evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=1...elligent+design

 

There is no 'intelligent design' just creationism repackaged since the original flavor was so unpalatable. Like anti-abortionists repackaging themselves as 'pro-lifers'. Same ole junk, new color.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 7 2006, 01:10 AM) [snapback]236198[/snapback]</div>

I don't have a dog in this fight, but just curious, what do you think happens when we die? Do we just cease to exist?

 

I think the Prius is Intelligently Designed

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Apr 7 2006, 01:10 AM) [snapback]236198[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 8 2006, 03:37 AM) [snapback]236695[/snapback]</div>

guess you won't know til that happens!

I'm sticking with the evolution. The other theories factor in the biggest unknown, making them udderly unbelieveable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Vincent @ Apr 8 2006, 02:28 AM) [snapback]236700[/snapback]</div>

Except for the climate control system. That was very stupidly designed. Otherwise I agree with you.

I once spoke with a Pentacostal preacher, who told me I was going to hell for believing in evolution. The curious thing was that he thought I could be forgiven for being an atheist, but not for believing in evolution. I have never been able to figure out why evolution is such an emotional issue for this small group of bible literalists, especially when most mainstream Christian denominations subscribe to the view which Priusguy04 calls Theistic Evolution

 

I think you'll find that ID has been rendered a lost cause, now that the legal issue has been thrashed out (unsuccessfully) in the courts.

I fall heavily on the side of SCIENCE - while I don't think we have all the answers, we've tried to take the data we've got and figure out the most logical set of processes that fit that data. Can the other side say the same? They make much of our 'assumptions' (of which there are many) because that's the easiest/only way to attack our dating, our processes, and all of our theories. Unfortunately, assumptions in science are neccesary, and often valid. I think that it is too coincidental that the dating we use continually WORKS - I have helped bring back and process cores, and (I'll be damned!) the samples below an unconformity are considerably older than the samples above. Dating in the Grand Canyon shows the rocks getting older from the top down - what variations in the isotope half-lives would be required to make that happen if they were laid down during a catastrophic event?

Do creationists think we geologists are hiding things? That we are destroying evidence that points towards a young earth? I can't speak for all scientists (obviously) but I can tell you that the scientific community as a whole would <insert word other than crucify here> anyone that even considered it. We don't need to or want to - science is meant to search for the truth, that's why it has *evolved* so much over time. Picking at parts of our understanding does not prove your case, it shows that we are in a discipline where our understanding is limited by our previously collected data.


I've heard tell, though, that all such data was placed there by the great FSM in order to steer us away from The Great Truths of the world. I suppose we should let time decide =)

PS - It should be mentioned that not all geologists/paleobiologists are convinced that life originated here - it's still a fairly open field, and many believe that life was seeded by 'extraterrestrial' origins.
PPS - Take anything I say with a grain of salt - but if you think I'm wrong, do me (and yourself) a favor, and look it up. Learning something is hardly ever a waste of time!

EDIT for spelling and ::boohiss:: removal

 

What's wrong with the climate control system?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 09:05 AM) [snapback]236719[/snapback]</div>

It's set for 72F and I never touch it!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Apr 8 2006, 09:37 AM) [snapback]236724[/snapback]</div>

g-

GREAT post! this whole passage i quoted could easily be applied to the biological sciences. in fact, the Korean stem cell farce caused the PI of that study to be basically cast out of the scientific world. noone will believe anything he says again, i'm afraid. that's what science does. we have no tolerance for making $#!+ up.

i personally think anyone who tells me i will go to hell for thinking freely based upon proven fact is going to hell for inhibiting the improvement of mankind through intimidation and fearmongering tactics.



-g

 

Abstract
"He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? . . . He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (Psalm 94:9-10)

Although we have published a number of articles dealing with the "Intelligent Design" movement, we at ICR continue to get numerous inquiries—both from Christians and from the secular media—as to ICR's exact position relative to the ID movement. In particular, why do the leaders in that movement continually try to distance themselves from us Biblical creationists, even though our own leaders are also fully credentialed scientists just like theirs?

