Evolutionism, Creationism, Intelligent Design?
Posted by James on April 28, 2014 · 6 Comments
Question by My Avatar Is Beautiful: Evolutionism, Creationism, Intelligent Design?
I just saw a Ben Stein Film on this and have decided that after years of being flabbergasted by the idea of religion and wondering what Darwin was smoking, I think I believe in Intelligent Design now.
What do you believe?
Ummm, hmmm….
Well lets just say if these 3 guys were running for president, If I had to vote, I would vote for the lesser evil, or to me the one that seems most factual and understandable to me is Intelligent Design. The other two are just, WOW, just full of holes.
If you have never smoked marijuana, your comment means less than nothing, thanks for the answer though.
creation and id are not the same, are you serious. I am an agnostic, go ahead and ask a Christian whether he believes in creation or ID and see what he says, betcha it aint ID, Its god did it all and every word in the bible is the truth.
I can’t wait for scientists to finally wake up and understand that Darwinism is wrong. Science changes everyday and each idea or “fact” usually changes with newer technology, science is understanding and if you don’t have the ability to have the technology at hand then you will never have the correct answer. It’s like the “state of the art” gimmick.
Best answer:
Answer by KTDykes
<
What’s that supposed to be? I’m familiar with evolutionary theory, but not with this ideology or philosophy you mention.
<>
What you think you believe isn’t of much importance. What matters is what’s backed by the available evidence. That’s not any of the three alternatives you’ve mentioned. Rather, the evidence indicates that the variety of lifeforms on the planet are best accounted for by evolutionary theory.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Good for you. I only believe in God. I only answered this question because your profile name is incorrect and I just wanted to remind you that there are kids using this forum. I’m sure that their parents don’t appreciate you lying to them.
Marijuana is a drug, dude. It is still an illegal substance
as far as I know. The cops in your country still bust a lot of people who are bringing the crap from South America to North America. We do get CNN here.
Marijuana:
A psychoactive drug (as marijuana or hashish) from hemp.
Psychoactive:
Affecting the mind or behaviour.
First, Creationism and ID are the same thing just read about it. Secondly that film is absolute crap, I’ve resolved to never again watch something with him in it for the rest of my life since he made that tripe. Next, all science for the last hundred years is based, at least in part, on evolution. It is as solid an idea as there is in science. Any good scientist will tell you that nothing in science is 100% sure, so you have to accept that fact. Secondly understand that in science the word theory does not mean guess or hope. It means a system of ideas and laws that have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, gravity is another of science’s theories. Science is equally sure of gravity and evolution. I hope you’re joking about that movie convincing you, if not it’s just another sign of the decline of American education.
> “after years of being flabbergasted by the idea of religion and wondering what Darwin was smoking, I think I believe in Intelligent Design now.”
ID *is* religion: it is “creationism-lite”, as judged by mainstream science, and by the American court system (See “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District” court case linked)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
> “the one that seems most factual and understandable to me is Intelligent Design. The other two are just, WOW, just full of holes.”
Evolution is NOT “full of holes”, despite what you might *think* you understand. There is a reason why 99.85% of the world’s scientists accept it as true and reject both Creationism and ID.
> “creation and id are not the same”
Judgement from Judge Jones in the above court case:
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)
[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)
ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
> “I can’t wait for scientists to finally wake up and understand that Darwinism is wrong. Science changes everyday and each idea or “fact” usually changes with newer technology, science is understanding and if you don’t have the ability to have the technology at hand then you will never have the correct answer. ”
Darwinian evolution has been thoroughly tested for over 150 years now. It has indeed changed several times: the addition of genetics, and integration of Punctuated Equilibrium and Genetic Drift, etc. But in its essentials, it is basically the same.
Just because a scientific idea hasn’t been rejected for a few hunder years does not make it wrong: are you alleging, for example, that the Copernican model of the solar system should be discarded simply because it is old?
After some time of having a confused belief in kind of a theistic evolution, I started teaching science. It was the facts of science (like no visible evolution today, all animals give rise to their own kinds, etc.) that God used to help convince me that the Bible was true. I’m thoroughly convinced that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Below are some sites that I hope will be of help in this regard.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=50
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
THe basic logic of Intelligent Design is that
1] THe universe is far to complex to have just happened
2] Therefore something must have created it.
3] We call that something God and must worship it.
Well, if the universe’s complexity requires a creator, surely since God is inherently more complex, something must have created god. So why not worship that something, not god, and cut out the middleman ? Of course, then god-squared needs a creator, ad infinitum.
Creationism and intelligent design flunk the main test of science, that of being able to make accurate predictions of measurable reality. Would ID predict bacterial resistance to antibiotics at all, let alone being able to predict how fast it would occur under different conditions ?
Neither do they meet Karl Popper’s test of ‘Falsifiability”, which requires that to be called a scientific theory any idea must be able to lead to an experiment where, if a certain result were obtained, it would prove the theory wrong.
What would falsify evolution ? Per Haldane, fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
A challenge for you: find me a geologist with a good record of finding ore bodies for commercial exploitation, or oil deposits, that believes in ID. Then find one who believes the Earth was created in 4004 BC.
There are none. ID is NOT science.
You’re right. Darwinism went out with the Flat Earth Theory. Faulty old theories always die eventually.
Darwinism is based on science that is 150 years old. New scientific discoveries show nano-machines in the cells of living beings. These microscopic motors could not evolve therefore by Darwin’s own admission his theory of the Origin of Species is false.
Many don’t want to admit that evolution and Darwinism don’t explain life because they don’t like the origins of life being a mystery.
Bottom line: there’s no evidence supporting the evolution of life from one species to another. Not to mention the lack of fossils to support the Darwinist theory.
Frankly I’m surprised they’re still allowed to teach Darwinism in schools. All the diagrams in the evolution text books were proven to be fakes years ago, but they still put them in.
It’s pretty funny when you think about it. I used to believe in Darwin’s theories until I really studied the subject, especially micro biology.