Evolution and Intelligent Design one in the same??

Does anyone else think that Evolution and Intelligent Design can coincide with one another?

I grew up going to church and paid attention most of the time. Maybe God did create the world in seven days. I remember reading once that a blink of an eye to God is a thousand years. Imagine how many blinks of an eye there would be in 7 days. Could that explain the millions of years that scientists say took for the universe to be created? We are just too perfect for everything to be happenstance... and I am not talking about our bodies, becuase there are many flaws in the human body... I am talking about the perfect make-ups of air and water , the perfect distance from the sun and moon, and millions of other things that just make not beleiving in a greater power seem sophmoric. I think that Evolution might have happened the way that some scientists say,...but only thru God making it happen.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject..what do u guys think??

It is perfect, but that does not mean there has to be a higher power making it so. In a universe as large as ours, near infinite, and given infinite time as well, Then any circumstance you can ever think of is bound to pop up, and our galaxy and planet just happens to be well suited to creatures such as us and the animals around us.

I personally believe that there is something divine out there, We are just not capable of understanding it. and i dont think its really important anyways.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by baconvein]

Thats because GOD isnt a person.... Its a design... Its cause and effect.

When god was first explained to people YHWH (Tetragrammaton) was a 3d fractal geometric design that explains how radiation curving back into the event horizon of singularitys creates gravity....i think... its alot to really imagine.

So While casuality may have created the aliens... that doesnt mean that the aleins didnt help us along... through casuality.

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. But if you say it can coexist, then they've lost their argument.

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 and likewise people that hold on so tightly to their ideas of creation often have no idea what evolution is. Ideas change and people really don't have the knowledge to say what isn't possible.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by ghaleon12]

If you don't understand evolution that shouldn't mean believing in god to fill that gap should make sense

Here are some vids that should educate you creationists on the reality we live in....

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

your right i am vehemetley opposed to this idea

becasue Evolution and ID are not compatable at all,

evolution and theistic evolution (which is god using it as a tool) however are completley compatable

ID uses different principles to evolution and most of them involve large scale dishonesty and pushing thier agenda to smuggle religeon into science class by any means except the right one (and your on about the athiest agenda?)

scienceblogs.com... the wedge document leaking has shown it for what it is a way to subvert science and change it from a neutral system of examining the world around us to a pro christian movement that ignores anything that they dont want to be proven



look at what evolution actually says, then look at what ID actually says they are almost as diametrically opposed as evolution and creationism


thats funny most atheists were once thiests, and most evolutionists are thiests so it seems we cover all angles together or seperatley

so i have an understanding of religeon(chritsian not studied any others as indepth but have a basic grasp of several) and science, and if i bash religeon i do it with its own text books not science, i will bash creationism and ID with science though as they try to sneak onto sciences front lawn and trample the flower beds in thier big hob nail boots

(added the bold text your confusing theistic evolution with ID they are seperate things)

this is more an accurate view of most creationist and ID supporters who really think evolution means monkeys giving birth to man, and dogs giving birth to cats and were all descended from rocks, hitler was a evolutionist, stalin was an atheist and micro/macro evlution are 2 different processes etc

it really isnt helped by the fact ID cant get its story straight, some still push the man was made special and as is and never changed, while the other half accept common descent

its a bastardisation of creationism and psuedo-science that relies on trying to change the deffinition of scientific terms to suit its goals and then misrepresenting what scienitists mean when they use the term accuratley such as ireducably complex



[edit on 10/1/09 by noobfun]

First, I want to say that I don't subscribe to any religion at all. All of them are now clubs trying to get the most members in, and that is not what it should be about. I respect all religions (apart from Scientology, which is a whole different kettle of clams) and would never hamper the belief of another. However, I am a believer in God and that we were created by him. However, maybe not in the way we are now...

My take on it is that what we recognize as God created/found the planets and put life on them in the most rudimentary form, gave us all the same stuff apart from one thing, like an experiment. The purpose of this would have been to see what the best conditions for life is.

But hey, what do I know. That's just my theory.

welll, i've never really been one to 'believe' that '"this" is as good as it gets'. . .


