NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

I think there's room for both, just that 'intelligent design' does not dictate that one, any one creaton myth is any more valid than another.

Many people can accept this. In fact, many consider evolution as representitive for the creation mentioned in the bible/torah/koran.

Some extremeist religious groups refuse to take any part of the religious texts symbolicly, and really believe the earth was created in 6 days.

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

I agree, a supreme being could have set up an algorithm and all of the variables in the same way a mathematician would.

A supreme being is far from necessary though, and many people find a supreme creator to be illogical.

because a creator is not currently measureable.therefore,it cannot be theory.to be theory it needs to be PROVEABLE.

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

the only way they fit together is if intelligent design is materially identical to evolution without id. at which point, why bother putting it in? no reason to needlessly multiply explanatory entities and all that.

either id makes testable predictions, or id stays the hell out of science class. and if it makes testable predictions that differ from evolution without id, then we can test them and see which one is left standing.

Many people can accept this. In fact, many consider evolution as representitive for the creation mentioned in the bible/torah/koran.

Some extremeist religious groups refuse to take any part of the religious texts symbolicly, and really believe the earth was created in 6 days.
And these are exactly the people who bomb abortion clinics with teenagers and doctors inside, or buildings in new york, or ancient buddha statues in indonesia, or gas subway stations in japan, or bulldoze or bomb palistinian homes, or suicide bomd isreali nightclubs. I hate everything. :headbang:

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

Just because there is room for compromise doesn't mean that everyone will concede to a state of empathy, and leave a subject as is. Most people feel that there are two sides to every story, and you need to make a commitment to one. Those of us whom believe in evolution base it off of what we know and can positively prove. Those who believe in the theory of creationism take it upon faith.

Evidence vs Faith is what fuels these debates. Conceding your point, even half so, to come to a state other than what you originally desired just isn't plausible to people that are convicted to one side of the argument.

How can it be called "intelligent design" when humans are the most intelligent species on Earth and we aren't intelligent at all? Or is the realization that we are un-intelligent prove that we are intelligent?


My head hurts.

Yeah but how intelligent is the design anyway? Like... the appendix, for example. Seems kinda... pointless.

Yeah yeah, I know. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

The problem is intelligent design is a cop out. It basically says "We can't exaplain what happened, so some deity must have done it." That runs contrary to the very essence of science itself. Science is founded on logic, and the thorough investigation of the world around us. To suddenly lose our curiosity and sate our desire for fact with an untestable and unquestionable panacea would set us back immeasurably.

If we had stopped wondering about the strange curiosities of gravity, and simply said "God must be doing it" then we would never have come up with relativity. If we had simply dismissed the peculiarities of observable planetary orbits in favor of "God is doing it" we would still believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Simply answering any question that seems too complex with "I guess God must have done it" would essentially halt all scientific development as we know it. Considering the fact that modern evolutionary theories are highly important in different areas of medicine, it could set back human health.

In conclusion Intelligent design = bad thing

Would finding another species, elsewhere in the cosmos, remarkably similar to ours (bipedal, stereoscopic vision, etc.) reinforce either intelligent design or evolution?

Just wondering.

Would finding another species, elsewhere in the cosmos, remarkably similar to ours (bipedal, stereoscopic vision, etc.) reinforce either intelligent design or evolution?

Just wondering.
That depends on a whole lot of different things. Most importantly the alien environment.

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

In theory, sure. But the reason that I don't buy it is that the God that we would be talking about there is not the God of the Bible.

Christianity says that man, as he is right now, is not normal. We are not how we were originally created. Christ came and died so that we could be restored to where we were originally. Evolution says that man is essentially the same today as he was when he first got here. Death and cruelty are nothing new to this world. If we are normal, then what hope do we have of changing for the better? We could change quantitatively, becoming a little less bad, but we could not change so that we are no longer bad. This is why the "fundamentalist" Christians don't believe in evolution. It's not just that it doesn't agree with the accepted holy book. It undercuts the whole premise of the belief system, that things can be better. They (including myself) are just being consistent with their belief structure.

The phrase for that would be "theistic evolution."

Hrmmm ... intelligent ... design ... evolution ...

Why am I suddenly thinking about the show "Clean Sweep"?

I think that the key problem (hinted at in a few posts above), is that of the existence of a higher power...

Many evolutionists (at least, the ones that shoot down intelligent design), do not believe in God or any higher power...

Therefore, even though the two systems can coexist (and can even go as far as to reinforce each other), the problem lies in having to "admit" that there is a God...

