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.
Originally posted by koolkat27
Does anyone else think that Evolution and Intelligent Design can coincide with one another?
Originally posted by ghaleon12
Definitely, I think evolution is intelligent design and I don't see any problems between the two. Atheists would more than likely be vehemently opposed to the idea that evolution could be a tool by God, since they love to use it to try and push their agenda.
You also would have the fundamentalists religious folk that say that literally the world was created in 7 days and that humans arose from basically dirt at the behest of God. So both atheists and conservative religious folk have this idea that they can't mix, but they can.
Evolution, and God created the world in 7 days, intelligent design ect. are all just ideas. Most people that support evolution and bash religion don't even have a good understanding of the other side
(added the bold text your confusing theistic evolution with ID they are seperate things)
and likewise people that hold on so tightly to their ideas of creation and IDoften have no idea what evolution is. .
Originally posted by andre18
.. the reality we live in....
evolution and theistic evolution (which is god using it as a tool) however are completley compatable
but theistic evolution isnt ID
Originally posted by andre18
I completely disagree. ID suggests god did it,
we dont need and personally i dont
we don't need to make that assertion if we already know he didn't need to be there when there's evidence to prove how life began and then evolved to the current stage without the need for god into interject anywhere.
your asking an athiest for proof of god?
Show me an example anywhere in abiogenesis or evolution where there's a need for god.
You’re saying god is compatible with evolution, you're assuming that god made the universe and evolution is just the way he did it.
agreed
there doesn't need to be a god when we look at the big bang, there's no need to assume we don't no what happened after planck time so a supernatural cause is the answer. Through the scientific method we've found no need to think there's an intelligent cause behind the universe.
preaching to the choir here
There is no such instance wherein evolutionary scientists can be shown to be dishonest in their criticisms of creationism. There’s no need to be. Despite all the attempted deception, the baseless assertions and political division produced by the creationism movement, the truth is there has never been a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Not one –period. Neither has there been any credible proponents of creation science anywhere ever, because everyone who has ever published anti-evolutionary rhetoric to any medium did so only according to a prior religious agenda rather than any amount of scientific comprehension.
but theistic evolution isnt ID
and the only one compatible with scientific findings because it accepts the findings and sprinkles a little theism on top
ill still disagree with them that there is a god, but they are more accepting and honest when compared to the other camps of theistic how everything got here
You can’t really have god without the bible because that specific god creationist defend as theirs.
And you can’t do that because as soon as you add god, you’re automatically going against science.
so if god knew before that the natural laws would lead to us so he didnt need to go messing and breaking the universal laws for us to pop up?
Originally posted by andre18
Are, but it is. Are soon as you introduce a god in any aspect you’re implying there is some level of the supernatural. Even if god created the universe and left it to natural laws, that still means god wanted us to be created – us specifically because he inspired the authors of the bible.
but theres a differance between seeig the bible as a literal history book that is 100% accurate and seeing it as highly metaphoric, not a book written by god but a book written by man that gives glimpses of what god is
You can’t really have god without the bible because that specific god creationist defend as theirs.
how?
And you can’t do that because as soon as you add god, you’re automatically going against science.
nope
Oops, sorry I didn’t read that part properly. Pretend I didn’t say the other stuff….
well when im debating its the ones saying evolution by natural means didnt or cant account for all variation of species on earth
Originally posted by ghaleon12
The adherence of some religious folk to some of the hardcore fundamentalist stuff, like the earth being literally 6000 years old, that dinos fossils were placed by the devil to test their faith, ect. has created sort of a militant group of debunkers, if that's the right word. Not saying that I see that in this thread, but in others I've read. It just seems like people don't start off in the right place to have a good discussion because of all those issues. Who are these "debunkers" debating with, is it the 6000 year old Earth crowd, Christians in general, maybe some other exotic religion, who knows. It almost seems like they're fighting a phantom which they themselves have created for their argument.
but that isnt thestic evolution
About theistic evolution not being ID, this is were what a word means comes into play a bit, I would say that it is the same. An evolution that was guided by God would be intelligently designed.
so if god knew before that the natural laws would lead to us so he didnt need to go messing and breaking the universal laws for us to pop up?
theistic evolution is the ultimate god of the gaps argument becasue it puts him there before the quantum singularity, we cant get closer then plank time atm so its the best hiding place until we find a way to get closer.
Originally posted by andre18
I guess my biggest problem is that your putting a supernatural cause for a natural universe. You're implying the supernatural created the natural - that doesn't and shouldn't make sense in any rational mind.