth.
Death gnawed upon the flap of flesh. Lapping blood as a blind drunkard. Ruthless, with purpose; filling the gaps between fight and feast.
"Again no, not one, fucking thanx."
"...should I just go to Smiths' and get some bacon."
"Tell me does Binky know when it's time to go."flinching, Thomas quipped.
Death pondered which part of him he'd like to play show and tell with.
"LOOK,YOU FUCK...... I've seen life!!!" leaves shuffle softly.A cool breeze spreads dew, leaf to leaf.
"and, ffffiptttt, fupppptttt.Remember, its early yet, so take your time."

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 12:26 AM
What weaknesses? If he told you common descent is not fact, he mislead you. Did he offer any alternative explanations?

Again, why single out evolution? All science should be approached and understood with an open mind. I don't think that means treating evolution in a disingenuous manner to appease some people who can't interpret their Bible correctly and defy millenia of thought and philosophy regarding their own religious book.

In my opinion the two biggest weaknesses of evolution is its inablity to demonstrate how evolution got started and the distinct lack of transitional species in the fossil record. There should be more transitional species than complete ones. For example if a horse evolved from a small mammal where are the fossils of all the species in between? There should be lots of them. In fact there should be more transitional species than actual horse fossils. Shouldn't I see something that looks like 40 precent horse and 60 percent something else. Then 50 percent horse and 50 percent something else... right on up to the 100 percent horse fossils we find today?

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 12:29 AM
LP is spewing lots of easily detectable BS.:D

And yet you've nothing to refute it. Gee, how predictable.:p

CLibertarian
06-22-2008, 12:32 AM
And yet you've nothing to refute it. Gee, how predictable.:p

It has been easily refuted. Try reading.

ConJinx
06-22-2008, 12:32 AM
why not just say the catholics are wrong

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 12:36 AM
why not just say the catholics are wrong

Well, actually - on the subject of astronomy, after their Galileo embarrassment, the Catholics finally came around to a fairly scientific perspective.;)

Shannon
06-22-2008, 12:37 AM
why not just say the catholics are wrong

Totally off topic...is Central a city in Florida?

ConJinx
06-22-2008, 12:38 AM
Has anyone ever heard that Islam was a mechanism created and controlled by Rome to secure trade with the Persians. Familiar, and a pet that shook its leash.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 12:44 AM
Totally off topic...is Central a city in Florida?

Yes, it is right near Smallville on your way to Metropolis.

Oops that's Kansas. Please ignore.

Shannon
06-22-2008, 12:55 AM
Yes, it is right near Smallville on your way to Metropolis.

Oops that's Kansas. Please ignore.

Hey! You're a smartass too!:p

wilbur
06-22-2008, 09:57 AM
In my opinion the two biggest weaknesses of evolution is its inablity to demonstrate how evolution got started and the distinct lack of transitional species in the fossil record.

Welcome back fgator!

This is a common misconception. Thousands and thousands of 'gaps' or transitional forms have been found. A curious thing happens when a 'missing link' fossil is found though... there are two new missing links, even though the fossil record is more complete. The 'gaps in the fossil record' argument, hasnt been a valid for quite a long time now.

Actually, due to the nested hierarchy, they can predict where exactly missing links will be found in the strata, and search for them there. New missing links are being found this way everyday, thanks to the predictive power of evolution.



There should be more transitional species than complete ones. For example if a horse evolved from a small mammal where are the fossils of all the species in between? There should be lots of them. In fact there should be more transitional species than actual horse fossils. Shouldn't I see something that looks like 40 precent horse and 60 percent something else. Then 50 percent horse and 50 percent something else... right on up to the 100 percent horse fossils we find today?

Well, a transitional fossil is a complete creature. Everything that exists is technically a transitional creature. Always in a state of change. It's interesting you bring up horses, because their lineage is actually extremely fleshed out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Shakespeare
06-22-2008, 11:00 AM
"Intelligent Design" is Creationism with a focus group tested brand name.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 11:04 AM
You stated:

So, you extrapolate this to evolution is a fact while admitting that there are holes in the theory that have yet ot be discovered. That's called faith.


Evolution covers quite a lot of ground, so it is possible for one aspect to be factual, with other parts not quite as well supported. I specifically said universal common descent is fact. The idea that human beings and monkeys have a common ancestor is fact. Specific mechanisms that drive this evolution, such as natural selection/random mutation are almost as well supported, but you'll find many evolutionary biologist still debate about it. What you wont find, are biologists debating the idea that life evolved and we all share a common ancestor anymore than you'll hear them debate whether water is wet.