But then, why do the news media, as well as the scientific and legal establishments, keep insisting that Intelligent Design is merely a disguised form of creationism, accusing the ID people of hypocritically trying to hide that fact? For example, the following recent quote represents quite fairly the attitude almost universally characteristic of the modern scientific establishment. The author, a biology professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, is a prolific writer and debater against creationism. To him Intelligent Design is: "a thinly veiled version of creationism, a pseudo-intellectual enterprise that has nothing to do with science or philosophy (or indeed, good theology), and everything to do with inserting a religious wedge into public school education." (Massimo Pigliucci:

"More Than You Ever Wanted to Know about Intelligent Design," Evolution, vol. 59, December 2005, p. 2719.)

Having lost several creation/evolution debates with Dr. Duane Gish of ICR, Dr. Pigliucci evidently considers himself an authority on such things.

As a matter-of-fact, he is at least partially right. Some of the leaders of the ID movement have been frankly calling it a "wedge" with which they hope to open up the atheistic science establishment, so that teachers can at least acknowledge intelligent creation of life as a possibility.

But, as we creationists have been predicting, they are now finding this outcome highly unlikely at best. Scientists for the most part are adamant that scientific systems and processes, including their origin, must be studied and taught strictly on a naturalistic basis, with no consideration for God.

For those who really believe in an omnipotent purposeful God, this attitude is absurdly wrong, though the modern judiciary apparently agrees with it. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has seemingly concurred, as far as science teaching in public schools is concerned.

This was not the case with the founders of science. Respected scientists such as Newton, Boyle, and most others all believed in Intelligent Design as the very foundation of science. And the same was true with our nation's early schools and colleges. In fact, the very first edition of Webster's Dictionary (1828) defined "science" thus: "1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect."

Nor is it a modern notion. "The heavens declare the glory of God" said King David long ago. "He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see? . . . He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not He know?" (Psalm 94:9-10). The evidence for Intelligent Design everywhere and in everything is so obvious that only "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1), and those who refuse to see it and desperately seek some evolutionary way of explaining it are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

Scientists and theologians of later generations have often tried to organize the evidence in more formal ways, such as the "watch and watchmaker" analogy of William Paley in his famous book Natural Theology (1802). And now we have Michael Behe and William Dembski and others in the ID movement with their more mathematical approach to recognizing design through such concepts as irreducible complexity and others.

ICR has stressed the need for intelligent design in our creationist arguments ever since we started. In his debates, Dr. Duane Gish has always argued that such creatures as the butterfly and the bombardier beetle could not possibly have arisen by chance variation and natural selection. Dr. Bliss a generation ago lectured on the marvels of the bacterial flagellum that has now become such a favorite example of the Intelligent Design theorists. Creationists have welcomed the insights and arguments of the ID group: we certainly do not see any conflict with scientific creationism. To us, it is not Creation or Intelligent Design.

But the ID people (creation by Intelligent Design) insist that these are two different systems and that Intelligent Design is certainly not Scientific Creationism—especially not Biblical Creationism. They feel it best to leave the Bible and the Biblical God out of the argument entirely. Some even feel that evolution is okay, provided that it is not atheistic Darwinian evolution. Thus, theistic evolution is quite compatible with Intelligent Design (Michael Behe himself admits to being an evolutionist). And some (e.g., William Dembski) say that the Designer does not necessarily have to be a deity!

They argue, of course, that such flexibility is necessary to get the creation idea into the public arena at all. However, it is also now becoming increasingly apparent that ID will never be allowed in the public schools either, regardless of how it is compromised.

And what good would it do anyhow? If the ID system has to be so diluted as to be acceptable to any religion or philosophy except raw atheism, then why bother? Would believing in some false god or goddess and following some cultic system of practice be preferable to believing and practicing atheistic secular humanism? Think about it!

We think it sad that the schools and colleges are now not only closing the doors to ID speakers but also, probably as a related action, to genuine creationism as well. In the past, young-earth creationists were frequently invited to participate in debates and seminars on university campuses. Our lectures and debates have always focused especially on the scientific evidence, while never hedging on our belief in God and the Bible, and God has blessed these events in the lives of many students.

