It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   

As recent news stories have shown, the current scientific orthodoxy of evolution is adamantly opposed to allowing an alternate theory of human origins – namely, Intelligent Design – to be discussed, taught, or even published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This, despite the growing number of scientists defecting from the evolution side in favor of the view that an intelligent Designer is the best and most plausible scientific explanation for life on earth. Journalists somehow have been incapable of dealing with this controversy forthrightly, but Whistleblower's issue will break that mold.


WolrdNetDaily

When will Intelligent Design be allowed into our elementry and high school science books. For that matter, when will it even be seriously discussed and published by upper levels of science who's pockets are padded nicely by relgiolitics (my new word to synthesize religion and politics - do you like it?)




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I believe that God works through what humans have deemed science. So couldn't evolution have been a plan that God had had to begin with.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

As recent news stories have shown, the current scientific orthodoxy of evolution is adamantly opposed to allowing an alternate theory of human origins – namely, Intelligent Design – to be discussed, taught, or even published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Absolutely false. The only thing that prevents ID articles from being published in perr reviewed journals are the people writting the ID articles. THey don't write good science reports or do proper scientific studies. They appeal to metaphysical causes and make sloppy use of their own poorly defined terminology. ID articles get rejected for the same reason other creationist articles get rejected and the same reason any paper gets rejected, because they are bad science.


This, despite the growing number of scientists defecting from the evolution side in favor of the view that an intelligent Designer

The usual unsupported claim. 'Evolution is on its knees' is something the creationist camp has been saying for decades.


is the best and most plausible scientific explanation for life on earth.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Worldnutdaily often editorializes on this subject.


When will Intelligent Design be allowed into our elementry and high school science books.

If it ever became a science and was supported by the evidence, then it would and should be put it.


when will it even be seriously discussed and published by upper levels of science who's pockets are padded nicely by relgiolitics

Scientists do discuss intelligent design and are aware of it and other types of creationism and have largely rejected it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Charles Darwin ?It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank clothed of many plants of many kinds, with birds singing in the bushes, and various insects flitting about, and worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and yet dependent on each other in so complex a manner have all been produced by laws acting around us thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.? The first thought of Evolution.

Creation is taught in several schools in America. It is taught in secondary classes that teach religion to students who wish to learn about religion through an educative mean. But the creationists have also been getting creation taught in science classes. Several schools in Georgia teach creation as a science, not religion. This of course is wrong, for there is no scientific proof of creation. Creation is based on religion, not science.

A creationist has led a war on science for over 30 years, his name is Dwayne Gish. He has gotten creation taught as science in Georgia after losing in Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas. Russell Brock led the war in Georgia. He believes it is right to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, created in six days, flood happened explaining the Grand Canyon (more on this later) and that Evolution is as scientific as turning lead into gold. This of course is wrong, Evolution is a science. Yes it is the Theory of Evolution, but one must take note that Theory in science does not mean guess, shot in the dark, acid trip gone bad, or anything else creationists make it seem to be. The fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory. This was also discredited in the bible. Theory in science means a Hypothesis leading to tests, discussions, and debate.

There is nothing wrong with religion being taught at home or at church or even as a secondary class, but to teach it in a science class as fact, well, in the USA we pay taxes to fund things like schools. Now, the schools have to be run by a certain set of laws, also known as the constitution. Now in the constitution, it says that there shall be freedom of religion for state. Meaning, that something that is funded by the people through taxes shall not teach religion. Now this deal we made means we don?t have religion in school, church doesn?t have magic tricks during service.

Now Evolution has not been proven 100%. It has, but the creationists came up with a new arguement. "Ok, so Microevolution is correct, but not the rest." Why is that? They are shown prrof they are wrong so they twist the facts to "prove" they are right. It is a science. Science will prove something or other, but it takes time. How many centuries did it take for the Theory of Round Earth to be proved? The theory of sun in center to be proven? It took many years, was discredited by the bible, but we know those theories are correct for studies were done, tests done, discussion, debate, so forth. Of course, even if it is proven there will still be tests, experiments, and more debates. Gravity is a known fact. But they still study the effects of gravity on certain objects. Anti gravity tests, how strong it can be (black holes ring a bell?) and many other tests are done with gravity. All the laws and effects of gravity have not been proven or tested or realized. But does this mean gravity does not exist? One can not prove all of it 100%, and with the creationists argument, it would mean Gravity does not exist.

