Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Evolutionary theory is just that...a theory. It is not a proven fact, as there are flaws in the basic, unproven premise -- like the never found missing link between apes and man -- but it has its theoretical strengths.

The same applies to Intelligent Design (ID). It is nothing less and nothing more than a theory.

The probability of a Universe and life coming into being from pure chance alone is fantastically small and makes no sense.

The physical laws which govern the Universe illustrate an orderly process to ALL THAT IS, not a chaotic mess of matter and energy.

If the Universe were a chaotic mess of matter and energy, there could never be life on this planet.

Order to the Universe and the physical laws thereof implies a premeditated organizational strategy. A premeditated organizational strategy implies that there was a consciousness which initiated that order in the first place


The stance of those within the Judeo-Christian clergy who believe that Intelligent Design is an insult to God need to remember that it is only an insult to their conception of God. Not everyone believes in the Judeo-Christian god. Furthermore, one does not have to embrace an established monotheistic religion in order to agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is very similar to the ideas found within Deism; basically defined as the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
An ironic twist about Deism, quoted from the above site...

>

An argument against Intelligent Design is that it is really just a clever form of Creationism. Yet many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions were able to separate Creationism from Deism, while also being instrumental in furthering the principle of separation of church and state. So the argument that ID is simply Creationism in disguise and that it threatens the separation of church and state, simply doesn't wash.

In light of all of the above, Intelligent Design should be taught as a theory in schools just as Evolutionism is taught as a theory. In doing so, it should be emphasized that ID does not prove or espouse the existence or validity of the Judeo-Christian god or any other god representative of any traditional faith.

The main strength of Intelligent Design is that it logically points to a higher power having been responsible for the creation of an orderly Universe that enabled life to emerge. How one interprets that higher power should be up to the individual, not solely to the scientific community and not solely to the religious community.






[edit on 8-2-2006 by Paul_Richard]




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
ID is not science and therefore does not belong in a science class, it is not even a theory but a mere unsupported hypothesis. If ID ever has proper positive evidence, then it may be classed a theory and, with enough evidence, could make it into science education.

Teach it as philosophy or RE, but not as science.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If we don't allow the hypothesis of Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes and have it only addressed in philosophy and religion courses, then we need to also throw out all references to the theory of Evolutionism -- another hypothesis which is unsupported, unproven, and widely questioned.

You can't have it both ways.


Remember Lucy? The ancient ape that was once espoused to be the missing link. The Brits gave up on that one because it could not be supported. The evidence, if looked at with complete objectively, pointed to Lucy only being an extinct ape...not the missing link.

You have proof of a missing link?




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
If we don't allow the hypothesis of Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes and have it only addressed in philosophy and religion courses, then we need to also throw out all references to the theory of Evolutionism -- another hypothesis which is unsupported, unproven, and widely questioned.

You can't have it both ways.


Remember Lucy? The ancient ape that was once espoused to be the missing link. The Brits gave up on that one because it could not be supported. The evidence, if looked at with complete objectively, pointed to Lucy only being an extinct ape...not the missing link.

You have proof of a missing link?



If it's a missing link then of course we don't have evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be 'missing'. Looking for gaps in the fossil record is not a good way to question ToE - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Behe found this out when he raised the absence of transition fossils for whales, which were found not long after he made the claim.

ToE has converging evidence - fossil, genetics, morphology, lab observation of speciation, microevolution. It has a mechanism, predictive power, and testable, falsifiable hypotheses. ID does not.

The fact that Behe and the ID crew want to redefine science itself, suggests they know it is not science.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Exactly what evidence is there of an intelligent designer? I keep seeing this ID garbage knocking down evolution. I've yet to see any form of evidence fromt he ID crowd. The sadness of it all, they claim evolution has no evidence. Fact is, it does. Within the fossil record and our genetic line's. Experimentation has been done to discover how life began on earth without the need of a creator, and again, we are left with strong evidence that it is indeed possible. While it may prove nearly impossible to discover the exact condition's pre big bang, there is evidence for the big bang, or a similar event. While we may not fully understand the exact process that occured, we still have evidence that it boomed at one point billion's of year's ago. What evidence does ID have that this boom was caused by an intelligent designer? What theories is it postulating about this event? The science behind the big bang has theories and explanation's as to how it happened, and abit of evidence to back it up. ID has nothing to back it's claim's up with. So why should I learn it as a theory? Why should my children learn it as a theory? It's a belief system, just as religion is. So, as noted earlier, philosophy or religous study are perfectly acceptable if they want it in school, as science, it's far from science.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
If it's a missing link then of course we don't have evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be 'missing'... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Quite true.