I can intellectually agree that there doesn't need to be a conflict between intelligent design and evolution, but from a belief standpoint, I can't say that I believe that intelligent design exists, because I don't believe that an intelligent designer exists...

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?
The point in this "discussion" is that
a) folks don't know enough about how evolution works to make any meaningful statement and
b) folks generally know nothing about any divine action, all they do is guess.
So it is not really about the issues of evolution or intelligent design as such, it is more about lack of knowledge and the incapabilty to understand concepts of nature that are just a little more complex than "god snipped with his finger", and if I might add this, especially by people in the US.

i am a christian and my beliefs on evolution vs intelligent design is this.

evolution does exist to a degree, after all you will find animals bred selectively do change and you can make them bigger or smaller over time and sporadic mutations do occur(and only tend to survive if its something small like weird ears or lack of fur or something). more like adaptation and breeding.

but honestly i do believe that many creatures could not evolve from their ancestors logically, because since evolution is so slow and gradual, specific adaptation seems odd. its just that if its slow slow to get from species A to species B, then there would be extremely awkward phases.

how do i explain this?

this fish right, its developed primitive lungs as well as its gills, of course it doesnt know this, so whats it going to do with them? nothing!

i find it hard to imagine a creature getting from rat to bat, whose going to teach it how to fly?

a creature branches off from its species on the evolutionary path. why did it just do that? it went and did something different, why? what it was doing was fine.

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?
No, they do not. Intelligent designists believe that everything is dictated with a goal in mind. Evolutionists believe that it all occured through random mutations (though I would like to clarify, cumulative mutations). Intelligent design is just something appended on to evolution because some people either can't or aren't willing to believe that such diversity of life is possible through mutation.

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins is a superb book on this.

How can it be called "intelligent design" when humans are the most intelligent species on Earth and we aren't intelligent at all?
No, we have no proof that we are the most intelligent. We are the most clever, but dolphins or elephants might actually be more intelligent. Though intelligent is such a subjective word that it's hard to say.

Yeah but how intelligent is the design anyway? Like... the appendix, for example. Seems kinda... pointless.

Yeah yeah, I know. "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
What exactly are you referring to? If you mean vestigial organs, such as the appendix, then they are just that--vestigial. And the appendix is indeed a hindrace to humans, as it can cause sepsis if you get appendicitis. Therefore it is harmful to humans, but not so harmful that it has to go away quickly.

evolution does exist to a degree, after all you will find animals bred selectively do change and you can make them bigger or smaller over time and sporadic mutations do occur(and only tend to survive if its something small like weird ears or lack of fur or something). more like adaptation and breeding.
Well at least you acknowledge that there can be breeding, since believing otherwise is just absurd considering that humans have bred so many types of dogs and stock animals.

its just that if its slow slow to get from species A to species B, then there would be extremely awkward phases.
No, not really.

this fish right, its developed primitive lungs as well as its gills, of course it doesnt know this, so whats it going to do with them? nothing!
You think that a fish with lungs never utilises them? You'd be wrong.

i find it hard to imagine a creature getting from rat to bat, whose going to teach it how to fly?
Perhaps its DNA? Just a thought.

a creature branches off from its species on the evolutionary path. why did it just do that? it went and did something different, why? what it was doing was fine.
Because circumstances change. Climate, intraspecies competitors, predators, prey, parasites, et al. all are constantly changing. It is the Red Queen effect: you have to keep running to stay in the same place. In fact, I am reading The Red Queen right now, which is truly fascinating.

But, and I know this is extremely condescending, but if you don't believe in evolution, chances are that you don't actually understand it. Read up on it, there's plenty of literature out there on it. Anything by Richard Dawkins, such as The Blind Watchmaker mentioned supra, will be quite good.

Evolution is a science. Intelligent Design is Creationism in sheep's clothing. Intelligent design has no evidence behind it. Evolution does. If you can find some evidence (not belief, verifiable evidence) that there was some sort of creator, then go for it. Otherwise, don't try and cram your (misinterpreted) religion down my throat.

Personally, I believe that intelligent design must have existed. You cannot prove the existence of a creator because God is beyond proof and when presented with the same evidence, as history and theology have shown, people see it in different lights. It is always taking a calculated risk from the evidence in saying God does/doesn't exist.

The arguement of intelligent design (which is totally different from creationism's theories) vs. evolution is nonexistent because it boils down to the arguement of God's existence and whether you accept it or not.

