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?

michealb

Sassy, I suggest you then ignore all of the scientific theories on gravity then because we don't know where gravity come from. In fact ignore all science since we don't have a 100% exact model of how everything came into being and live as people did when the bible was written. No electricity because while we know how electricity is formed we don't know exactly where the original energy for it came from. See how silly that is.

Also hypothesizes and theories are part of science. The problems that you all seem to be having is understanding what is required for something to be a scientific theory and what that means.

Sassy are you getting your bio degree at a religious college or a main stream college?

jillianleab

I suppose... but shouldn't the experiment be relavent? A milk carton has no will to live, it's a lousy example.


I see... so... "Everything we use was created by man. Man is intelligent. Man was created by intelligence" Too bad you're talking about things which aren't alive. So, no, not a valid argument.


Except your argument doesn't prove anything. I say look around and the evidence favors evolution.


I don't know where science provides evidence of a creator; since science doesn't say, "Woah! This is complex! It must be created by some supernatural, unprovable being!"

And of course science questions the validity of evolution - it's the job of science to ask questions.


I don't know where you get the idea belief in science and belief in god are mutally exclusive.... bovine manure indeed. Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, gravity, photosynthesis, etc make no claim for or againat god whatsoever. You can have it both ways.


First of all, the quote you've taken is explaining what a "fact" is, it is not claiming those items alone prove evolution. I don't appreciate you taking something from my link and taking it out of context. It's deceptive and rude.

"Intermediate in appearance" shows there is supporting evidence for evolution. Again, it makes no claim for or against "god". "God" or "creator" is not provable. Ever. Not in a lab. Science can never 100% disprove god. Even if we found every fossil of every species leading through evolution from a single celled organism all the way to me sitting here at my desk today, "god" or "creator" isn't disproven. The literal translation of the bible is, ID is, but "god" or "creator" isn't.

And anyone is welcome to interpret the facts however they want, but if they want their ideas to be considered by the scientific community, they need to publish them and allow them to be peer reviewed and subjected to scrutiny. ID-ers don't do this. Maybe it's because they know their argument won't hold up to scientific review (because it isn't science), I don't know, but they leave that step out and then demand their "theory" be taught in science classes. Now that's bovine manure!

PS: The fossil record isn't small.

achampio21

ooh ooh I just wanted to throw this in because my fiance and I talke about this all the time!!!!

Okay... if the "bible" is a "true" story about where everyone came from and how we were all created isn't it kind of strange that "man" wrote the bible and that each "version" of the bible is written and taught however is pleases each "religion". I have come to think of religion and churches kind of like a government. You know the gov has rules. The bible has rules. The gov wants your money. Churches want your money. The gov can violate all of their own rules. Pastors, preachers etc. can break all of their own rules.

OH and the king james bible says that we were all created from GOD. And that he made Adam and Eve and then they just I guess had a lot of kids. But how did dinosaurs get here, because the bible never talks about them... but science has proved their existence...

anyway... just wanted to get that in there. I have been following this hot topic and I am learning a lot. but will admit I am still a little confused..

ordinaryguy

No, it is not science, it's your caricature of what you think evolutionary theory says. It shows that you understand neither the theory of cosmogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, nor the science of physics, nor the science of geology, nor the science of biology, nor the role of theory in every kind of science whatsoever.

If I thought that your description of what science says was at all accurate, I'd reject it too. Rejecting a wild concoction of misconceptions is a great first step. The next step whould be to get to work on correcting those misconceptions.

sassyT

[quote]
Precisely..


The big bang theory is not science niether is the theory that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup. you dont need to have an education past third grade to know that human and fruit flies sharing a common ancestor is a fairy tale.


Its not science though...lol

sassyT

[quote]
the bible does talk about Dinosaurs. God created Dinosaurs.

Job 40:15-24 describes a large animal that resembles what would be a dinosaur like a Brachiosaurus

Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 all describe a large sea animal that does not resemble any animal we know today. Its description fits that of a dinosaur.

ordinaryguy

You are clearly not qualified to judge what is, and what is not science.

Galveston1

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.

You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.

In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that? Isn't that just a tad intellectually dishonest?

You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?

My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you. If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution. Sure, call it theory. That would be better for the students than censorship of anything that might contradict evolution.

ordinaryguy

Nope, not even close.
Whether there is or isn't a god has no particular bearing on the study of how life works. The evidence that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and that simple life forms have been here much longer than more complex forms is incontrovertible and overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is a tool that biologists use to develop and improve their explanations of how living things change in response to the changes in their environment. It's not an article of religious faith or a tenet of religious belief. Whether God "used evolution" is a religious and theological question, not a scientific one.

It's OK in religion or philosophy classrooms, it just isn't science.

Biologists don't "refuse to pursue" such investigations, they just aren't interested because "the claim of a creator" is a religious question, not a scientific one, and it doesn't lead to any testable hypotheses. If you can design an experiment that uses the scientific method to test the hypothesis that there is a creator, by all means, carry it out and publish the result.

Again, evolutionary theory is not "something to believe in", it is just a tool scientists use, because it works for the task at hand--figuring out how living things interact and change over time.
Because the Bible is a religious book, not a science text. The fact that it contains some statements about the physical world that have been demonstrated scientifically does not turn it into a science book.

No, it's not the least bit scary. The effort to know about god is a spiritual quest, not a scientific study.
As jillianleab has explained many times, the problem is that creationism is religion, not science, and therefore does not belong in a scientific curriculum.

michealb

Good idea lets see what you have.
Yes, most athiests admit that there could be a god, we just find that without evidence it's highly unlikely. What has been said in this thread is that evolution doesn't mean you have to be an athiest too. It's not athiests saying we believe that god used evolution to make man.

We don't want him mentioned in a science class and we think it's a good idea that everyone teach their own religion in their own time. Instead of using government funds to sponser a state religion.

Science has been looking for god since the beginning. Science hasn't found him yet. If you have an experiment that proves god get it peer reviewed so we all can do it.

Regarding something as true because it fits facts and experiments is different than a religious belief because if there was any evidence that disproved evolution it would be abandoned.
I think Jillian has already said why this isn't impressive.

You seem to have twisted everything everyone said in this thread to fit your own sense of what it's going on. I suggest you reread what is being said because you completely missed what was said.