So, you are saying the my high school biology teacher was wrong? Please elaborate how he was wrong for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution in a way that his students could arrive at their own conclusion. Are science students not allowed to do this wrt evolution? If not, please elaborate. Do ypu believe that evolution should be taught as a fact with no weaknesses in it's theory?

It should be taught truthfully. Casting inappropriate amount of doubts upon it for the comfort of a few is dishonest.

The thing is... if concessions are made... its not going to stop with evolution. The creationist belief system is simply incompatible with all of natural science, period. After biology.. we'll have to rewrite geology and astronomy, physics and on and on.

CLibertarian
06-22-2008, 11:49 AM
Evolution covers quite a lot of ground, so it is possible for one aspect to be factual, with other parts not quite as well supported. I specifically said universal common descent is fact. The idea that human beings and monkeys have a common ancestor is fact. Specific mechanisms that drive this evolution, such as natural selection/random mutation are almost as well supported, but you'll find many evolutionary biologist still debate about it. What you wont find, are biologists debating the idea that life evolved and we all share a common ancestor anymore than you'll hear them debate whether water is wet.



It should be taught truthfully. Casting inappropriate amount of doubts upon it for the comfort of a few is dishonest.

The thing is... if concessions are made... its not going to stop with evolution. The creationist belief system is simply incompatible with all of natural science, period. After biology.. we'll have to rewrite geology and astronomy, physics and on and on.

My biology teacher did teach it truthfully. Why do you imply that he didn't simply because he pointed to factual weaknesses? Are you opposed to science students learning facts about the theory of evolution so that they may make their own conclusions? That does tend to bother most evolutionists that I know.

Like I said, via this message thread, you have effectivley validated my orignal assertion that many evolutionists hate that my high school biology teacher dared to state that the theory of evolution had any factual weaknesses. I thank you for displaying that validation to the forum.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 12:08 PM
My biology teacher did teach it truthfully. Why do you imply that he didn't simply because he pointed to factual weaknesses? Are you opposed to science students learning facts about the theory of evolution so that they may make their own conclusions? That does tend to bother most evolutionists that I know.


Well, I don't know what your teacher taught or how he taught it. I was going by what you said about it.



Like I said, via this message thread, you have effectively validated my orignal assertion that many evolutionists hate that my high school biology teacher dared to state that the theory of evolution had any factual weaknesses. I thank you for displaying that validation to the forum.

What factual weaknesses? I think you mentioned fossil gaps, earlier, and I addressed it in post #74. If those are the kinds of factual weaknesses being presented in your class, they are false.

Honest question: Did the teacher carefully explain all the weaknesses and counter-arguments, no matter how ill-conceived, for every other scientific theory that you learned about?

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 03:49 PM
Welcome back fgator!

This is a common misconception. Thousands and thousands of 'gaps' or transitional forms have been found. A curious thing happens when a 'missing link' fossil is found though... there are two new missing links, even though the fossil record is more complete. The 'gaps in the fossil record' argument, hasnt been a valid for quite a long time now.

Actually, due to the nested hierarchy, they can predict where exactly missing links will be found in the strata, and search for them there. New missing links are being found this way everyday, thanks to the predictive power of evolution.



Well, a transitional fossil is a complete creature. Everything that exists is technically a transitional creature. Always in a state of change. It's interesting you bring up horses, because their lineage is actually extremely fleshed out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse


Interesting... but all the examples with the exception of the picture at the bottom tended to look like a modern horse and not a horse and something else. There was a size difference but not a overall structual difference... at least as far as I could tell by a quick read of the entry. Thanks for the information.

By the way, It's nice to chat with you again.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 05:20 PM
Interesting... but all the examples with the exception of the picture at the bottom tended to look like a modern horse and not a horse and something else. There was a size difference but not a overall structual difference... at least as far as I could tell by a quick read of the entry. Thanks for the information.

By the way, It's nice to chat with you again.

Wikip doesnt have the greatest picture...

http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mcfaddenhorsephylo2005.jpg
http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/eohippustoequus.jpg

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 08:51 PM
[QUOTE=wilbur;11607]Wikip doesnt have the greatest picture... [QUOTE]

wilbur, you're just going to make their heads hurt.;)

FlaGator
06-23-2008, 07:47 AM
Wikip doesnt have the greatest picture...

http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mcfaddenhorsephylo2005.jpg
http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/eohippustoequus.jpg


Thank you. That is much better. I appreciate the effort to find that for me. The other image was a bit hard to view.

The Night Owl
06-23-2008, 08:11 AM
It's a good thing that horses grew in stature or cowboys would have looked really silly.