For example, Richard Dawkins is an atheist, so he believes in strict evolution, while Levine (writer of a popular bio. text) is a staunch Christian, believes in evolution, and sees no conflict at all between the two.

What exactly are you referring to? If you mean vestigial organs, such as the appendix, then they are just that--vestigial. And the appendix is indeed a hindrace to humans, as it can cause sepsis if you get appendicitis. Therefore it is harmful to humans, but not so harmful that it has to go away quickly.
Actually, lacking an appendix has been linked with certain diseases. Just because we don't know what something does, doesn't mean it does nothing. Just like we used to think the tonsils and adenoids had no function. We now know they play a role in the lymph system.

For example, Richard Dawkins is an atheist, so he believes in strict evolution, while Levine (writer of a popular bio. text) is a staunch Christian, believes in evolution, and sees no conflict at all between the two.
If one part of the Bible is wrong, why not another? Do you believe the world is flat? Well, the Bible says it is. If Levine, or you for that matter, don't believe everything in the Bible, you are not Christians.

The problem is perspecive. The Bible isn't the source of all knowledge and morality. It is a book of the cultural values of a group of people who lived thousands of years ago. Thus the creation myth was never meant to be taken literally. Instead it is meant to show the basic beliefs of the culture, ie the origins of the culture: women are lower than men, man sins and God sees it and punishes the sinner, brothers fight, our god is the most powerful thing ever. Trying to build a science out of the Bible (and let's be frank, that's what ID is trying to do) is like trying to build a house on sand (yes I recognize the irony of that statement, it was included on purpose).

Intelligent design and evolution fit hand in hand. There are markings on humans DNA for such explanation. DNA evidence suggests one common mother. Yet there are other DNA markers that suggest evolving of the fittest. I think both are equally important to learn and debate. But us humans will not find out for a long time where and whom we came from. We could be a mixed breed of alien and pre-humans. There is proof that cro-magnan co-existed with modern day humans 200k years ago. There is also proof that modern humans faced extinction 75k years ago. Through DNA research. All modern day humans come from the some 5k humans that survived some type of catastrophe 75k years ago. Could it be the work of GOD. Maybe the flood wiped out everyone except those 5k? Who the heck knows. Another question posed by the Bible. Should I say statement. God made man in his image... So does that mean we are GOD? I hope not.... But an interesting thing about GOD is. He isnt from Earth. Right? So he is an alien. So that would fit some beliefs on religous and scientific sides. I think we are all a messed up experiment in genetics anyway. I just look outside at my neighbors and can figure that one out. Oh well. I got to get out of this trailor park!

Hold on! Being a Christian doesn't mean believing in everything in the Bible. Apparantly you (Transplant) aren't a Christian or enlightened on what makes a CHristian. All of what a Christian is is defined in the Nicean Creed. Through this, I understand the Bible and see its relevance today. All of the Christian teachings are based on evidence in the Bible, especially in the New Testiment where Jesus revealed more of God's nature, which may be understood differently because language is inherently flawed.

Secondly, yes, the geography is way off in the Bible, but it wasn't meant to be a book about what the world looked like. THe teachings are to make a point, which Genesis and Creationism, if properly interpreted, will do correctly.

Thirdly, if you actually read into the Bible, Jesus was at the forefront of rights for women. He appeared to them first after his death, even though they were not considered acceptable witnesses in court at the time. He openly spoke to them and did consider them to be equal to men in many respects. IN the early Church, they were treated as equals and even served as deacons. The idea wasn't carried to fruition in the history of the CHurch to present day, sadly.

Lastly, ID isn't trying to prove that the world was created in seven days. It is trying to point out that there was a primary cause and a designer to the universe. Evolution is happening on a universal scale and there has to be a larger reason for this, which is God. He transcends time and space and created it from "the outside" in another reality which we can't understand except through numinous experiences.

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Isolation an inbreeding promote evolution through rapid mutations.

The above quote is actually a question of evolution. If the chicken came first, something put it there in its adult state. If the egg came first, then it was born from something that was near, but not quite, a chicken. So it is with humans. There were humanoids around, similar but not quite human. Then came a human woman. And that's mitochandria, not DNA you're thinking of.

Science works off of facts and observations, not mere speculation. If you want something to move from being a hypothesis to being a theory, it has to be tested. Why yes, it could have been a flood that nearly wiped out humanity. The geological record does not support this, so it is false. It could have been a massive erruption, a virulent plauge, a sudden enviromental change. It could have been a lot of things, but science requires evidence before it will begin entertaining such thoughts.

