Intelligent design and creationism

[damus]

If you take religious beliefs out of it, there is nothing to debate. There is no scientific basis to doubt evolution.

Well I don't know if there is any science on the subject. How was the matter that makes up the universe created? How did the first living organism form? The thing that really boggles my mind is how the stuff that we're made of came to be. By man's own logic, everything is made by something. I think that's where intelligent design really can be debated.

[monsoon]

Well I don't know if there is any science on the subject. How was the matter that makes up the universe created? How did the first living organism form? The thing that really boggles my mind is how the stuff that we're made of came to be. By man's own logic, everything is made by something. I think that's where intelligent design really can be debated.

How the universe was created is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about evolution. How did the first living organism form on the planet? Nobody knows as there wasn't anyone taking notes when it happened. This question is also irrelevant.

Did intelligence create intelligent life? The question contradicts itself and only serves to muddy the water to the real issue at hand. Take religious beliefs out of this, and there is nothing to debate.

[krazeeboi]

Every species is transitional, unless its a species that goes extinct without evolving into a new one.

Understand that I'm speaking of extinct species such as Archaeopteryx, which is a "missing link" species of sorts. As for extant species, there is no such think as a transitional, or intermediate, species.

And as far as the law of conservation of matter/mass, it depends on whether we are speaking of an open or closed system (the same goes for the second law of thermodynamics).

[krazeeboi]

How the universe was created is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about evolution. How did the first living organism form on the planet? Nobody knows as there wasn't anyone taking notes when it happened. This question is also irrelevant.

Did intelligence create intelligent life? The question contradicts itself and only serves to muddy the water to the real issue at hand. Take religious beliefs out of this, and there is nothing to debate.

Realize that the popular debate is not so much along the lines of microevolution, which we can observe and measure--that's not up for debate. It's really along the lines of chemical, or inorganic, evolution. So we really do need to be specific when we say "evolution," as it can legitimately mean different things. And inorganic evolution and organic evolution are inextricably linked, so in terms of "getting to the bottom of things," we cannot simply just dismiss the former, as the latter rests upon it.

[Gusterfell]

Understand that I'm speaking of extinct species such as Archaeopteryx, which is a "missing link" species of sorts. As for extant species, there is no such think as a transitional, or intermediate, species.

Of course there is. Every species is constantly changing. What you are thinking if as a "transitional" species is simply one step is a slow change that takes many, many generations. In your example of archaeopteryx, the "before" was what we think of as reptiles and the "after" was what we think of as birds. Such changes are still going on today, but because we have not yet seen the results of current evolutionary processes, the "after," we cannot readily identify these evolutionary revolutions. The process of evolution is much too slow for us to follow on such a grand scale.

Realize that the popular debate is not so much along the lines of microevolution, which we can observe and measure--that's not up for debate. It's really along the lines of chemical, or inorganic, evolution. So we really do need to be specific when we say "evolution," as it can legitimately mean different things. And inorganic evolution and organic evolution are inextricably linked, so in terms of "getting to the bottom of things," we cannot simply just dismiss the former, as the latter rests upon it.

If the two are so inextricably linked, and you concede that organic evolution exists, how can you logically doubt the existence of inorganic evolution? Scientists have for years been able to convert inorganic molecules to organic ones, a process that has also been proven to take place in nature. These molecules aren't "alive," but they aren't much different from viruses, which exist somewhere between life and nonlife. It is purely speculation, but it is entirely possible that life began as such protoviruses gradually took on increasingly complex forms. Such an explanation makes more sense than the notion that some amorphous being snapped his fingers and "created" life out of nowhere.

[monsoon]

Let's not mince words. This entire question of Intelligent design/Creationalism/Creation Science or other tautology, vs Evolution, is based on the belief of the evangelical Christian religion that a God said a few words and created all life on the planet. Some that follow this religion want to push their views on everyone else by this campaign of disinformatoin to cast doubt on modern science. Only in doing this can they get laws written to force their teachings in US public schools. It's already happened in more ignorant places in the USA and one of the reasons we are becoming the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Only our guns force the rest of the world to take us seriously anymore. A scary thought indeed.

Take religion out if it and there is no debate as to the science of Evolution. And from Websters

evo

[krazeeboi]

Of course there is. Every species is constantly changing. What you are thinking if as a "transitional" species is simply one step is a slow change that takes many, many generations. In your example of archaeopteryx, the "before" was what we think of as reptiles and the "after" was what we think of as birds. Such changes are still going on today, but because we have not yet seen the results of current evolutionary processes, the "after," we cannot readily identify these evolutionary revolutions. The process of evolution is much too slow for us to follow on such a grand scale.