But what i really think is that we should accept our existence as far as ever it is possible; everything, even the unheard of, must be possible there.
Honestly, i get the feeling like all of humanity's most innovative, glorious and ground-breaking feats, of everything we have achieved and believe we know to be true about existence are less than even beginning to begin to begin to begin to even fathom the tip of the ice-berg.

I completely disagree. ID suggests god did it, 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. 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.

Big problem, 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. To believe there is, is just ignorant of what scientists have discovered about the universe in the last few hundred years.

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.

They’ve all revealed inexcusable ignorance in the very fields where they claim expertise, and their arguments are all dependant on erroneous assumptions, prejudicial bias, logical fallacies, ridiculous parody, misdefined terms, misquoted authorities, distorted data, fraudulent figures, or out-and-out lies. Thus, there are only two types of arguments for creationism; those which are untestable, indistinguishable from the delusions of imagination, and can neither be indicated nor vindicated, verified or disproved, and those which have already been disproved many times over, both scientifically and in a court of law.

but theistic evolution isnt ID

we dont need and personally i dont


your asking an athiest for proof of god?




thats what theistic evolution is, its science and saying god set it all up with the big bang and let it run, this is why it is compatible becasue they dont need to ignore misconstrue and generally prevail mass falsehoods about anything, they just add a bit of god to fit thier faith

they take the science for what it is, proven and say god wanted it that way, 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

agreed

preaching to the choir here

the person i was replying to was making the case that ID and evolution are compatible which we both agree is clearly not the case when you look at them and the vast evidence for evolution and the constant twisting of data, vernacular and just out right lying used by the ID brigade

and the position of creationism is even worse for all those those great traits metioned above

theistic evolution how ever works with science and just says yeah god wanted it that way but didnt mess poke prod and specially create stuff, they still dont show a need for a divine bieng but at least they arnt running around spreading falsehoods and out right lies to make thier case

given the choice of these 3 positions theistic evolution is the better one, and the only one compatible with scientific findings because it accepts the findings and sprinkles a little theism on top (we both agree theres no need for the sprinkles but it makes them feel better i guess)

an example of theistic evolution

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

[edit on 10/1/09 by noobfun]

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. 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.



Oops, sorry I didn’t read that part properly. Pretend I didn’t say the other stuff….

[edit on 10-1-2009 by andre18]

First off, I'd like to say more than any other topic, this is the most difficult one to have a debate/discussion on. Each word has about 10 different meanings or interpretations for each person, and when you have many people in a discussion it makes it worse. And each person has their own backstory and experiences with religion and evolution. 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.

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.



This is another problem I've seen in a lot of these discussions. Somehow God is constrained to being only a Christian invention. If you find something wrong with the Bible or how people interprit it (which is the only thing you get from it, interpritations), then God is wrong like its a sort of math problem. And I've heard athiests say, well I've proved that interpritation of the bible wrong, so no God exists. So basically one interpritation of one religious system can defeat the God of all other religions and cultures. For being people that place so much emphasis on "sense", this makes none. I think they jump the gun a bit, they'd like to be able to do that and try, but it doesn't work.

I went off on a tangent about interpritations within Christianity but I've going to post it anyway, lol. Some Christians don't even believe in the ten commandments and the gnostic Christians didn't believe really in sin in the traditional sense. So variety within the tradition exists, even though orthodoxy would say they're going to Hell more than likely. There are probably some Christian leaders that say you have to believe the world is 6000 years old or you are not going to be saved, but for more sensible people I think they'll find that it has no effect or significance on their faith. There really isn't a difference in a spiritual sense between people that believe that the world had to be created literally and exactly in the sense the Old Testament describes and secular scientists. That is sort of the key but few really understand it which is what makes these debates so useless lol.



