creationism/intelligent design vs. evolution

[Septimus]

The only real x-factor when it comes to Evolution is what actually caused the electrical spark that caused carbon-based substances to bond together to hydrogen and oxygen, creating life. The fact that we exhibit intelligence is a product of chance, and nothing more.

No, abiogenesis is not a part of any evolutionary theory. Two completely seperate fields for good reason.

If people start arguing the semantics of "theory" you should know it's time to walk away anyways... If people cannot look at science with an open mind you aren't going to open their mind with a 10 minute diatribe on why "theory" doesn't mean "might be right".

That is the problem though. Too many people let fundamentalists get away with saying "just a theory" like a theory is any wild speculation. Proponents for ID try to make evolutionary theory sound like something that a nut job came up with on a crack bender to distract from the fact that their "theory" is no more scientifically sound than saying that humans were made when a unicorn crapped out a rainbow.

[Jeryhn]

I would debate that we do not exhibit as much intelligence as we would like to think that we do, not that we are dumbasses by design or chance.

Haha, maybe you're right.

Of course, you're referring to intelligence as a subjective thing. I think the fact that we can develop a language, both written and oral, and understand and use to convey to others the meanings they produce as a sign that we are, in fact, intelligent, in the objective sense of the word.

If people cannot look at science with an open mind you aren't going to open their mind with a 10 minute diatribe on why "theory" doesn't mean "might be right".

The most accurate definition of the word directly contradicts the argument made against Evolution that it is "just a theory", meaning it is unreliable to be used to explain our origins.

I know (lolbelieve) that evolution exists, just as much as I know that convieniently invisible fairies didn't push Locke's pen to the ground when he let go of it. I have no need to prove evolution exists to anyone, just as no one sees fit to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of an intelligent designer to me... I'm refuting an argument used against evolution.

Ninjar-edit:
Septimus said it better than I did, but that's the point I'm trying to make.

[Enkidu]

If people cannot look at science with an open mind you aren't going to open their mind with a 10 minute diatribe on why "theory" doesn't mean "might be right".

The most accurate definition of the word directly contradicts the argument made against Evolution that it is "just a theory", meaning it is unreliable to be used to explain our origins.

I know (lolbelieve) that evolution exists, just as much as I know that convieniently invisible fairies didn't push Locke's pen to the ground when he let go of it. I have no need to prove evolution exists to anyone, just as no one sees fit to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of an intelligent designer to me... I'm refuting an argument used against evolution.

And all that "refuting" will get you nowhere, unless it makes you feel better about yourself.

Like I said when an argument is reduced to semantics it's time to leave, unless you get enjoyment out of pointing out other peoples illogical ideas (which in my opinion is lame). If you seriously get into an argument like this, just nicely ask them to read a biology book with an open mind or tell them to visit their local museum with an open mind. Being understanding can change a person, being an asshole just makes it worse.

When you tell somebody "evolution is true because" all they hear is "everything you think you know is wrong and everything i'm telling you is right", which sounds quite assholeish if you ask me .

[Septimus]

I would debate that we do not exhibit as much intelligence as we would like to think that we do, not that we are dumbasses by design or chance.

I agree. I do not think humans are nearly as intelligent as we believe ourselves to be. This is why I do not worship science or logic as a religion, but instead see it as our own reasoning for the processes of the universe which are infinatly beyond our comprehension. Ever wonder why the most renowned scientists throughout history (save one) have all been highly religious? When you look closely enough at existance you begin to see that which we can never understand. Many of us like to call that mystery "God".

That is no reason to not try to understand the universe. Humans are dumbasses because we insist on making the same mistakes and fighting the same wars since we started recording history and more than likely before that. Humans are dumbasses, but Science is not. Science is beautiful because although we may not figure out everything, if we keep up with it we will know more than we know now.

It is great that so many scientists were/are religious, but a great scientist does not use faith as a crutch. Instead he/she is not afraid to challenge commonly held beliefs, even if they are his/her own. People were not satisfied by cosmogonies like the sea and sky are a grand wyrm split in twain or the world leaked out of an egg that rose out of the Nile or the universe was created when an omnipotent being lit a fart while arm wrestling his roommate*- and we should not be. There is no reason why Science and faith cannot happily coexist, save the fact that science admits that it is fallible, religion does not.

