posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 11:35 PM
But the problem is that evolution firmly states that there cannot be intelligent design. Our existence came to be by pure chance and the bible no
matter how you look at it, states God created us intentionally
Intelligent Design is a non-scientific idea, and is used to justify a type of creationism. Evolution and Creationism are incompatible, in so far as
there is no 'creationism' that is scientific; its all faith based. Evolution and beleif in god, however, are completely unrelated to one another,
so why worry about whether they are 'compatible'. In a way, its like asking if chess and tetris can coexist. Beleif in God is a position of
-faith-. Its not something that anyone needs reasons or experimental data to support. An understanding of evolution is merely an understanding of a
scientific theory. Does the theory of gravity need to be 'squared' with a beleif in god? Or does quantum mechanics have to be compared to bible
passages? No, of course not.
Originally posted by gfs4731
In my mind NO. I believe in a six day creation and the whole Bible account.
Which account? There are two different creation accounts in the bible.
[qoute]"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the
fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most
primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete
absence of intermediate fossils."
This is entirely and completely untrue. In the earliest fossil bearing strata one finds extremely primitive organisms. In higher levels one find
more complex organisms, and int between one finds excelelnt transitional species and types. To suggest that there are no transitional fossils is to
ignore the obvious transitional fossils that exist. And why wouldn't the most primitive organisms found infact be 'fully developed species' (but
still extremely primitive) species? How primitive do these ancient fossils need to be before they are primitive enough?
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not
all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"?*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution
or Creation (1966), p. 139
Well thats rather cute. Are you suggesting that darwin didn't beleive in his own theory then? When darwin first proposed his theory the study of
the fossil record was in its infancy. Its true, in his own time, scientists didn't have the same wealth of fossils as now. But even then the
paucity of the poorly known fossil record was not sufficient reason to reject the logic of darwin's theory of natural selection. Furthermore, since
that time there hasn't been any arguement sufficient to do that either.