See, you've just proved my point. Future species do not exist; therefore, it cannot be said that there are transitional species today. At most, it can only be said that a species today is a potential transitional species from a futuristic perspective.

If the two are so inextricably linked, and you concede that organic evolution exists, how can you logically doubt the existence of inorganic evolution? Scientists have for years been able to convert inorganic molecules to organic ones, a process that has also been proven to take place in nature. These molecules aren't "alive," but they aren't much different from viruses, which exist somewhere between life and nonlife. It is purely speculation, but it is entirely possible that life began as such protoviruses gradually took on increasingly complex forms. Such an explanation makes more sense than the notion that some amorphous being snapped his fingers and "created" life out of nowhere.

Well firstly, I am not espousing any particular POV here; I'm simply attempting to give some context to what's actually being debated. It's impossible attempting to recreate the primitive conditions on earth that first gave rise to amino acids and other raw materials. If scientists are doing it, it simply lends credence to the ID side of the issue. Also, the issue isn't so much whether or not this can happen in nature, but what are the chances that these molecules survive long enough to evolve into ever-increasing complex forms? Even then, the earth's environment today is different than that of the primitive earth. As to which explanation makes the most sense, that's entirely subjective. Either position takes a great deal of faith, and both ultimately rest on philosophical notions and ideals.

[monsoon]

..... Either position takes a great deal of faith, and both ultimately rest on philosophical notions and ideals.

Well no they don't. The idea that an Intelligence created Intelligence is completely based on faith, there is no evidence, science or historical artifacts that would support the idea. It's based on religion.

Evolution can be observed in the micro sense and through historical evidence can be observed in the natural world macro sense. Indeed even in the current world, if there wasn't evolution, then we could cure the common cold. We can't of course because the bacteria that cause it evolved into new forms from our attempts to eradicate it. The reason we can't observe evolution in real time with larger organizisms is because the period of time between generations is so long.

Likewise the question of how first life begain on this planet is different from does that life undergo evolution.

[krazeeboi]

The positions that I was referring to were the two given by Gusterfell: "life began as such protoviruses gradually took on increasingly complex forms" and "some amorphous being snapped his fingers and 'created' life out of nowhere." Both of these positions ultimately rest on philosophical foundations.

In this regard, this is why I think that a lot of debate as to what should be taught in schools is misdirected. I believe that in SC in particular, schools are only concerned about teaching the evolution of existing life forms, and not about inorganic molecules giving rise to life--the latter being the focus of many a debate.

[damus]

How the universe was created is irrelevant to this discussion. We are talking about evolution. How did the first living organism form on the planet? Nobody knows as there wasn't anyone taking notes when it happened. This question is also irrelevant.

Did intelligence create intelligent life? The question contradicts itself and only serves to muddy the water to the real issue at hand. Take religious beliefs out of this, and there is nothing to debate.

Well I'm not sure how my thoughts are irrelevant to the conversation. No one was taking notes when humans evolved, either. I believe in evolution but do not know how the pieces were put in place. Was it all just random? I think there are varying levels of what defines "Intelligent Design" that goes beyond the silly Adam and Eve story. Who's to say that the universe itself wasn't created by a higher power? I don't know what to think. As people, we really don't know everything. At the same time, thoughout history anything unknown seems to have been thought of to be the work or God(s). What exactly are they teaching in the schools that teach intelligent design?

[Gusterfell]

The positions that I was referring to were the two given by Gusterfell: "life began as such protoviruses gradually took on increasingly complex forms" and "some amorphous being snapped his fingers and 'created' life out of nowhere." Both of these positions ultimately rest on philosophical foundations.

In this regard, this is why I think that a lot of debate as to what should be taught in schools is misdirected. I believe that in SC in particular, schools are only concerned about teaching the evolution of existing life forms, and not about inorganic molecules giving rise to life--the latter being the focus of many a debate.

The major difference in the two positions I gave is that I freely conceded that the first was pure speculation. If I had stated it as fact, then yes, it would require a leap of faith based on current knowledge. However, find a Creationist willing to make the same concession about his position. They tend to want to put the Biblical story on an equal footing with proven science.