Creationists want Evolution to be proven, and until then they want creation to be taught in schools either with evolution or without it. In areas that creation is taught the biology books have little intros in the front of the book saying ?Evolution is a theory, not fact. And should be critically considered.? They don?t include an intro stating the fact that intelligent design isn?t validated by any science, we just made it up. They throw out all the science behind it because it has not been proven 100%. They claim that the bible is an accurate historical book and that anyone with historical background believes this. This of course is not true. The main argument is that it defies all logic and probability that there was not a master plan. They have no proof of this, but this is one of the statements they make. They try to convince people that creation is a science, which it isn?t. So they repackage the name and change it to ?intelligent design? to make it sound scientific. Well god isn?t a science. ?I choose to use the term intelligent design because it takes out the philosophical and religious setting.? Creationist. They try to pass religion as science by creating a scientific sounding name. ?Isn?t it a great idea to teach both and let the children decide? Let them and the parents consider both options and let them choose what they want to believe. Wouldn?t that be a wonderful thing?? Russell Brock. What this leaves out is the fact school is for teaching, not religion.

Thankfully, reason has come through in some areas of Georgia. In one county a man has gotten the ACLU in a lawsuit to try to keep religion out of public schools. Now the ACLU isn?t the best choice for this, I sure as hell wouldn?t have picked them. But for once in the past 10 years the ACLU are doing something right in my opinion. Religion is not allowed in public schools, and any attempts to allow it in should be fought. They are still in court last I heard. ?To deny that this whole argument is not about religion is ludicrous to me. It is spin, when someone says intelligent design is science and is based on god, that?s religion.? Sellman, guy who brought the ACLU into the fight.

Now one can vote on whether or not intelligent design is science or religion. But it isn?t science no matter what you vote. We can all take a vote on whether or not Drew Carey is human or not. If the majority vote he is a mongoose, does it mean he is? No, just like voting intelligent design is a science, it doesn?t truly mean it is a science.

Now, back to the leader of the modern creation movement, Dwayne Gish. He is the senior vice president of the Institute of Creation Research. He believes? ?To have all the scientific evidence that evolutionists believe that can prove evolution, have that presented to our students. Then take all the evidence creation scientist have that prove, that DEMANDS creation is fact, and let them decide.? Dwayne Gish. Gee, sounds like someone isn?t bias at all, does it? He has been fighting for creation and against evolution for almost as long as it has been around. But during this time we have founda million pieces of biological evidence including genetics. We have found millions of astronomical evidence that gives us the age of the Earth and the universe. Millions of pieces of geological evidence like transitional fossils and ?missing link? fossils of past animals and animals of today, like dogs, cats, horses, bears, and so forth. Dwayne heads ICR, Institute of Creation Research, a California conservative religious group with a strict focus to prove what they believe with whatever amount of double talk and twisted evidence they can create. They state that Evolution is not science and neither is creation. ?Neither creation or evolution are scientific. Evolution is no more scientific than creation and creation is no more religious than evolution.? Dwayne Gish. Only one little problem, evolution comes from science, creation comes from god, and god is not a science. Dr. Eugene Scott of the National Center for Science Education ? It would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute among scientists about evolution took place for it isn?t. You see school districts all over this country wrestling with the problem of what to teach. Evolution, creation, both, or neither. It seems to come up when peoples religious views need to take the bible literally are offended when evolution is taught in the classroom.? Dwayne Gish explains that him and his people do not want to bring religion into the classroom but evidence that proves a theistic supernatural origin to humans, life, and the planet. One little problem, supernatural, like god, is not a science.

Creationists will try to sound scientific, but they fail. They will go through the journals and books and notes and nit-pick every single last detail. If they found one word in anything about evolution is misspelled or wrong, they say throw out everything. There is a problem with this. Unlike religion, science is always, shall we say, evolving. Science once believed the Earth was flat. But then they found evidence leaning towards a non-flat Earth. So they did tests, changed views, changed ideas, and after a few hundred years of research and being killed by the church, proved that the Earth was round. The same is true with Evolution. Creation was believed to be correct. Then scientists started seeing things wrong with it. For those who think Darwin was the first to think of evolution you are wrong. Greeks came up with the conclusion that some land animals and sea animals are related. They came up with a theory that had animals such as horses, lions, bears, rodents, so forth, as coming from species that lived in the water. In fact, the horse created a new legend of the Greek gods with the creation of the horse being that of Posident.

The theology of religion is that if one thing is wrong in the bible you have to throw the whole thing out. (Explains why several books are left out of the bible) But science does not work that way. If one little piece of the evolution puzzle doesn?t fit then throw the whole thing out. But science, as said, does not work like this. Dr. Ron Mattsen, Professor of Biology at Kenenthshaw State, Kennethshaw, Georgia ?Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. We have to start with ideas that can to be tested. And there is always the possibility that conclusions we draw could be wrong. That is not the case with creation. They are saying that they are right and we are wrong but have no data to back this up.?