And an unproven hypothesis is called...

...drum roll please...

A THEORY.


Originally posted by melatonin
ToE has converging evidence - fossil, genetics, morphology, lab observation of speciation, microevolution. It has a mechanism, predictive power, and testable, falsifiable hypotheses. ID does not.


The evidence you claim to have is all based on supposition. Take the same evidence and one can come up with alternate theories. The case of Lucy, the extinct ape that I mentioned before -- which used to be espoused as the missing link between ape and man -- is a perfect example.

Evolutionists continue to fail to find the skeletal remains of a hominid which fits the bill as the missing link. The microevolution of forms that are far from human does not automatically imply that evolution occurred on this planet -- as Darwinists define it -- from ape to man.

To extrapolate that microevolution implies macroevolution is a SUPPOSITION -- NOT A FACT.

No proof of macroevolution means that Evolutionism remains a theory. A nice theory but alas only a hypothesis


Until some solid evidence of Evolutionism from ape to Homo sapien can be uncovered, that idea remains in the category of theory based on supposition...as does Intelligent Design.




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Exactly what evidence is there of an intelligent designer?

See my original post.


Originally posted by Produkt
I keep seeing this ID garbage knocking down evolution.

Intelligent Design doesn't knock down Evolutionism unless those who believe in the latter are too blindsided by their beliefs (dare I say, their RELIGION) to consider other alternative ideas. Both are not mutually exclusive; both theories have their place.

It is my perspective that both played a role (along with Colonialism -- also called Interventionism) in the unfoldment of Homo sapien life on this planet.

To teach the theory of Interventionism in schools is expecting too much. For the foreseeable future, teaching Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionism would be a progressive unfoldment.


Originally posted by Produkt
While it may prove nearly impossible to discover the exact condition's pre big bang, there is evidence for the big bang, or a similar event...The science behind the big bang has theories and explanation's as to how it happened, and abit of evidence to back it up.

Thank you for your input, however unwittingly, in furthering the theory of Intelligent Design.



[edit on 8-2-2006 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Until some solid evidence of Evolutionism from ape to Homo sapien can be uncovered, that idea remains in the category of theory based on supposition...as does Intelligent Design.

Paul, just out of curiousity, given that you are unwilling to accept evidence such as fossil evidence, microevolution, and molecular evidence from inference, what exactly in your mind would constitute 'solid evidence' that could be 'uncovered?'



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Paul, just out of curiousity, given that you are unwilling to accept evidence such as fossil evidence, microevolution, and molecular evidence from inference, what exactly in your mind would constitute 'solid evidence' that could be 'uncovered?'

What I am unwilling to accept is the supposition that microevolution automatically entails macroevolution. That is the inherent flaw in Evolutionism. On the plus side, the idea that lower forms of life can evolve into higher forms of life is a very good theory and one that makes sense.

Does this discount Intelligent Design?

Hardly.

They are both compatible theories.


Intelligent Design accounts for how things got started -- as in The Big Bang -- and Evolutionism accounts for how things generally unfolded. I say "generally" because there's that Interventionism variable in the overall equation, at least for intelligent humanoid life on this particular planet.




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
What I am unwilling to accept is the supposition that microevolution automatically entails macroevolution. That is the inherent flaw in Evolutionism. On the plus side, the idea that lower forms of life can evolve into higher forms of life is a very good theory and one that makes sense.

Not sure why you're
ing at me... I asked a very simple question.

Thanks for the clarification re: what you won't accept... (thought we already established this *shrug*)

My question is what evidence are you willing to accept?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Does this discount Intelligent Design?

Hardly.

They are both compatible theories.


Intelligent Design accounts for how things got started -- as in The Big Bang -- and Evolutionism accounts for how things generally unfolded. I say "generally" because there's that Interventionism variable in the overall equation, at least for intelligent humanoid life on this particular planet.



So, you're willing to accept ToE generally, and ID for other phenomena (big-bang/human evol)?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   
There hasn't been any evidence supporting ID as a theory at all here.

The theory of evolution has evidence supporting it that does not in any way shape nor form require an intelligent designer.

www.geocities.com...

There are even theories on the creation of the universe pre-big bang using our knowledge of what we've learned so far, that yet again do not require an intelligent designer.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Whay evidence for these two does IDT have that would lead one to conclude that there was an intelligent designer? I've yet to see any research data, experimental evidence, anything beyond just the theory.

I mean christ, even the originator of ID says it isn't science!



en.wikipedia.org...