As for the SC schools, that sounds like the way it should be. The origins of life are very much unexplained, and no explanation should be taught as proven fact at this point. However, the origins of life and evolutionary theory are two independent, though loosely related, concepts. Evolution is known to occur, and hard-line fundamentalists who deny its existence are lumping themselves with the flat-earth followers and their ilk.

[krazeeboi]

The major difference in the two positions I gave is that I freely conceded that the first was pure speculation. If I had stated it as fact, then yes, it would require a leap of faith based on current knowledge. However, find a Creationist willing to make the same concession about his position. They tend to want to put the Biblical story on an equal footing with proven science.

This goes back to my statements in this thread some time back about "ways of knowing." As my biology advisor often tells us, science is only a way to know about our world (and a rather important one), but not the way. In this regard, I believe that there's enough blame to go around.

[GRDadof3]

They tend to want to put the Biblical story on an equal footing with proven science.

I really don't think it has anything to do with the Bible. And I also don't think Intelligent Design people are advocating "7 days and God created the Universe". I think it's more of a "spirituality" thing than a "religious" thing.

[civitas]

"7 days and God created the Universe".

6 days GRDadof3...He rested on the 7th.

[monsoon]

Fortunately sanity has returned somewhat to Kansas where religious fanatics had voted out the teaching of evolution where one of the defeated incumbants had described evolution as "age-old fairy tale". This Article details how religious extremeism has creaped into the Republican Party and is taking it down.

I find this court case also very telling. The courts have already decided that "theological creationalism" is nothing more than religious theory and should not be taught in the schools. So what do these zeliots do? They rename it Intelligent Design. It's amazing how many people have fallen for the notion that ID is some kind of science.

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiff's assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.

Thankfully, American's seem to be waking up from their long sleep (since 2000) and are taking back their country from the fanatics.

[suburban george3]

Thankfully, American's seem to be waking up from their long sleep (since 2000) and are taking back their country from the fanatics.

so much damage has been done locally, not to mention what's been done on the international stage, I'm afraid it's going to be a long drawn out process. Not to mention that the US' reputation has been tarnished forever.

[runawayjim]

I really don't think it has anything to do with the Bible. And I also don't think Intelligent Design people are advocating "7 days and God created the Universe". I think it's more of a "spirituality" thing than a "religious" thing.

even if it is more spirituality than religion, the case a lot of the intelligent design folks are trying to make is that evolution is not a proven theory almost to the point where they're saying it's completely unproven, which is just not the case. i have no problem with people learning about intelligent design, but not in science class. intelligent design is something that cannot ever be proven 100% true, while evolution does have that chance (and micro-evolution has basically been proven true). macro-evolution, such as the idea that humans came from monkeys, can be a bit more questionable, although it is not at all in question that we are related to apes.

if they want to teach intelligent design in religion class, that's fine, but it does not belong in science class because it is completely unrelated to science. but i think their problem is that religion classes are not allowed in public schools, and rightfully so, because you'd have to teach about hundreds of different relgions, including atheism (which, to a degree, can be considered a religion).

[Neo]

intelligent design is something that cannot ever be proven 100% true, while evolution does have that chance (and micro-evolution has basically been proven true). macro-evolution, such as the idea that humans came from monkeys, can be a bit more questionable, although it is not at all in question that we are related to apes.

I'm about to begin on a new book by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and head of the human genome project that was completed recently. His book is entitled "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and was recently on the Diane Rehm Show (NPR) to answer some controversial questions. It was a great listen and I in fact have it saved as I have listened to it more than once. The link is:

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/01/02/14.php

He makes some interesting points regarding evolution and religion, something that I have always believed co-existed but have never been able to compare my beliefs with anyone else. It is refreshing to know that I am not the only one who believes in the way that I do. His points bring up things found while mapping that proves undeniably that evolution exists in micro and non-micro scales. Relationships in DNA from us to chimpanzees and even fish are undeniable according to his research and in his book he gives proof for it.

I'm excited to start such a book that will finally give me a ledge to stand on when trying to make my point to those who think you can only believe in either God or science but never both.

I encourage anyone interested in the evolution vs. God debate to listen to this NPR segment to to even buy the book by Francis Collins as I'm sure it will lay quite a few things straight and in a manner we are not accustomed to.

[Snowguy716]

Well, the Catholic churchs' official opinion is that evolution is proven science, but that it all got started with God. A monk told me "He's God. He can create the world however he wants. If he wants to do it in 7 days, he could.. if we wants to do it in 15 billion years, he can."

He said that Genesis is correct in the order it goes in, but not the exact times. He thinks the rise of Adam was when humans gained consciousness and developed a conscience.