From a spiritual point of view, science and God are not mutually exclusive. This is another fallacy that some people hold on to. Science doesn't have to be afraid of religion/God, and religion doesn't have to be afraid of science. Off the top of my head, the Muslims around 600 AD had become pretty powerful and spread their empire all over the world. They embraced science (unlike Catholicism) and saw it as an extension of God, which is what it should be viewed as.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by ghaleon12]

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. in some deffinitions of god he isnt even the casue of the big bang he is there and lets everything go on as it should he isnt the kind of god where you can ask a question and get the reply god did it

its a way of rationale, but usually someone who does believe theistic evolution are more honest about thier faith and how it works for them, for instance you used videos above from pots and cdk another source of videos i use are donExodus2 again a scientist like cdk. he has a couple of video's up about why he believes in god and you can see the way he rationalises one against the other. but what they usually have in common is admitting that the bible taken literaly is nonesense and that thier faith is based on subjective evidence so its enough for them but not enough for them to stand there doing the repent all ye sinners or burn in hell i have proof of god nonsense

thier working deffintions of god isnt the same one the fundamentalists are pushing, the same goes for Ken Miler and Father George Coyne (if you didnt know he ran the vatican astronomy(yes the birth place of the big bang theory)


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

the above statement is like saying you can only read LOTR if your an elf, you can still read it and pick up things the others have lost, when i read it i understand the books history and places in the book are based(very roughly) on parts of birmingham where i live so i undertsand the story and where some of my local area make a heavily disguised apearance

how?

science only deals with the natural it proves what can be tested poked proded and observed. if you believe god set up the natural laws to govern our universe all science is doing is exploring those laws god set up

if your an athiests then all science is doing is exploring those laws that govern the universe. science says what happens and how through natural means it says nothing about the supernatural with the exception that they wont accept a supernatural answer

that doesnt mean there is no supernatural just that science cant observe it so ignores it rather then rules it out completley

nope

the way your using science is the same as creationists your setting up a flase dichotemy of it must be science or religeon which is flawed

science doesnt comment on religeon it cares only about what can be proven, if religeon would pay it the same curtessy it would be nice but that often isnt the case

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

check out the rest of dons channel theres a lot of good videos on evolution and about creationism(but not in a posative way)
uk.youtube.com...

[edit on 10/1/09 by noobfun]

well when im debating its the ones saying evolution by natural means didnt or cant account for all variation of species on earth

wether they are YEC with the full blown 6000 year old earth, progressive creationists (same thing with out the extremley young earth) religeous ID'ers, alien ID'ers, muslim creationists etc etc they all use exactly the same arguments and fallacies

so i trash the arguments they make rather then say ahh you must beieve the world is x years old and geology says your a moron if they havnt mentioned the earths age

but that isnt thestic evolution

ok quick draft of what science says (dreadfully butchered and simplified )

the universe as we now know it was created by the big bang, stars formed and made the elements we find in our universe, other stars formed and planets formed around some of them, life started on at least 1 planet(ours ) by a natural process of abiogenesis, once life was formed natural evolutionary processes diversified those few simple self replicating molecules into all the animals and plants we see around us

thiestic evolution

god set up the universe in a kind of dominoe effect, no need to interfer and persoanlly make changes, flick the first dominoe and the natural process takes over and does all the work for you so you can sit back and enjoy the show. and thier view of the creation of everything goes as follows

god set it up and kick started it then, The universe as we now know it was created by the big bang, stars formed and made the elements we find in our universe, other stars formed and planets formed around some of them, life started on at least 1 planet(ours ) by a natural process of abiogenesis, once life was formed natural evolutionary processes diversified those few simple self replicating molecules into all the animals and plants we see around us

ID goes

a designer made life (style varies from abiogenesis upwards) evolution did somthing but its not a natural process a designer poked and prodded so it resembles evolution but isnt, and evolution has limits to what it can do and so a designer made somthing with his/her/its very own hand that couldnt have come about by any other means (ireducably complex)

and thats just some of the ID sillyness, it goes from people bieng specially made as is, people decending from common ancestry

some kind of evolution but within strict limits to no evolution what so ever and its the designer poking and prodding

-----------------------------------------------------------------

see why i say they are different entities,

theistic evoltuion uses purley natural proceses science has observed and tested and thats the way god decided to do it but didnt interfere after the start point

ID has the designer poking prodding making up special bits part way through and generally trying to improve fix and meddle and defying large chunks of the scientific data we have observed and collected



[edit on 10/1/09 by noobfun]

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.




[edit on 10-1-2009 by andre18]

I agree that it's hard to believe everything is just "happenstance". Not necessarily things like the meshing of species to environments, but things like the complexity of consciousness or of the mind... there's likely scientific explanation, but I personally find it hard to believe that these things just came to be out of evolution with no influence by a God or higher power... you know?