Bob Carroll, Professor of Philosophy, Sacramento City College. ?Creation science is an Oxymoron. The real question is why are they trying to pretend they are a science when they aren?t. The real reason is they have a different agenda and that is to destroy science. They know they can?t do that from without but must do so from within. Basically terrorize it.? But Dwayne Gish says he has scientific evidence, the Grand Canyon. ?The Grand Canyon is a very interesting geological object. Now if that canyon, possibly, was cut by the release of enormous amount of water from lakes to the north that were dammed and then broke through and cut the canyon in a matter of a few days.? We all know that is bs, but that is what he says is fact and wants taught, is being taught, in some schools and the public. But what he is referring to is the big flood of Noah that made him make a boat and get 2 of every animal on it. As anyone who knows about genetics will tell you that is impossible! Inbreeding would have killed off the population after about the 3rd-4th generation. Also, no boat built could hold two of every animal. It would also need aquariums to save all the fish, dolphins, and whales. Why? Well, if all the water mixed then saltwater would become too fresh and freshwater would become to salty meaning every fish/mammal that lives in fresh or salt water would be killed. But there are millions of fish and mammals in the waters to prove that they weren?t all killed off by a sudden mix of fresh and salt water. So no flood, no Noah, no proof. Gish believes a single flood made the Grand Canyon and a single boat saved every damn animal on Earth.

Back to Dr. Eugene Scott. ?Scientists hear this and just go wow. This is just amazing! Nobody thinks these people could possibly hold these ideas seriously. The Grand Canyon is granite, shale, and really hard rock, about 5,000 feet of it. You won?t cut this very hard rock with just a single flood.? Another claim by creationists is that the depth of fossils is only deep enough to have existed for thousands of years. They say that if evolution is correct, then there should be evidence of older fossils in the rock. Also, if there was all this evolution, then were are the transitional fossils? There are none. But there are! Homo Erectus ring a bell? Or Lucy? Gish just doesn?t look at the facts that we have. Dwayne lives in the margin of science, but he keeps the margins as wide as possible. Dr. Eugene Scott again. ?What we do in science is find an explanation that work. The idea that we had common ancestors works. That is why scientists accept evolution. Creationists will say evolution is about chance, and how can anything have happened due to chance. But evolution is farthest from chance possible. Evolution is the survival of the fittest and that means not chance, but survival ratio, is how evolution works.? Brock admits he doesn?t know what?s going on. ?Let?s just make one thing clear, I?m not a scientist.? He also tries to quote Isaac Newton and that Isaac Newton said there had to be a god, but he lived in the days of tyranny by the church where if you said something against the bible, you were killed. I?d say there has to be a god if the opposite meant death by torture. Brock also says that Darwin in his later years said that evolution was wrong, he was wrong. There has been no proof, no reason, and no facts sustaining this myth. This myth is right up there with the exploding toilet and duck quack has no echo. Darwin was a very serious scientist. He was convinced that evolution had happened and that his theory explained it. Remember that the fact that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun is theories.

Why does Dwayne hate science? Him and his people believe science has brought on materialistic atheism. Dwayne Gish. ?The kids are in the classrooms sitting before these PHD professors and are told that everything began with some hypothetical big bang and out of that everything has evolved. Now, they say Well, who needs god? He doesn?t exist and if there is no god then there is no one to whom I am responsible.? In other words, if someone thinks that the christian god doesn?t exist they will go out killing and raping and stealing and just doing whatever they want because they don?t fear the all mighty powerful people in the clouds. This of course is false, many people don?t believe in the christian god. They are called Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, Druids, and atheists. Except for the fundamentalist Moslems, no killing, raping, stealing, doing whatever they feel like because they don?t worry about punishment. ?We would like to reverse the situation of today. Today there is legalized porn, legalized abortion, legalized gambling, tremendous drug problem, and much more.? Dwayne Gish. I know, no christian has ever looked at porn, gambled, or did a drug, it is all those heathens out there that do them. NOT!

Now, why is religion taught in schools? Why do people believe in creation? Why do people believe in something with no facts or proof? Why do you believe it?