It's a lot more reasonable than the 7 day crowd have to offer.

[runawayjim]

Well, the Catholic churchs' official opinion is that evolution is proven science, but that it all got started with God. A monk told me "He's God. He can create the world however he wants. If he wants to do it in 7 days, he could.. if we wants to do it in 15 billion years, he can."

He said that Genesis is correct in the order it goes in, but not the exact times. He thinks the rise of Adam was when humans gained consciousness and developed a conscience.

It's a lot more reasonable than the 7 day crowd have to offer.

yes, i think what the catholic church determined (since they take a more interpretted stance on the bible) is that the first 7 days were each much longer than a day. it was more of a metaphor. it was the smart thing since there's no denying that science has proven how old the world is and how long it was before humans came to be.

[krazeeboi]

I'm about to begin on a new book by Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute and head of the human genome project that was completed recently. His book is entitled "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and was recently on the Diane Rehm Show (NPR) to answer some controversial questions. It was a great listen and I in fact have it saved as I have listened to it more than once. The link is:

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/01/02/14.php

He makes some interesting points regarding evolution and religion, something that I have always believed co-existed but have never been able to compare my beliefs with anyone else. It is refreshing to know that I am not the only one who believes in the way that I do. His points bring up things found while mapping that proves undeniably that evolution exists in micro and non-micro scales. Relationships in DNA from us to chimpanzees and even fish are undeniable according to his research and in his book he gives proof for it.

I'm excited to start such a book that will finally give me a ledge to stand on when trying to make my point to those who think you can only believe in either God or science but never both.

I encourage anyone interested in the evolution vs. God debate to listen to this NPR segment to to even buy the book by Francis Collins as I'm sure it will lay quite a few things straight and in a manner we are not accustomed to.

I saw an article about this guy and his book in my local newspaper. He seems to be a breath of fresh air given the current "either/or" debate. I definitely plan to pick up the book in the near future.

[Charlotteman]

Teaching creationism in public schools reminds me of the Cold War era, when the Soviets taught "scientific socialism".

Creationism has as much do do with science as Soviet-style garbage did.

Why is it so difficult for so many religious believers to understand that religion belongs in church?

If anyone seeks religious inspiration, shouldn't this happen in a church? Schools are for LEARNING.

Just my 2 cents:)

[waccamatt]

Teaching creationism in public schools reminds me of the Cold War era, when the Soviets taught "scientific socialism".

Creationism has as much do do with science as Soviet-style garbage did.

Why is it so difficult for so many religious believers to understand that religion belongs in church?

If anyone seeks religious inspiration, shouldn't this happen in a church? Schools are for LEARNING.

Just my 2 cents:)

[convulso]

why vs. how.

what we endeavor to learn - using our rational minds - will only tell us how things happen. never, ever, ever why. proof is, at the end of the day, belief - nothing more. when people argue about where we came from, etc., they are, at heart, arguing about why we're here; not the process of how we got here. IMHO, of course....

proof is utterly fallible; i.e., there is no such thing as proof. everything is filtered through the individual mind. epistemology is not universal; it varies from mind to mind. so what is so alluring about believing that we can discern scientific answers to "why" questions? our existence is maddening; it is a procession of unanswerable questions that we are uniquely and perfectly designed to ask with desperate urgency. whatever answers we think we have, we believe in them - be they of scientific derivation or otherwise.

so i believe....that........

the world is too self-contradictory and f'd up to be the product of implacable, emotionless mass wasting. the biotic urge to fight against chaos and to question it - to organize social structures, to defy physical laws, etc. - is somehow out of place in a random universe. the universe would seem to get on very well without living things in it, and without people who ask nosy questions about why they're alive and why they die and where they came from, etc. i don't know what the hell we human beings are, and inasmuch as i don't know that, i can't judge the character(s) or nature(s) of the thing(s) that put us here, or the processes it/they chose to use. but i think existence is the product of will, and whatever will there might be that lies behind existence, it's pretty screwed up and contradictory and beautiful and, oh i don't know, horny and dipped in corn meal.

just like people.

[krazeeboi]

That was beautiful.

What's so funny is that you cannot totally separate teleology from either position. Intelligent design/creationism readily embraces it, and while (atheistic) evolution says that their position is devoid of such a concept, in reality they cannot erase its connotations. That's one reason why I say that a "strict" scientific viewpoint as it regards this issue isn't as strict as those who espouse it would like to think.