Your thought on Intelligent Design

[moe.ron]

Link to Intelligent Design on Wiki

[PenguinTrax]

My thought is that it's complete and utter tripe.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by PenguinTrax
My thought is that it's complete and utter tripe.

Me too.

I'm baffled by people who think intelligent design should be taught in public schools. Maybe someone who is a Christian can explain this to me -- isn't it possible for a Christian to accept evolution AND intelligent design as true? Can't they go together? I mean, do people really interpret the Bible so literally that they think everything was created in six actual days? If evolution and intelligent design are accepted as true, why is it such a problem for one's children to learn one in school and the other in church?

[PenguinTrax]

Those that believe in I.D. do not and cannot believe in evolution because it doesn't include the guiding hand of the Divine. I.D. is a lame attempt to mediate between evolution and creationism.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by PenguinTrax
Those that believe in I.D. do not and cannot believe in evolution because it doesn't include the guiding hand of the Divine. I.D. is a lame attempt to mediate between evolution and creationism.

I don't understand that. Darwin believed in God.

[xo_kathy]

I am a Christian and have always - since I was in school and learned about evolution - decided that evolution and the Bible can really go hand in hand. I was always taught (in church, mind you!) that we have no way of knowing how long a day was back then - it could have been millions of years. So it worked for me - expecially since the steps are the same in each version. My hubby makes fun of me for it, but it's the way I like to think about it. Because I know science is right on this one and there is no way I would advocate teaching creationism in schools, but I always want to believe my Bible - though I personally don't take all parts of it as literal.

I figure if I ever get to Heaven and the God I am expecting is there, I'll get the real story. Or, if I die and there is no Heaven, I'm none the worse for it. But learning the theory of eveolution and answering test questions about it to get a good grade isn't going to hurt any conservative Chirstians out there who believe the Bible literally. It's sort of like Algebra - I learned it for the test and never used it again!

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
I don't understand that. Darwin believed in God.

Evolution does NOT, in any way, preclude the involvement of any sort of God of any religion or any form.

In fact, most of the largest religious bodies in the Western Hemisphere agree that evolution is feasible and consistent with their creation mythology. The only ones that do not recognize evolution are, IIRC, the Southern Baptists and various associations of Evangelical bodies.

Intelligent Design is absolutely pseudoscience, and should not be taught in any school.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Evolution does NOT, in any way, preclude the involvement of any sort of God of any religion or any form.

In fact, most of the largest religious bodies in the Western Hemisphere agree that evolution is feasible and consistent with their creation mythology. The only ones that do not recognize evolution are, IIRC, the Southern Baptists and various associations of Evangelical bodies...

tangent

This reminds me of the time my Southern Baptist uncle yelled at me and told me to drop my Science in Society course because evolution was part of the course.

/tangent

[valkyrie]

So is this accurate:

Intelligent design is pretty much the "theory" of choice for people who are too stupid to understand the Bible in non-literal terms, or whose lives are so dominated by religion that they can't understand the world in any other terms?

I tried to make that statement as extreme as I could -- if you disagree, please explain. I want to try to understand the other point of view.

[AlphaFrog]

They are however, finding more and more evidence DISPROVING evolution:

Fossil Site

Evolution—past and present

There are basically two ways evolution could be proven: either by fossils—evidence from the past—showing it has occurred in the past, or by studying mutations and natural selection—evidence from the present—to see whether it could occur at all.

Evolution, one species changing into another, never occurs today. (For mutations and natural selection, see our page: Microevolution and Macroevolution.) Therefore we must study the past. Clearly, evolutionists only have the fossils to prove their theory. If evolution ever happened, there should be a large number of transitional forms in the fossil record. Scientists have collected millions of fossils in the past 150 years, and all they have found was evidence disproving evolution.

___________________________________________


I realize that this is a Christian site, but I've read this other places too, this one just has it very concisely explained, while still making the point.

I personally am a Christian, but I don't know what I believe as far as Intelligent Design. I tend to lean with the group that says that a "day" in the creation story is not the same as a day today.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by AlphaFrog
They are however, finding more and more evidence DISPROVING evolution:

Fossil Site

Evolution—past and present

There are basically two ways evolution could be proven: either by fossils—evidence from the past—showing it has occurred in the past, or by studying mutations and natural selection—evidence from the present—to see whether it could occur at all.

Evolution, one species changing into another, never occurs today. (For mutations and natural selection, see our page: Microevolution and Macroevolution.) Therefore we must study the past. Clearly, evolutionists only have the fossils to prove their theory. If evolution ever happened, there should be a large number of transitional forms in the fossil record. Scientists have collected millions of fossils in the past 150 years, and all they have found was evidence disproving evolution.

Ah the interesting arguements against evolution as put forth by supporters of ID or Creationsim.... the only problem with the statement that the fossil record disproves evolution is that well it's a total lie. The fossil record has actually reinforced the evolutionary arguement, while showing the complexity and scope of life here on Earth. If anything I'd say that the fossil record completely erodes what little arguement the ID folks have - afterall with all this evidence of "failed" lifeforms what does that say about Intelligent Design? Are these fossils evidence of "mistakes" made by God and discarded?

[Rudey]

All this controversy over a subject taught for a week.

All this controversy over a subject that young students have no possible contribution to while they are learning basic sciences.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

I imagine that in 10 years or so when they're teaching this as "science" in my state that I'll have to enroll my child in a "secular" school to have some guarantee that they'll learn science in science class and religion at church.

[AKA_Monet]

Like I said before, God has little interest what happens in science...

Humans are the sole conceptualizers of "science".

However, science can only take us to a point in humanity...

The rest of things that happen in the Universe, who is to say what was the root cause and why and if it can change.

But scientists ask different kinds of questions.

[Betarulz!]

The main problem that most arguements against evolution come up against is that they find one or two holes in the theory, and take that as the end of the story.

Routinely, they'll point to something and say "Evolution can't explain this" or "no one knows why this happens". The problem is that if they noticed the pace of scientific exploration, it's probably pretty likely that some scientist is working on that exact problem as we speak, or someone will be doing so in very short order. To put God in the shadows of evolution is far more dangerous to God than to evolution, for when that "hole" is explained, God is chased to some other misty recess...

As for that fossil site. The claim of no "transitional" fossils is BS. There are plenty of fossils and species that show movement from one species to another. I long ago sold back my Evolution Text book from my Ecology and Evolution class (required as part of my Bio minor, no less), but it had 7-10 different examples of "transitional" species, including the species that gave way to whales but had functional legs.

To say that there must be millions of "transitional" fossils is absurd too. If you think about all the billions and billions of animals that have lived on earth throughout history, compared to the number of fossils that have been discovered, it's easy to see that fossilization is a pretty rare occurance. To demand that multiple fossils of transitional species be presented is simply trying to disprove the theory on the basis of numbers...rather than on actual science.

I could go on about all this but it's making me mad and I need to study.