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the ID movement has stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

The Discovery Institute's leaked Wedge document [4] sets out the movement's governing goals, including:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.




Same site

Richard Dawkins has argued that "If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the intelligent designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation,"[5] since such an answer would be unscientific. With religious creationism, the question "what created God?" can be answered with theological arguments, but in intelligent design, the chain of designers can be followed back indefinitely in an infinite regression, leaving the question of the creation of the first designer dangling. As a result, intelligent design does not explain how the complexity happened in the first place; it just moves it.[6]

If intelligent design proponents invoke an uncaused causer or deity to resolve this problem,[7] they contradict a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object[8][9] and reduce intelligent design to religious creationism. Another possible counter-argument might be an infinite regression of designers. However, admitting infinite numbers of objects also allows any arbitrarily improbable event to occur [10], such as an object with "specific" complexity assembling itself by chance. Again, this contradicts a fundamental assumption of intelligent design that a designer is needed for every specifically complex object, producing a logical contradiction.




[EDIT] And let's not forget that there are as many differing beliefs of ID as there are beliefs of the supposed one god. It seem's like you guy's can't agree on your supposed creator at all. None of you, even in this thread your showing it! And this is supposed to be ONE GOD/CREATOR.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Firstly, speciation has been demonstrated in the laboratory, particularly with plants. It's been replicated in the lab with animals (particularly insects), but with much more difficulty.

Part of the problem with speciation is the question of when does one decide it has occured? Does it occur when two populations behaviorally refuse to cross-breed (but are still physically capable of doing so) or when they physically cannot cross-breed? What about geographical isolation? Should that be taken into account in speciation?

Anyway, I'm not really the best person to explain all of this, so I'll direct you to the Talk Origins FAQ on speciation that lists the various experiments that have resulted in speciation.

However, I could even cite very real, every day examples of evolution. Supergerms are very real and very much a danger to all of us. Take antibiotics, for example. A person is supposed to take them on a regular basis (typically everyday), and take all of them. If that person does not follow through on that, he/she risks isolating a population of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic. This happens all the time, and people try to get back on the antibiotic only to find that it's completely ineffective because their infection has evolved to be quite resistant to the medication. In fact, HIV carriers must take a cocktail of drugs to control their infection, and they must do so on a very strict regimen. When they slip up, the virus tends to produce resistant populations to the drug.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
its simple. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Regarding CREATIONISM, .......I find the relabelling a crudely disturbing attempt at making it more attractive........ It is just as relevant to assert that we exist in an extremely sophisticated simulation, that this is SimPrison and we are the naughty ones here for educational purposes. I have no evidence for this of course but I BELIEVE its a reasonably likely scenario. Looking around me, my family and friends, the mountains and trees and birds and bees ........ its all so unexplainably magical to my simple mind.......surely someone has created this Eden for me. If so, for what purpose.

.......regarding simple minds.....we ALL have one.

Do you have an appreciation of how utterly impossible it is to think like someone even a little tiny bit smarter than you are.
We are all missing the obvious. There are no difficult problems, only problems difficult to solve relative to a level of intelligence.
Move a litttle higher on the smartness scale and hard problems reveal obvious answers. Move a little higher and the phenomenally difficult becomes bleeding simple....and so on and so on.

Evolution may not be the answer but CREATIONISM is failing to use ones gift to seek ANY answers.

You want to go on one of those New Age alien rainbow trippy rides. Cool. Have fun....its all part of the Sim.....if you want I can sell you the cheat codes.....



[edit on 9-2-2006 by Romeo]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Here we go again with the old creationism debate:

Science = observation and the drawing conclusions from these observations

NOT

Identifying a gap in evidence and applying your beliefs

I am afraid there is no evidence for Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory. I have heard postulated that certain bacteria are complex enough, with too many complex parts to have made just one evolutionary step but this has been disproved. Please see this source
BBC Horizon Documentary

To say that the possibility of the universe 'evolving' is far to remote, a fundamental component of ID, is to look at the odds from the wrong way. To reach todays evolutionary standpoint, and look back at how it began and then work out the odds will of course leave a huge immprobability of evolution ever occuring. But you must look back to the begining and realise that the probability of one animal making an evolutionaty step is very probable.

Evolution is a reaction to environment, creatures that are best suited to that environment survive. There is evidence of this everywhere, look at the galapogus islands, the recently discovered creatures in the indonesian jungle, that have evolved seperate to other influences. This is strong compelling evidence for evolution.
Galapagus Islands InfoScientists find Lost World

People say that they find it hard to believe that the world could be so complex and so beautiful without some kind of creator, but this is the nature of evolution, creatures developing to adapt to their environment, makes them come into harmony with their environment. And this over a long time creates the complex systems that we know and love.

