I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

ordinaryguy

You're showing far more than that, I'm afraid. By simply repeating your same arguments, even after their fallacies have been pointed out, you're showing an inability or unwillingness to engage in constructive debate and discussion.

Fr_Chuck

I am sorry, the issue here is that one that will not accept creation though design ( that was the theme of the question some 14 pages ago) have no real proof or idea how it could have happened. How one cell first even started life, and how that one cell changed the DNA to become trees, animals, fish, birds and all the billions of variations of those.

Why 1000's of types of grass, and not just one that worked best in one area, way 1000's of types of tress, esp some that have often no useful purpose. why all the variations of fish at the same depth levels.

And when that cell first became that first rabbit after a million years, was it a male rabbit or a female and where did the other rabbits come from to make other ones ** ok not rabbits but get the idea.

The simple fact is that an idea of it all just happened, has to be much more silly than an idea that there is some control factor over it, that developed things in some order.

Reading the supporting ideas of DNA no, honestly inthebox makes alot more sense to someone who wants to see it.

ordinaryguy

If you think that evolutionary theory says nothing more than "it all just happened", you need to study it in a lot more depth and detail. Of course things developed "in some order". The interplay between planetary conditions and living organisms is wonderfully complex and ongoing. The changing physical environment is the "control factor" that sets the terms of "success" for living organisms at any point in time.

Personally, I don't mind if people use god as the "explanation" for everything we don't yet understand. But it does annoy me when they continue to insist on using him for that purpose even after perfectly good scientific explanations are available.

To me, the real mystery is why living organisms want so desperately to survive. If you want to say that it's god that makes them do it, I'm OK with that.

jillianleab

It is far from the original point, but there have been hundreds of people since Jesus who claim to be the son of god, or claim to speak to god and "know things", or even claim to be god. Jesus was not god, so he doesn't fit my example of GOD appearing on the 5:00 news. Any loon at this point in time can make the news and say they are god, or the son of god, or a messenger from god, etc (Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus reincarnated, for example). So it's not that I refuse to accept the record, I refuse to accept the messenger because I don't trust it. But that's another topic! If you want to go further with this, PM me or start a new thread, I don't want this one closed because we get off topic.


It is a quantum leap from microscopic cells to man or earthworm. Give me a few billion years and I'll give you a man. That's what you need to understand, it's not an overnight thing.


Sorry, but you're wrong here. As OG said, scientists don't say "we don't have to explain it"; they explain it, you refuse to accept the explanation (which is fine). Sometimes science will say "we don't know yet", but that doesn't mean "we aren't working on figuring it out" or "we won't ever know that". And theists use the argument you state all the time; "It's too complex, god did it. We don't understand how this could happen, god did it. Something bad happend, it was god's will. Something good happened, god did it." There's no credit for the individual, no accountability, no thought involved in saying "god did it"


I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not defending evolution, I'm defending the scientific method and what belongs in a science class. I don't care if you ever accept evolution as fact, and I don't care if you children and grandchildren and so on never accept it as fact. I just want you and everyone else to recognize what is science and what is not science. If you studied evolution a little more, you might understand it's claims, which might help you understand why it's being taught and why it is, in fact, science. That might also help you understand why ID and Creationism are not science. You might not ever believe it, but that doesn't mean you can't understand it.

The reason we say evolution will provide the answers we seek in time is because that's what science does. I'm not saying ID doesn't have merit, I'm saying it's not science, so it doesn't belong in a science class. I'm also saying those of you who push for ID being taught are disguising creationism which you know is religion and you know doesn't belong in a public school. And if you don't know that, you need to spend more time in a government class.


I have no problem with teaching the bible as an elective in schools depending on how it's done. I imagine most of the people you say are screaming about it probably object to the method of how it's being taught (granted, some will scream about it just because it's the bible). If the bible is studied in school as a historical document and the impact of it on modern and past societies is discussed, I have no problem with that. If, however, it's taught as fact (like church bible study) and no other religious texts are allowed to be taught, we have a problem. And no, evolution isn't an elective because it's not a class. Are you saying you want science or biology to be an elective now? Sorry kids, you don't get to learn about the human digestive system, because this class also mentions evolution. Come on....

jillianleab

inthebox the problem with your examples is you are talking about material things. Of course milk cartons with screw caps are intelligence by design, a milk carton is a thing, and it's not a biological or organic thing. Your examples prove nothing for or against evolution or ID.

excon

Hello:

Ever since the beginning of time, there's what the priests/shaman/witch doctors/believers say, and there's what science said.......

Somewhere between then and now, the believers accepted some science as fact. Clearly, you don't believe the sun is God, and you don't believe the earth is the center of the universe. Do you?

If you don't, why not??? It WAS heresy to claim the earth revolved around the sun.... Just as I think you're saying evolution is heresy.... How long is it gonna take you to get it this time? Or is THIS where you make your last stand??

excon

ordinaryguy

This is a vitally important point, and one that I wholeheartedly second. The really important question is not about particular historical facts, i.e., "How did life begin on this planet, and how has it changed over time?"

The real issue is how do you decide whether your explanation for something you observe about the physical world is "good enough", or whether it needs improving. IF you decide it needs improving, the scientific method is the right tool for the job. If not, you don't need it yet. Science education at its best teaches the method, not just the current state of knowledge, which changes daily. For people who are completely satisfied with all their explanations, a career in science is probably not the best choice.

Galveston1

Good! You emphasize "method" and that's fine. Unfortunately, that is NOT what is happening in science classes across this country. Theory is being taught as FACT and is granted priority to the exclusion of anything else.

Galveston1

My original point is that intelligent design/creationism is no more religion than is evolution theory.

As I read the various posts favoring evolution, I see that much is made of the idea that evolution can be proved by scientific research, but the only thing that can be truthfully said is that scientists have been able to modify/alter certain cells. We now have the knowledge to meddle with genomes, but that is only dealing with what is already in existence. Creationism is criticized because it cannot be duplicated in the laboratory, but the fact remains that most of what is believed about evolution cannot be duplicated either.

Science is observing what is. Scientific theory can be whatever man’s mind chooses to believe about the facts observed, and varies from scientist to scientist, and from time to time.

In a previous post I challenged anyone to make an earthworm. Let’s take that to a more basic level. In spite of the billions of dollars and the lifetimes of research, man has never made even a single cell (plant or animal) that can reproduce. What is missing is that factor called life. We all know what it is, and yet we cannot explain or duplicate it. We see life all around us, so it is a scientific observation that life exists. What experiment can science do to duplicate it or even verify it, for that matter? It simply is. Science has absolutely no answer or explanation for it, and yet it would be un-scientific to deny it. It is belief to say that life accidentally happened. Belief is an integral component of religion

michealb

Evolution theory is sound and based on fact. Why you can't see that or refuse to accept it, I can't tell you. I do know that regardless of how many times something has been explained the only people that don't understand it are the people with extreme religious bias. That right there has to tell you something. I challenge you to find one person without a religious agenda to say that evolution isn't a sound theory. This is the earth is the center of the universe argument of the 21th centaury. The church will eventually say that evolution is god's plan and everyone will be happy again but until then we have some dark ages to go through hopefully it won't be to long though.

On your remark about making an earthworm. We aren't there yet, we are still working on making bacteria (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/sc...nd-genome.html) but just because we can't do something yet doesn't mean it's impossible.