I like the idea that evolution and intelligent design can go hand in hand... why can't evolution be a tool used by a divine creator? More and more people are seeing that as an option, and I like it best.

But really... we can't know.



[edit on 10/1/09 by rubix]

CREATIONIST: Something has to create the actual system outside of the system that is outside of the law

ATHEIST: Why?

CREATIONIST: The universe can’t create itself

ATHEIST: So where did god come from?

CREATIONIST: That’s outside of our system and is currently what we cannot understand

ATHEIST: Then why couldn’t have the universe always have existed and at the instant of the big bang that formed the current stage of the universe, that’s when the laws that we use to determine what the nature of reality are, that’s when those laws begin to apply?

CREATIONIST: The only way that could happen is that the laws of physics changed and then even, thoughs laws of physics predating these laws would had to be created by something – that’s the idea of something has to start from something

ATHEIST: And that kind of argument means no matter what you think about god that he must have been created by something. If you’re going to dismiss the fact that we don’t know for example prior to the planck time where our understanding of physics brake down and where the functional nature of the universe may have in fact changed.

If you’re going to dismiss all that and say that well whatever rules existed must have also had some kind of pre-existing rules and conditions, then you must also apply that to your god excuse in order to remain consistent. Otherwise it’s a matter of special pleading. You’re saying there must have been something that doesn’t conform to rules in order to create those rules

CREATIONIST: What had created this universe doesn’t apply to the rules of this universe and is the source for all the laws in this universe, as well as the source for the energy and matter

ATHEIST: But you need to demonstrate how you know that, how you reached that conclusion. What ever created this universe and its laws obviously had to belong to some other universe or some other realm in which the laws of this one don’t apply so it had it’s own laws etc etc etc. You’re essentially trying to solve a mystery by introducing another mystery

CREATIONIST: in the case of infinity and our universe then there would also be an infinity in the other universe

ATHEIST: There isn’t an infinity. You still have not structured you’re argument as to where this other realm and this other god, still does not have its own set of rules or does not have to obey the rules that you apply to this universe, which is there had to be some sort of a creative entity there. You haven’t really allowed yourself to avoid the rather troubling problem of infinite regress. Your god whether he exists in or out of this universe in what ever way you won’t to define that state of existence, still will have to have a cause for its existence – in the form that your arguments currently taking. You haven’t avoided the real problem there.

We tend to explain things in term of things that we understand and by saying that you have an explanation of the universe and it is beyond understanding – you haven’t done anything. Your explanation has no explanatory power, as soon as you make these special exemptions of well there’s some intelligent transcendent being that exists outside of time and the universe as we understand it and it has its own rules that we can’t understand and that’s how we all got here – now you’re just making a bold assertion.

And what happens a lot of times, is when christens in particular go to assert that this transcended being exists, they say he also transcends the rules of logic that we understand. And one of the things about that, that I find really amusing is that the core principle of logic can be expressed as A or not A, something either is what it is or it isn’t – it can’t be both. It’s an exclusionary principle, that’s how we’ve come to understand everything about the universe and if you say that god then exists outside of the boundaries of logic, then you’re saying god can exist and not exist at the same time.

Which if we ignore all of these sometimes exists sometimes not exist that sets up three possibilities – god exists, god does not exist, god both exists and not exists an two out of the three situations god doesn’t exist.

And when you won’t to say something’s outside of the realm of our understanding and outside the realm of logic and reason, that’s what you’re doing. You no longer have any grounds to make any kind of positional claim. It’s the same trap that a lot of creationists for example fall into, they declare that in order for anything in reality to exist it has to obey a certain check list of rules and so in order to explain the existence of everything that we are and everything that we see, they begin to invoke things that oh lucky for them – don’t have to obey that check list of rules and that’s kind of really cheating.

You’re really making stuff up at that point because if you’re giving an answer that contradicts your premise.

but you see why it is compatible with the science because its outside the science, its like a membraine that holds the whole thing together and lets new information through

rather then running around stomping on the science like ID and creationism

they may not hold that part of thier life up to the cut down scientific method like we do but thats thier choice

if we start touting the same false dichotemy of science OR religeon like the funddies then that makes us no better then them

thanks for the input... i love ur signature quote. that is my favorite movie!!