Futher evidence of evolution, even if we chose to disregared all the archielogical evidence can be found every where. A good example are the efforts to eradicate malaria. We have consistantly had to update our method of attack to deal with this because of evolution, we began by spreading chemicals over vast tracks of land. This worked brilliantly at first, the mosquitoes that carry malaria began to die in there thousands. Then one day a genetic 'freak' mosquito was born, as they have a short life span, evolution was sped up. This freak was resistant to the chemicals. It survived and began to procreate. Soon all the areas that had been sprayed, were re populated with mosquitos once again. plus malaria itself as an organism, evolves rapidly and becomes resistent to drugs, as with all viruses Malaria

Evolution is not an all encompasing scientific theory, it is not a closed minded belief. It is the result of careful observation of our surroundings. It is a process, no one claims to have all the answers but it fits what we know to be true. It develops all the time. There is a world of evidence to support it.

The question is for intelligent design where is the proof of the creator? I know you cant answer this and really it comes down to Faith. Faith is a belief held with no evidence. And sadly with no evidence you cannot call it a science.
It is a philosphy and has no place being taught in science lessons. As a philosophy certainly, but not as science.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   


People say that they find it hard to believe that the world could be so complex and so beautiful without some kind of creator, but this is the nature of evolution, creatures developing to adapt to their environment, makes them come into harmony with their environment. And this over a long time creates the complex systems that we know and love.


Well, not only that. If mankind never reached the level of self awareness and intelligence it has today, would we even still consider our world to be complex and so beutiful? Do evolutionary lower form's of animal's share this same view? Can IDTer's prove this fundamental difference bwetween all species, including the simple bacterium? Can IDTer's prove that this is what true harmony and beauty is compred to the views of harmony and beuaty of an equally self aware and intelligent civilization living under completly alien condition's and societal views? Can IDTers define harmony and beauty so simply to such an extant that it would imply, no, prove a creator?



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
"Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism"

No it isn't. It isn't even a theory, it's a series of presumptions based on scripture, relevant and sustainable only in the absence of scientific investigation/evidence.

Evolution is a proper theory, despite the holes, because it arose through observation followed by experimentation, and it's forced to endure due skepticism by its association with the scientific community. No such pressure exists on ID. I can look up at the clouds during a thunderstorm and postulate that the flashes of light are reflections off of Jesus' flaming sword, but that doesn't put me on the same level as a meteorologist.

The folks who tout ID also generally believe in wine to blood transubstantiation, resurrection, miracles drawing their power from God, and a whole host (no pun intended) of other absurdities I don't want to go into. It's not good science, it's just the philosophical equivalent of flatulence, momentarily offensive, but it won't linger long.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Just for the sake of argument for IDTer's/creationist's in regard's to miracles, this was posted by Byrd here : www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'll bite on this one: How would YOU propose such a study be done?

Remember that the study must be able to:
* tell a miracle from a coincidence
* produce repeatable miracles for which there is no other possible answer
* produce this same evidence for someone who is Buddhist, or athiest, or agnostic
* distinguish the actions if it was performed by the divinity of your choice as opposed to it being performed by, say, Isis or Bast or Ra or Odin or Thor or Allah.



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Not sure why you're
ing at me... I asked a very simple question.


I smile at a lot of people, as it is good to keep things cheerful, don't you think?


Originally posted by mattison0922
Thanks for the clarification re: what you won't accept... (thought we already established this *shrug*)

My question is what evidence are you willing to accept?


I overestimated your ability to read between the lines. I will answer your question simply and directly.

I am willing to accept solid evidence that supports the notion that macroevolution exists and that apes have evolved into Homo sapiens. To in essence, find the link between apes and man that is missing in the foundation of evolutionary theory.




posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
The theory of evolution has evidence supporting it that does not in any way shape nor form require an intelligent designer.

To use a PC analogy...

Evolutionism is likened to a Windows program while Intelligent Design points to the builder of the computer.


Originally posted by Produkt
I mean christ, even the originator of ID says it isn't science!

References to an angel prophet who some consider to be a god doesn't further your argument.


Not all who espouse Intelligent Design agree that it is simply a form of Creationism, just as not all who espouse Evolutionism believe every precept found within Darwinian theory.


Originally posted by Produkt
And let's not forget that there are as many differing beliefs of ID as there are beliefs of the supposed one god.

The label "higher power" is sufficient.






new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join