--

A flawed book by a perfect being? Interesting.

I know more than a few people who would say that you could not agree with the Nicean Creed and still be Christian. Like Evangelical Christians everywhere.

Why doesn't the Bible mention viruses and bacteria? Because they didn't know they exsisted. Because they were a semi-nomadic agrarian people who just happened to live on the land route to Egypt, making thier homes valuable property to invading hordes.

If you want me to, I'll show you just how many rights Jesus thought women should have. My doing this has offended lots of people in the past, so think about it before you ask me.

ID is the narrow edge of the wedge. The fact is, ID isn't sound science, or science at all. It's an attack on science by people who'd rather there not be a secular alternative to their views.

And where in the bible does it say God is a transdimensional being? Is it right after the part explaining the theory of relativity or right after the part on the Heliocentric Theory?

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?
No, they don't contradict one another at all. Creationists just don't seem to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They want to say it does, but it doesn't. Try telling that to any biologist and (s)he'll laugh in your face. The origin of life is covered in different theories such as abiogenesis or panspermia. You could put creation in there, but there is no evidence for it, or even any explaination of the mechanism unless you want to go with the "aliens planted us" theory. Of course, there's no evidence for it, but at least you have a mechanism that can be described as opposed to relying on "magic".

because a creator is not currently measureable.therefore,it cannot be theory.to be theory it needs to be PROVEABLE.
Not true, it needs evidence, which is different from proof. We haven't proven ANY theory if you want to take that road. We know that gravity exists, but we don't know exactly how it works, so we can't REALLY prove it. All that we can prove is an effect of something that we've named "gravity".

I think that the key problem (hinted at in a few posts above), is that of the existence of a higher power...

Many evolutionists (at least, the ones that shoot down intelligent design), do not believe in God or any higher power...

Therefore, even though the two systems can coexist (and can even go as far as to reinforce each other), the problem lies in having to "admit" that there is a God...

I can intellectually agree that there doesn't need to be a conflict between intelligent design and evolution, but from a belief standpoint, I can't say that I believe that intelligent design exists, because I don't believe that an intelligent designer exists...

I don't have that problem. God can't be falsified, but he can't be proven either. I don't address that issue at all. It's possible, but I don't entertain it for lack of evidence. Absence of belief is not the same as belief in absence.

i find it hard to imagine a creature getting from rat to bat, whose going to teach it how to fly?
Evolution doesn't happen like that, but if you want to take that road, fine. Ever hear of flying squirrels? I've got a pet flying squirrel, he's cute as hell and he jumps REALLY far by spreading out his arms and lets to let air catch underneath his extra skin between his arms and legs. There are flying squirrels all over North and South America, as well as many other species of "flying" rodents, such as large flying squirrels and sugar gliders. If you look at a bat, they look a lot like flying squirrels, but with larger ears, less hair and larger pieces of skin between their feet and arms.

Actually, lacking an appendix has been linked with certain diseases. Just because we don't know what something does, doesn't mean it does nothing. Just like we used to think the tonsils and adenoids had no function. We now know they play a role in the lymph system.
How about the fact that we eat and breath through the same opening. If we were designed, then we should have seperate openings for eating and breathing to avoid all the senseless choking deaths.

Absence of belief is not the same as belief in absence.
Clever. :P

If we were designed, then we should have seperate openings for eating and breathing to avoid all the senseless choking deaths.
We were designed, by Evolution. The mutations happen randomly, they aren't chosen randomly. They are only chosen if they offer an advantage. We eat and breathe through the same hole because two holes would mean more specialized tissue, and the calories to support it. That and the fact that our ancient ancestors only had one hole for everything, like insects.

Hold on! Being a Christian doesn't mean believing in everything in the Bible. Apparantly you (Transplant) aren't a Christian or enlightened on what makes a CHristian. All of what a Christian is is defined in the Nicean Creed. Through this, I understand the Bible and see its relevance today. All of the Christian teachings are based on evidence in the Bible, especially in the New Testiment where Jesus revealed more of God's nature, which may be understood differently because language is inherently flawed.

If you don't believe everything in the bible, then you are arbitrarily picking and choosing which bits you like and which bits you don't like and throwing them out.

Also, if being a christian is about following a 4th century creed, then you are succombing to a political structure rather then a belief you come to through something that happen internally.

Secondly, yes, the geography is way off in the Bible, but it wasn't meant to be a book about what the world looked like. THe teachings are to make a point, which Genesis and Creationism, if properly interpreted, will do correctly.