* Babylonian, Pheronic Egyptian, Family Guy

[Shaede]

Proponents for ID try to make evolutionary theory sound like something that a nut job came up with on a crack bender to distract from the fact that their "theory" is no more scientifically sound than saying that humans were made when a unicorn crapped out a rainbow.

Very much true. That would be a hypothesis. I could hypothesize that unicorns crapped out a rainbow from which we emerged, but it would quickly fail to testing.

A theory, such as the theory of evolution, has survived rigorous testing thanks to the scientific method, a standard we do not hold to religious beliefs.

Charles Darwin, commonly credited as fathering the theory of evolution, spent most of his life trying to disprove it. He simply didn't want to believe it, living in a dangerous religious society that would excommunicate him for those beliefs (which he also believed, most likely). It was 20 years after his 5 year voyage on the HMS Beagle (which travelled around the world) that Darwin finally published his "On the Origins of Species" book that was so controversial at the time. And it seems, still is. When it turned out that another scientist who was researching in Indonesia had seperately come to the same conclusion, Darwin actually attempted to credit him with the discovery. But in the end, Darwin simply had more data than Wallace and became the one crazy guy sitting on a mountain of data that all pointed to evolution whether he liked it or not.

The only problem that bugged Darwin was how species changed. Luckly, an Austrian monk by the name of Mendel would soon to be known as the "father of genetics" with his work on pea plants.

Now that we can fully explain how evolution works (and all the data we've collected since has supported the theory), it's pretty safe to say that evolution is probably pretty accurate. Anyone with access to the information, but decides not to believe it in favor of a book of fairy tales, is simply living in a dreamland. Which is exactly where I see the followers of intelligent design to be living. You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you choose to believe the literal interpretation of the Christian creation stories instead, you're just plain nuts. That's my honest opinion.

[Jeryhn]

And all that "refuting" will get you nowhere, unless it makes you feel better about yourself.

I disagree. One of the direct arguments creationists make against Evolution is that it is only a theory, meaning its not proven. Which its not, because the process is almost unobservable due to our limited life spans. But as Maxx said earlier, gravity is a theory too. How do we know that on Pluto, you don't float upwards? We can't observe it certainly, not from our vantage point on Earth. But of course if I tried submitting this idea to any reputable scientific journal, I'd be laughed off the face of the planet.

There's a reason why the classifications of hypothesis, theory and law exist. They are there to help us better understand the reasoning behind an idea may or may not be true.

Overall, this argument that creationists make against Evolution is no more of a semantics game in itself. And as you said...

Like I said when an argument is reduced to semantics it's time to leave, unless you get enjoyment out of pointing out other peoples illogical ideas (which in my opinion is lame).

^-')b

If you seriously get into an argument like this, just nicely ask them to read a biology book with an open mind or tell them to visit their local museum with an open mind. Being understanding can change a person, being an asshole just makes it worse.

The problem with creationists and believers in intelligent design is that their ideas, and the defense of those ideas, are very rooted in the same way faith depends it ideas. It mocks the idea at best, and kills the "infidels" at worst.

When you tell somebody "evolution is true because" all they hear is "everything you think you know is wrong and everything i'm telling you is right", which sounds quite assholeish if you ask me .

Is the Jehova's Witness that comes to my apartment every Saturday afternoon an asshole? Probably not. He's just trying to spread his ideas around, and is eager to do so, although I'm not particulary interested.

Why is it, when it comes to religion vs. science, that those that lean towards religion do not give arguments against it the time of day, much less take in a earful of the ideas an evolutionist would try to spread? Because people who believe in religion believe that if they stray from their faith, a punishment will await them.

Sounds like an argument for finding a way to stay alive and stay unharmed to me, a very evolutionist idea.

[Almaa]

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ." -Pope Leo X

[Mandos]

What's it really matter what the other person believes? If you are both willing to accept differing opinions it shouldnt matter. I don't think someone disagreeing over something that cannot be easily proven or have an effect on something physcial in this world is really that big a think people should worry about.