Just one last thing. Here is how evolution compares to creation. This is a good way to tell the difference between good science and non-science. Good science changes, it begins with observation, as we learn more we can come up with Hypothesis, then move on to tests which eventually lead to discussion and debate. Creation is rigid, it begins with fiction that proceeds to asserting, insisting, twisting the facts, and sometimes torturing those who disagree. Whether or not creation or ?intelligent design? sounds good doesn?t matter, it just isn?t science! Know what?s funny? There is a group that believes the exact same thing that Dwayne and Russell do, just one small twist, their higher being is an alien, not god. They are called Raelians. The creationists say the Raelians are nuts, but they believe the exact same thing.

So, your opinion on anything brought up here. Religion in school, creation a science or not, evolution, flood of Noah creating the Grand Canyon, age of the Earth.

Here is a link to Dwayne's site. www.icr.org...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I personally am skeptical about a world flood as described in the Bible. However, if it did happen then I would think there would have to be less species of animals in existance on Earth. Otherwise, the ark would have had to have been much bigger than it was in the Bible.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
If you had all the parts to a motorcyle in a big bag you could shake if for millions of years and never have a working motor cycle. Someone has to put it together. It takes intellegent design.

Good post 00ps.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Excellent post James!

One thing I do not quite understand is why are there more 'christians' who believe all these silly things, yet there are very, very few diests who simply acknowledge that evolution is a practical reality(re:Theory) that is guided by 'a' God? The compromise doesn't seem difficult and it would not waver nor hinder the progression of biological sciences in any way. just a thunk....



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
There is so much crap written about Darwinian evolution. Unless we have a time machine, I do not see how there can be a truly scientific that can claim to predict the past. For a theory to be a scientific, it must be falsifiable. You really can't falsify a theory that is just about the past. All you can do is piece together confusing clues.

The value of darwinian evolution must from its ability to predict the biology of humans, and other animals. Fossils don't really prove anything. So, the question must be how well does Darwinian evolution do at predicting such things. I haven't studied the matter enough to say so I withold judgement, although I will say it is easy write evolution on as an explanation, when it isn't the case.

We have also had encountered various problems from people over-applying Darwinian theories. Most notably, social Darwinism and evolutionary psychology have misused Darwinian evolution to somehow claim certain races are better than others. I do not claim all such theories are necessarily without merit, but those theories might make some take a biased view towards Darwinism.

Now, I get to intelligent design. If you define the as striving for certain objective attributes, I suppose you could make a theory out of ID. However, to achieve parsimonity you would drop the idea of the creator from the theory, and would just say that humans are optimized under these constraints. So, ID is not a scientific theory.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
A human body mind boggling complex and so is the universe. It could not have come about by happen stance. The sun and the moon are in precisely the right position to work with the earth the way they do. I cannot beleive that people think life was a biological accident.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel191159
Otherwise, the ark would have had to have been much bigger than it was in the Bible.

And then in order to get to this current amount of biodiversity you'd need evolution, no? So why postulate a flood at all, since its not required to explain anything?


mauistacey
If you had all the parts to a motorcyle in a big bag you could shake if for millions of years and never have a working motor cycle. Someone has to put it together. It takes intellegent design. [/quo0te]
A good argument for intelligent design, in motorcycle assembly classes. The analogy is completely incorrect for biology however, and is therefore meaningless.

A human body mind boggling complex and so is the universe. It could not have come about by happen stance

Demonstrate this.

The sun and the moon are in precisely the right position to work with the earth the way they do

They 'work' the way they do because thats how they happen to 'work'. Change the positions and you change the characteristics. That hardly means its designed. All it means is 'if things were different, they'd be different'.

I cannot beleive that people think life was a biological accident.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


crontab
For a theory to be a scientific, it must be falsifiable

Darwinian evolution is testable and is falsifiable.

You really can't falsify a theory that is just about the past.

So we can't falsify the theory that George Washington had seven heads, only talked chinese, and was actually a giant marionette made to dance around by people walking on 10 foot tall stilts? OR maybe the american revolution was fought by the invisible pink unicorn?

Fossils don't really prove anything.

Fossils offer support for hypotheses of evolutionary relationships, and they are confirmed often by comparative genetic studies.

We have also had encountered various problems from people over-applying Darwinian theories. Most notably, social Darwinism and evolutionary psychology have misused Darwinian evolution to somehow claim certain races are better than others

Thats rather irrelevant. Christianity was used to support the suppression of blacks because they suffered the 'curse of ham'. Hitler appealed to the creator god for support of his ideas. Lots of people have misused lots of good things to do very bad things.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MauiStacey
A human body mind boggling complex and so is the universe. It could not have come about by happen stance. The sun and the moon are in precisely the right position to work with the earth the way they do. I cannot beleive that people think life was a biological accident.


