Creationism and Evolution both are guesses in the dark, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 04:28 AM by narwahl

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by narwahl

Of course the reason ID doesnt seem to care who the IDer is, is that creationists, having already (again) lost in court to get their theory taught, repackeged with ID.

(Most) religious people subscribe to ID.
As much as atheists subscribe to the theory of evolution.

ID, as a concept, by itself.. has nothing to do with any religon.
To say otherwise, would be like saying the other theory, i.e evolution ... is 100% affiliated to the idea of atheism.

In the US some religious people subscribe to ID.
And some fundamentalists elsewhere have adopted it.
Fact is, that ID has it's roots in the US, among christians.
Fact is that ID started to appear where there used to be Creationism in 1987
What happens when we google creationism and 1987?
First result:
en.wikipedia.org...
A US supreme court decision, coming to the conclusion that Creationism is pretty clear on what religion is the right one.
And then ID pops up, and is a little more carefull about the J-word.
Coincidence? Cdesign proponentsists seem to think so...

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 05:04 AM by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by narwahl

You are using the terms "creationism" and "ID" interchangeably.

Creationism has a religious angle to it.
ID is secular/non-religious.

Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.

www.intelligentdesign.org...

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 05:57 AM by narwahl

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

And on what side of the secular/religous coin do Cdesign proponentsists fall?

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 06:30 AM by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by narwahl

And on what side of the secular/religous coin do Cdesign proponentsists fall?

"secular/religious"?

my post said ID is "secular/non-religious"... as opposed to creationism having a religious angle to it.

Also, what do you mean by "Cdesign". I noticed its the second time you have used it.

edit on 23-8-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 06:36 AM by narwahl

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by narwahl

And on what side of the secular/religous coin do Cdesign proponentsists fall?

"secular/religious"?

my post said ID is "secular/non-religious"... as opposed to creationism having a religious angle to it.

Also, what do you mean by "Cdesign". I noticed its the second time you have used it.

edit on 23-8-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

The "Cdesign proponentsists" is the missing link between Creationists and Intelligent Design Proponents.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, are they religous or nonreligous?

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 07:07 AM by halfmanhalfamazing

Science does prove evolution but science also does not have the solutions to everything.
Our vision is only 400 nm (violet light) to 700 nm (red light) which is nothing compared to the amount of data available on the electromagnetic spectrum. Other dimensions have been proven "scientifically".
All I am saying is that nothing is impossible and that science shouldn't be seen as the only way to prove and disprove theories. We have NO idea what is out there.

Carl Sagan said that the universe is infinite with infinite possibilities. I have to agree with him.

reply posted on 23-8-2011 @ 07:10 AM by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by narwahl

ha... ok... I just googled around and found this.
rationalwiki.org...

In all fairness, I found that pretty humorous.

Anyway, Im neither familiar nor concerned with creationisms involvements with courts and stuff... so I cant really speak for a "Cdesign proponentsist".

But as someone who subscribes to ID, I can tell you that ID is something that can be accepted by anyone from any background... even if it does involve belief in a deity in the religous sense.

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 11:32 AM by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
But as someone who subscribes to ID, I can tell you that ID is something that can be accepted by anyone from any background... even if it does involve belief in a deity in the religous sense.

Sure, as long as that "anyone" doesn't require any evidence or apply a touch of scrutiny to the proposition. "Magic Man done it!" is always acceptable to those who can't be encumbered by rational thinking.

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 12:06 PM by sk0rpi0n

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Sure, as long as that "anyone" doesn't require any evidence or apply a touch of scrutiny to the proposition. "Magic Man done it!" is always acceptable to those who can't be encumbered by rational thinking.

Then what do you suggest? That everyone blindly accepts the proposition "Evolution did it"....without considering the hard questions???

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 12:15 PM by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Sure, as long as that "anyone" doesn't require any evidence or apply a touch of scrutiny to the proposition. "Magic Man done it!" is always acceptable to those who can't be encumbered by rational thinking.

Then what do you suggest? That everyone blindly accepts the proposition "Evolution did it"....without considering the hard questions???

The good thing about the theory of evolution is that it doesn't require blind acceptance. It's something you can demonstrate as true to yourself through experimentation.

Conversely, "intelligent design" does require blind acceptance. It cannot be demonstrated and actually has no explanatory power whatsoever. It simply solves a mystery by presenting another one.

reply posted on 25-8-2011 @ 02:52 PM by uva3021

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Something is not blindly accepted if it requires one to gather evidence and assess the probability in order to reach a conclusion. IDists or Creationists reaches a conclusion regardless of the evidence and then pushes their view due to their own personal personal incredulity, as well as their unwillingness to actually read a book. We can say "evolution did it" because that's what the science tells us.

reply posted on 26-8-2011 @ 10:29 AM by blackcube

Even if evolution is wrong it doesn't make ID or Creationist ideas correct, just so you know.