I suppose people get worked up about it for two reasons, one that some schools still try to teach children that God made the universe and all life blah blah which parents don't like. Personally I don't think religion and education should mix at all but thats not going to happen.

The other I think is like how you feel when trying to explain something to someone who just can not understand, say replacing a memory chip on their pc. You can tell them again and again what to do but they just can't seem to get their heads round it and it's frustrating. It's equally frustrating to hear people say that "evolution is just an unproved theory" "evolution is a heathen way of thinking" and that why I think people go to great lengths to argue over it.

Also if I knew someone who really did beleive God created the earth and took the Bible literally 100% literally then I probably would be quite iffy of wanting anything to do with them, how can you interact with a person like that who in my opinion is very irrational. If you wanted to go see a film with them or something but they said it went against the Bible wtf are you supposed to say to that.

[Manako]

I suppose people get worked up about it for two reasons, one that some schools still try to teach children that God made the universe and all life blah blah which parents don't like. Personally I don't think religion and education should mix at all but thats not going to happen.

I don't think that is the norm, when I was in elementary school in Canada we had MRE (moral and religious education) and we also learned about basic evolutionary ideas in science class. My sister (who is 8 and loves video games <3) goes to school and does not recieve MRE, nor have I heard of any public school offering that sort of thing. In fact, when it comes to religion in schools it is typically about removing it.

I kinda liked my MRE class, looking back. It was very casual and wasn't directly about one religion over another, although it probably isn't necessairy. It was nice that it separated religous beliefs from scientific etc but no big deal to me really.

If you wanted to go see a film with them or something but they said it went against the Bible wtf are you supposed to say to that.

the same thing you would say to someone who wont go to a slasher movie because they don't like violence? Chances are you wouldn't be close friends to this person anyway, so I don't see why you would be inviting them to a movie. I agree that being religious like that is silly, but I don't think debating them is going to change anything. So much less energy used and problems avoided if you just accept that people will have differing opinions on these things, and it really isn't harmful to anyone.

[Enkidu]

And all that "refuting" will get you nowhere, unless it makes you feel better about yourself.

I disagree. One of the direct arguments creationists make against Evolution is that it is only a theory, meaning its not proven. Which its not, because the process is almost unobservable due to our limited life spans. But as Maxx said earlier, gravity is a theory too. How do we know that on Pluto, you don't float upwards? We can't observe it certainly, not from our vantage point on Earth. But of course if I tried submitting this idea to any reputable scientific journal, I'd be laughed off the face of the planet.

There's a reason why the classifications of hypothesis, theory and law exist. They are there to help us better understand the reasoning behind an idea may or may not be true.

Overall, this argument that creationists make against Evolution is no more of a semantics game in itself. And as you said...

This may seem true to you, however have you actually ever spoken with someone who believes these things? It certainly seems like you haven't. If your opinions are based on what you've seen written on forums or from some other 3rd party you might want to reconsider your whole approach.

Most people who believe in ID simply want to believe in it, you telling them that they are wrong does nothing but compound the problem. Now science is trying to tell them what to think, which is certainly NOT the role of science. Science's role is to educate the WILLING.

How can you help somebody want to learn about evolution and other aspects of currently rejected science? By being understanding and slowly letting them realize things on their own. Try it sometime... The people you hear about on the news or the people who write about ID online are probably much more open minded in person. The people who wont listen are just a lost cause, there is no point arguing with them or calling them names, it just proves that you are no better then they are.

And just one more semantic gripe, theory and law and by and large the same thing... There really isn't any criteria to seperate them from one another.


As for schooling I don't see what the major problem is. Perhaps if more parents took time to talk with their children they would not be so worried about them learning evolution and ID as opposed to just evolution. A good example is my younger brother. He goes to the same private school I went too, evolution is a non-topic obviously, yet my brother knows more then most high school students would. Why? Because I talk with him, I don't tell him what to think, I just show him different things like fossils and distant galaxies. Seriously if Evolutionists weren't so damn elitist and parents raised their children better this whole ID thing wouldn't even be a problem in a few years.