Put it this way, if u were searching through hundred of billions of grains of sand, there has to be one grain of salt.
What im trying to say if that there is a very small chance that life on earth is a random event, but out of all of the billions of galaxies out there....there had to be one place were life would exist. Because life must exist in the universe, because if there was no one to interupt the universe, whats the use for it?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Evolution is intelligent design. Evan the pope thinks its okay.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Evolution isn't intelligent design, Evolution is science, ID is religon. Religon is not a science, it is bs. Science is facts, reality, research, discussion, expirements. Sciencetific Theory is, as Issac Asimov said not something you come up with after a night of drinking, but science, facts, reality. Theory of Gravity anyone??????? But wait, theory? So I guess gravity doesn't exist cause it just a theory....... Also wasn't created by god, according to the bible.....

Also, fossils prove just about everything. They prove bible wrong about age of earth, about humans here first, that basically science/facts/reality makes more sense then "My invisable being has a bigger dick then yours."(and of course dick, not tits, cause no god would be a woman, that is just satan talking, right?) Anyways, love christians, them, blondes, jews, blacks, chickens, republicans, dems, they just make it so freaking easy for us comedians.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Evolution is intelligent design.

They're diametrically opposed ideas. ID states that the interference of an agent is required for nature, and that supernatural agency can be examined by science, whereas evolution states that there is no requirement for this agency and that science can't say anything about the supernatural



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
When will Intelligent Design be allowed into our elementry and high school science books. For that matter, when will it even be seriously discussed and published by upper levels of science who's pockets are padded nicely by relgiolitics (my new word to synthesize religion and politics - do you like it?)


The Intelligent Design argument is flawed: if something requires intelligent design, then that also requires intelligent design and so on.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
ID IS NOT SCIENCE AND SO DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS!!!!! Sorry, you can argue which priest could last the longest while raping a 8 year old boy, who's god's dick is bigger, who's god raped more virgin women, whatever, it isn't science!!!!!!

Science can be proven, has been proven, experiments, reality. Theory of Gravity started how many years ago? Satan. Theory of Round Earth? Satan. Theory of not being the freaking center, aka Thermocentric Theory, satan. Grand Canyon not created by world flood, satan. In other words, science is real, religon isn't.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Where in the bible does it say there is no gravity? The age of the Earth? I think that evolution is the intelligent design. It is how God makes things. The bible was not written by "drunk" guys. Religion is not bs. Well the wrong ones are



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
While I don't believe in the Christian God, I am willing to allow for the possiblility of ID, with evolution being the mechanism for this process.

If some sort of supreme creator being or force does exists, I find it hard to imagine that it wouldn't use the tools that are already built into its creation to manipulate events or have planned for events to manipulate themselves the way we pretty much see things doing.

However, I can't prove ID via Evolution, even if my gut feeling tells me that it's probably true. I think it's an elegant, logical way for things to happen, given the "throw nearly-infinite numbers at it" way the universe seems to get things done. Just because I like the idea, doesn't make it true, though. I'm not prepared to accept it as fact. It's not science.

Science deals with quantifiable, repeatable, observable phenomena. Questions about issues such as religion have no place in the study of observable phenomena, except as how it effects history, events, and the lives of people, which are observable.

I agree with James (may have to rethink my belief in miracles, heh). While it may be appropriate to acknowledge that there are various beliefs about our origins, in science lets keep it to just the facts and the theories they support. Save the rest for Philosophy class.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
. It is how God makes things.

Intelligent Design states that god does not 'use' evolution, rather that he specifically designs things that are immpossible for evolution to produce and does so by miracles. ID also states that god can be proven or disproven scientifically, that science is greater than god so to speak, but most people won't put it that way. it states that science can determine, scientifically, that miracles have occured or have not occured. Its not science. Evolution, however, is compatible with any sort of religious idea. When most people say 'god used evolution to create what he wanted', they are saying something that ID specifically disagrees with.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I love how people today fail to realize that what they label as two seperate entities, are actually one in the same; A system to explain our origins that can NOT be proved.

During calculations ALL "scieentific" theories break down at the moment of the big bang. Besides that, we can not even account for 90%+ of the material that surrounds us. Facts you say?

Facts my ass. Science is the new major religion. One that has taken millenia to perfect. The only difference between the two is the willingness of science to change it's dogma; which does nothing more than ensure it's success.


Not to say "science" doesn't have it's value; we have become somewhat adept at manipulating matter, and making simple predictions.......but that's about it.

Todays "science" is tomorrows "superstition"....never forget that.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join