There's another very important factor to keep in mind. As Christians, we ought to be more concerned with winning souls for eternity than getting a hearing in the public forum. And even more important than winning souls for Christ is unreservedly honoring God's Word, forever "settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89). Someday all the schools will be gone and even heaven and earth will "pass away" but His Word "shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

By attempting to argue without the Bible, however, the Intelligent Design theorists are ignoring the most important aspect of the whole question—namely, the history of life on Earth. After all, the creation/evolution issue is really a question of history, rather than science. Not could evolution happen, but did it happen? Evolutionists seem to think that Darwin proved that natural selection could account for all the amazing evidences of design in nature. If they can imagine how a feature might have evolved, they feel that proves it did happen. Any impossible event will occur if there is enough time, they like to claim.

But the actual historical record says that macroevolution did not occur—both the written record in the revealed Word of God and the inferred record from the fossils and the many scientific evidences of a young Earth, (as greatly strengthened by the recent ICR/CRS RATE Project results).

By ignoring this historical evidence—especially that in the Bible—the Intelligent Design movement alone cannot possibly succeed. In the meantime, it is diverting interest among Christians away from the much more cogent case for scientific Biblical creationism and thus tragically hindering a true witness for Christ and the Bible.

We do heartily commend the Intelligent Design scientists for the brilliant new arguments and evidences they have added to the traditional case for Intelligent Design. But we insist the issue does not stop there. The Biblical testimony is all important, not to mention the very strong scientific evidence for recent creation and the global flood. Since the latter events cannot be proved scientifically (not being repeatable) they can always be explained away if one so desires, but it is certainly stronger than the scientific evidence for evolutionary uniformitarianism, (that evidence is not repeatable either!). The only way we can be absolutely sure of what happened in prehistoric times is for someone who was there and who is trustworthy to tell us what happened.

That is exactly what we have in the revealed Word of God. But evolutionists refuse to believe God and Intelligent Design theorists ignore Him. Both are mistaken.

So what if the public schools won't listen? Our nation's earliest schools were home schools and private Christian schools, and these produced the highest states of both literacy and morality in any nation's history. There is no Biblical warrant for government-controlled schools anyway. Government schools today should probably best be viewed as mission fields rather than educational centers. Almost the same can be said of secularized religious schools. Concerned parents should not entrust their children's spiritual and educational health to them.

In summary, I personally believe that the Intelligent Design movement is good as far as it goes, but it stops short of a valid and effective and useful worldview. It should not be a case of Intelligent Design versus Creationism but rather Intelligent Design Explained, Amplified, and Confirmed by Scientific Biblical Creationism.

* Dr. Henry M. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 06:05 AM) [snapback]236719[/snapback]</div>

I am a conservative Christian, and I have the same exact thought. I simply don't understand the emphasis. Especially since Genesis cannot be taken literally (either that or the author was an idiot).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SirGreen @ Apr 8 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]236760[/snapback]</div>

Actually, Dr. Morris, who is a fine gentleman but who's Phd is in hydraulics IIRC, is absolutely wrong on this count, and this is the most serious error he makes. Its not the science they mangle, but the theology.

With this statement he has judged all Christians who accept science and its discipline to be non-believers, as they do not "really believe in an omnipotent purposeful God." It is a form of judging that is specifically prohibited by Jesus - judging the salvation status of a fellow Christian - and is, in my opinion, heresy.

The majority of Christian denominations in the world accept science ... cosmology, biology and chemistry are all tied into the study of the origins. Christianity has always viewed study of nature to be a form of worship, and true study can only happen when you remove any presuppositions that prevent further inquiry.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 8 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]236695[/snapback]</div>

What will happen to your dog when he loses his fight? What will happen to his fleas?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SirGreen @ Apr 8 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]236760[/snapback]</div>

*Emphasis mine*

Creationists keep trying to denegrate science as a religion, no different from any other, and therefore no better than their own. This is a dishonest argument, because what distinguishes science is the assumption (and this is the ONLY assumption that science makes) that we can believe the evidence of our senses. Religion procedes from a supposed miraculous revelation, or the writings in an ancient book, and then insists that contrary evidense in the real world is a delusion. Science studies the real world and continuously refines its theories to conform to evidence and experiment.

Evolution is a fact. There is abundant and incontrovertable evidence for it in the fossil record, in the abundance of vestigial organs, that would make no sense unless they were left over from earlier forms, and in the identical ways that all life forms transmit and utilize genetic information. A human shares 97% of his genes with a chimpanzee, and 50% of his genes with a mushroom!