[Jeryhn]

This may seem true to you, however have you actually ever spoken with someone who believes these things? It certainly seems like you haven't. If your opinions are based on what you've seen written on forums or from some other 3rd party you might want to reconsider your whole approach.

I actually have, believe it or not.
I find the argument concerning Evolution vs. Creationism fascinating.

My opinion is my own, as I said before:

I know (lolbelieve) that evolution exists, just as much as I know that convieniently invisible fairies didn't push Locke's pen to the ground when he let go of it. I have no need to prove evolution exists to anyone, just as no one sees fit to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of an intelligent designer to me... I'm only refuting an argument used against evolution.

Read that more carefully.
I'm not in the business of impressing my ideas upon others.
I am, however, infuriated by people who bend words to suit their own purposes.

Now science is trying to tell them what to think, which is certainly NOT the role of science. Science's role is to educate the WILLING.

If this reasoning applied, would you want me on the jury panel deciding the fate of someone who may or may not have committed a violent crime where DNA is involved? Should I believe that the evidence is conclusive proof that he did or did not commit the crime, using scientific methods to get to the facts, or should I be willing to keep such forensic evidence open to my own personal interpretation?

Science's role isn't to teach. It is to understand.
Learn that fundamental difference, and you will discover why ID doesn't work.

[Iku]

THIS THREAD CAN GO TO HELL.

[Jeryhn]

THIS THREAD CAN GO TO HELL.

Somewhere, Pat Robertson's head is exploding.

[edgarfigaro]

God created the sun, the stars, the heavens and the earth, and then made Adam and Eve," Everett said last Friday, before the Red Sox lost two of three in Atlanta. "The Bible never says anything about dinosaurs. You can't say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them. Someone actually saw Adam and Eve. No one ever saw a Tyrannosaurus rex.

What about dinosaur bones?

Made by man

Hey, if a baseball centerfielder believes it, it must be true. Case closed.

ID is as moronic as "Victory in Iraq"

[Maguspk]

I've seen this debate a bunch of times, I'll just add a little bit to it.

There is nothing in the Bible that doesn't make sense to me when you add CONTEXT.

The first five books of the Bible (read: Genesis/creation explanation) was written by Moses. God told Moses the things that happened before Moses existed. If you honestly believe God is going to explain about genes and Big bangs to a human with absolutely no knowledge of such things you're a fool. There is GOOD REASON to believe the "Creation story" was simply the easiest way for God to make sense to these people.

Also, the rest of the Bible was written by people who experienced these things, so while there are metaphors and such, it's completely different from Genesis -> Moses' story because of the authors hands-on knowledge of the events.

My personal theory on everything: No stance. I wasn't there and you cannot prove anything is correct unless there is a God and He shows you how it happened on DVD.

I really like the way you said that. Up until now I couldn't really think of a way to give credit to the probabilaty of the bible being true, but now I can. I really really like this idea. Thanks.

[Andarvi]

I've seen this debate a bunch of times, I'll just add a little bit to it.

There is nothing in the Bible that doesn't make sense to me when you add CONTEXT.

The first five books of the Bible (read: Genesis/creation explanation) was written by Moses. God told Moses the things that happened before Moses existed. If you honestly believe God is going to explain about genes and Big bangs to a human with absolutely no knowledge of such things you're a fool. There is GOOD REASON to believe the "Creation story" was simply the easiest way for God to make sense to these people.

Also, the rest of the Bible was written by people who experienced these things, so while there are metaphors and such, it's completely different from Genesis -> Moses' story because of the authors hands-on knowledge of the events.

My personal theory on everything: No stance. I wasn't there and you cannot prove anything is correct unless there is a God and He shows you how it happened on DVD.

I really like the way you said that. Up until now I couldn't really think of a way to give credit to the probabilaty of the bible being true, but now I can. I really really like this idea. Thanks.