Then you admit that the bible is flawed. Yet, I thought it was supposed to be the word of god. How can the word of god be flawed?

Thirdly, if you actually read into the Bible, Jesus was at the forefront of rights for women. He appeared to them first after his death, even though they were not considered acceptable witnesses in court at the time. He openly spoke to them and did consider them to be equal to men in many respects. IN the early Church, they were treated as equals and even served as deacons. The idea wasn't carried to fruition in the history of the CHurch to present day, sadly.

Read Paul's letters, Paul uses Jesus' teachings to repress women, not to mention all the mysogneistic bits in the OT.

Lastly, ID isn't trying to prove that the world was created in seven days. It is trying to point out that there was a primary cause and a designer to the universe. Evolution is happening on a universal scale and there has to be a larger reason for this, which is God. He transcends time and space and created it from "the outside" in another reality which we can't understand except through numinous experiences.

ID is basically the argument from complexity

1. Look at how complex everything is! (The "Oh wow" argument)
2. This COULDN'T have happened by chance.
3. Therefore, something more complex must have created this.
4. That something more complex is god.

The problem: If there needs to be a complex designer to create a complex world, then by your own argument, god MUST have been created by something else even more complex. Now you're stuck into an infinite regress of ever increasing complexity.

Evolution says that man is essentially the same today as he was when he first got here.
Evolution says no such thing. Evolution simply says that life changes over time through random mutations and natural selection. THAT'S IT. It doesn't say anything else. Stop making things up for evolution to say when it doesn't say it. Sorry, but that's a point for me that creationists can't seem to get passed and it really pisses me off because it is self imposed willful ignorance. Why would anyone WANT to be ignorant is beyond me, frustrating and it holds back humanity from moving onto better things.

Actually, lacking an appendix has been linked with certain diseases. Just because we don't know what something does, doesn't mean it does nothing. Just like we used to think the tonsils and adenoids had no function. We now know they play a role in the lymph system.
Oh, really? I hadn't heard that. My bad.

And that's mitochandria, not DNA you're thinking of.
Who? Mitochondria is matrilineal, but DNA is certainly inherited through both parents. Actually, evolution of organelles is a fascinating topic, but I won't get into that now.

We were designed, by Evolution. The mutations happen randomly, they aren't chosen randomly. They are only chosen if they offer an advantage. We eat and breathe through the same hole because two holes would mean more specialized tissue, and the calories to support it. That and the fact that our ancient ancestors only had one hole for everything, like insects.
Yet it is also true that if a certain trait does not emerge or does not emerge in a practicable circumstance. If it were true that an organism is the best it can be, I think we'd see very different life than we do now.

And, here, I shall make it large and bold so you do not miss this again.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN = GOAL,
EVOLUTION = NO GOAL!

Ladies and gentlemen, the watchmaker is blind.

Intelligent design does not equal Creationism.

Nor is intelligent design "Creationism dressed up to be more appealing". There are certainly Creationists jumping on the intelligent design bandwagon which, for many (I'd never say all) pro-intelligent design followers is not a good thing since it muddies the waters somewhat.

What I find particularly amusing in these discussions is the automatic assumption that all religion = Christianity.

Personally, I'm a great fan of science and I LOVE astronomy. I also adore things like Fibonacci numbers (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html) and I watch the movie "Pi" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/) too often, I guess I'm a bit of a science fanboy. I'm fascinated by quantum theory, string theory and all those sorts of things but I confess my depth of knowledge in each is pretty shallow.

I'm something of a Deist (http://www.deism.org/frames.htm) as well, although I certainly do not have faith in a Christian god. However, when I look at all my astronomy books and read articles about Fibonacci sequences I can't help but feel a sense that something, somewhere started the spark that got the universe as we know it to the point where it is now. I don't even know if I'd call whatever it was a "god" since that term usually defines some omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient presence and I don't think that whatever sparked off this universe (if indeed something did) had to possess any of those qualities.

Probably not the best example, but say I have an ant farm. I created it by means of filling a plastic box with sand and introducing ants & food into it. These ants live in a "universe" of my creation but their design. I exist outside the realm of their comprehension but does that in any sense make me a god? Nope... well... maybe in my dreams it does :D

I'm sure I had a point when I started writing this post... oh... just to point out that you can accept both intelligent design and evolution quite easily if you believe the designer let things happen of their own accord after the initial creation. Of course, if you don't believe there was some sort of creator (Christian or otherwise) then it is impossible to reconcile the two.