There are several competing theories about how evolution operates, the most famous being Darwin's theory of gradual evolution by natural selection. A competing theory is punctuated equilibrium. A discredited and discarded theory is Lamark's theory of the transmission of acquired traits. (The discovery of genes put that one to rest.)

Contrary to what it says in the Bible, the earth does move around the sun and rotate on its axis. The Church finally admitted that one. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a creationist who still insists that the Earth stands still while the sun flies around it once every 24 hours. Some day they'll quietly back away from their flat-Earth ideas about creationism, and admit, as the vast majority of christians do, that if god made the Earth and its animals, evolution was the tool he used.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 8 2006, 02:37 AM) [snapback]236695[/snapback]</div>

I really like the advanced physics that supports the theory of different energy levels, different dimensions, etc. The problem is even though I have all 4 years of college calculus the math is a bit hairy for me.

Maybe when we expire the light just goes out forever. Perhaps our conscience moves to a different energy level, a different dimension.

After a wine sampler involving 5-6 glasses, I have some extremely enlightening discussions with my condo neighbors. Too bad I don’t remember them the next morning …


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Apr 8 2006, 10:24 AM) [snapback]236749[/snapback]</div>

G:

Right, the Null Hypothesis. It’s not so much proving your idea or theory is *right* but trying to prove that it’s *wrong.â€

What gets me about some of the more deluded nutjobs is that they automatically believe their “faith†but have free rein to cast suspicion on others. Perhaps the best example of that hypocrisy was Dr Frist doing a magical remote exam of Ms Schiavo by watching a videotape, then the follow-up autopsy proved him completely wrong. Not that he actually admitted it though.

By definition the field of Science is extremely critical and doubting. Even in my Applied field – industrial automation compliant to SIS and S.88 Batch – we’re always trying to prove the *worst* case scenario, not the best case scenario.

j

 

What follows is, of course, just my belief and opinion:

Christians, and many others, make the core mistake of assuming the soul must be a thing, which must go somewhere when the body dies. At least as far back as Plato people have imagined that the soul was a thing, separate from the body, that our conscious selves, our knowledge, our personalities, are glued to the body but separate from it, with its own existance either before, or after this life, or both. Plato believed that we know everything there is to know before we are born, but we just don't realize that we know it.

Life, consciousness, personality, are not separate from the body. They are all processes. Not things. They don't "go" anywhere because a process is not a thing, though it acts upon things (in this case, the body).

Life, or the soul if you will, is like a candle flame. The flame is a process that acts upon the candle. If you blow it out, or deprive it of oxygen, or the candle runs out of wax, the process of burning stops. The flame does not go anywhere. It just stops. Poof! No more flame. The flame is not in a flame heaven or a flame hell or another "dimension" or "energy level" (whatever those terms are supposed to mean... and the people who use them never define them). It has just ceased to burn. The process has stopped. Not gone somewhere. Stopped.

When the body dies the soul ceases to exist. Poof! That's it. My cousins get to spend my money, if there's any left, and my friends will tell each other lies about what a wonderful person I was. I don't like the idea. I understand that some people are too emotionally weak to accept the fact, and they have to believe fairy tales. But I've always believed in facing facts, and in the absence of the slightest, tiniest shred of evidence for anything claimed by any religion that's ever existed, I resign myself to the obvious fact that one of these days, maybe tomorrow (or even today!) or maybe in 30 years, I won't exist any more, and the living will go on about their business and forget all about me.

Poof.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Apr 8 2006, 07:16 PM) [snapback]236941[/snapback]</div>

You may enjoy reading "The Mysterious Flame" by Colin McGinn - He goes into great detail about the brain and its connection to the mind. I believe Creationists and Evolutionists will both find it fascinating.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]236965[/snapback]</div>

Wow how sad, It will be hard to forget about you Daniel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 8 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]236965[/snapback]</div>

Daniel:

We appear to have an eerily similar viewpoint on this subject. I'm all for the possibility that different energy levels exist in different dimensions, but will the thing we call a "soul" recognize them?

Look how easy it is to alter reality with illegal experiments. Did you ever see the movie "Jacob's Ladder?" It's based on the illegal mind control experiments the CIA did under their MK-ULTRA program.

jay

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 8 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]236985[/snapback]</div>

I've briefly skimmed it, a co-worker at the office keeps encouraging me to read it. Or maybe she wants to get friendly ...