Did you go to a catholic high school by any chance eagle? i remember hearing your position told the same way by my senior year teacher (who was the best religion teacher i had although thats not saying much). heres my problem with it:

1- The Torah is over 3300 years old. To think that it hasnt been subject to some change in that time is naive.
2- The whole god told Moses thing is crap, to me at least. If some guy came down from a mountain today holding two tablets saying god told him to write the rules they read we would call him crazy. times were different then, people we dumber and more impresionable.
3 -As far as the rest of the bible goes, its bs too. when constantine converted the roman empire to catholocism he assimilated the bible, picking and choosing which books to have included. while this calls into question its credibility, to me at least, the rest of the old testament excluding the torah are more or less a bunch of stories/parables that deal less with creation and more with everyday trials of individuals (as you said).


sooooo basically i agree with you, because i see you refuting the argument that evolution is false because it is not in the bible. that is an argument made by idiots.

[Shaede]

If the Bible was meant to be a historical account of events, it would have been called "The History of the World".

But it's not.

For that you'll have to turn to Mel Brooks.

[Enkidu]

If this reasoning applied, would you want me on the jury panel deciding the fate of someone who may or may not have committed a violent crime where DNA is involved? Should I believe that the evidence is conclusive proof that he did or did not commit the crime, using scientific methods to get to the facts, or should I be willing to keep such forensic evidence open to my own personal interpretation?

Science's role isn't to teach. It is to understand.
Learn that fundamental difference, and you will discover why ID doesn't work.

Would I want you on the jury? Well no, but neither would the lawyer who cross examines you before okay'ing you for jury duty...

And science is wasted on the unwilling to learn, once you understand this you'll understand why your ideas on how to educate are actually counterproductive.

Also why do I need to discover why ID doesn't work? I know it does not work, at least in the version currently supported (and I'm pretty sure EVERY post I've made in this thread clarifies that). If it was a more broad statement, who cares if it works or not? It's better then believing in spontaneous creation or something like that, in other words it's a small step in the right direction.

Small steps is all mankind really needs in this field, it's not like evolution (or macroevolution as the fundies would call it) is going to really matter in the next few hundred years. People may think they're better then others because they accept it, but they're not.

[Bwelch]

In the eyes of Richard C. Hoagland Intelligent Design could also mean intelligently designed by extraterrestrial beings.

[Kujo]

Ok I just have to get this out of the way.

I'm trying to find the point in time where we all say "hey guys, you know it doesn't really change my life that someone happens to believe something different than me, so I should stop making the same threads once a month"

Seriously every month there's a new topic about this, and not just on this forum, a good 90% of forums that I've hung out with seem to bring up the "god exists, god doesn't exist" topics in one way or another.

Does it really hurt you in the inside that people are willing to take a leap and believe something that isn't the "norm" way of thinking?

I know the answe rwill be "I jsut like to talk about this stuff" or something but jeebus this arguement happens all the time @@;

Do you really think that 50 pages of 'lolsash' on the main boards is a more productive use of time? If you're secure in your beliefs then there shouldn't be any issue with discussing it, personally even though I've frequently revisited the issues discussed here I still like to read lots of different viewpoints because it generates a broader perspective, maybe even shows you some things you never thought of before.

Back on topic - I've always leaned heavily on the scientific side and never put much stock in modern religion, and I certianly believe that evolution is by far the most likely explanation of our existence. That said, I think it's important to remember that science, despite being rooted in mathematics and logic, is not infallible. Take quantum mechanics and the famous 'double-slit experiment' for example (if you're not familiar with this experiment I highly suggest looking into it). Here we have something that is completely observable and yet scientific reasoning can offer no explanation for the outcome of the experiment, the results of which are so baffling and fundamentally altering of all commonly-held beliefs relating to the underlying structure of our universe that all scientific disciplines beyond particle physics choose to simply ignore it in order to go on with their lives. In fact, the only scientific theories that even attempt to explain it require nothing less than a 'leap of faith' (how ironic!) to be believable.

My point is, just because there is observable evidence that evolution exists, does not mean that this is the whole story. In fact, if I remember ID theory correctly (admittedly I have not done much serious research on the subject) I believe that ID is just a subset of evolutionary theory, in other words ID does not discredit evolution but merely poses an alternative explanation for the driving force behind evolution (intelligent guidance as opposed to natural selection).

It's fine to hold stock in evolution, after all there is a lot of evidence backing it up. However, believing in it as absolute truth with no room for error could be considered just as much 'blind faith' as believing in the theories that evolutionists so often dismiss as ridiculous.