Are Intelligent Design and Creationism the same?

[ConJinx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"Intelligent Design" is Creationism with a focus group tested brand name.

[wilbur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...