Oh... and just to query the post above me... why does intelligent design = goal? In my poor little ant farm anology, there is no "goal" beyond my own enjoyment and curiosity. Perhaps we're just an ant farm on a larger and more complex scale?

Evolution says no such thing. Evolution simply says that life changes over time through random mutations and natural selection. THAT'S IT. It doesn't say anything else. Stop making things up for evolution to say when it doesn't say it. Sorry, but that's a point for me that creationists can't seem to get passed and it really pisses me off because it is self imposed willful ignorance. Why would anyone WANT to be ignorant is beyond me, frustrating and it holds back humanity from moving onto better things.

So are you saying that it is possible that at some point in the past, man was perfect and death did not exist?

Oh... and just to query the post above me... why does intelligent design = goal? In my poor little ant farm anology, there is no "goal" beyond my own enjoyment and curiosity. Perhaps we're just an ant farm on a larger and more complex scale?
Let me preface this by saying that most proponents of ID are Christian and so those arguing against it take note of this fact.

Now you didn't design the ants. If you had engineered a species of insect from scratch in a labratory and then put them in the plastic ant farm, you could be said to be in a "god" role (thus the term "playing god"). However, the example you gave was for more a purposeful panspermia (please don't let me have started another one!) than intelligent design. Thus, that example is not aplicable.

So are you saying that it is possible that at some point in the past, man was perfect and death did not exist?
O_O;

No, he's not saying that at all. He's saying that we evolved from simpler lifeforms. That at sometime in the past, our ancestors were analogous to slime mold. How you got "perfect and death did not exist" from what he said can only be explained by the willful ignorance you display.

A flawed book by a perfect being? Interesting

Then you admit that the bible is flawed. Yet, I thought it was supposed to be the word of god. How can the word of god be flawed?

I would just like to point out the Bible is the word of God interperted by the people writeing it. Then it got translated several times which could change the meaning of somethings also.

So are you saying that it is possible that at some point in the past, man was perfect and death did not exist?

Huh? I completely fail to see where your logic has come from, care to go into a bit more detail?

Before this discussion goes further, I'd like to ask a question of the proponents of Intelligent Design:

Since you seem to consent that adaptation takes place, at what point did things begin adapting? In other words, at what level of evolution do you propose life originated?

Before this discussion goes further, I'd like to ask a question of the proponents of Intelligent Design:

Since you seem to consent that adaptation takes place, at what point did things begin adapting? In other words, at what level of evolution do you propose life originated?

I'd like to answer but I need to clarify your question. Are you asking when did the natural (ie evolutionary process) take over from the "unnatural" involvement of the "designer"?

I would just like to point out the Bible is the word of God interperted by the people writeing it. Then it got translated several times which could change the meaning of somethings also.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=35&version=31&context=verse)

There are reasons why fundamentalists interpret the bible literally.

I'd like to answer but I need to clarify your question. Are you asking when did the natural (ie evolutionary process) take over from the "unnatural" involvement of the "designer"?
Yes, it would seem to me that that would, should, be a critical element of the theory.

Yes, it would seem to me that that would, should, be a critical element of the theory.

For sure, I think it's probably the biggest stumbling block in producing one defining theory of intelligent design (which is I'm guessing why you probably asked the question, right?).

The interaction of the intelligent designer with its design will be subject to whatever belief system is held by the given person. Personally, I think the interaction stopped in the infinitely small moment between creation and the existence of the universe. I'm sure there are others who think whatever created them is still actively tinkering (miracles and other phenomenon) and others who think everything is predestined.

I have my theory and it works for me. I look at the marvels of the universe and can't help but feel that there is some element of design behind it. I realise that this basically the argument from complexity and is not particularly good logic but then faith and logic have never and will never co-exist peacefully :D

Of course, I don't feel any particular need or desire to defend my personal beliefs since I am not trying to force others to adopt them. Obviously, if you're trying to convince other people then they would be within their rights to demand a more convincing argument than I could muster.

[QUOTE=Transplanetary Peoples]"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Isolation an inbreeding promote evolution through rapid mutations.

The above quote is actually a question of evolution. If the chicken came first, something put it there in its adult state. If the egg came first, then it was born from something that was near, but not quite, a chicken. So it is with humans. There were humanoids around, similar but not quite human. Then came a human woman. And that's mitochandria, not DNA you're thinking of.


--

what i was referring to was mitochondrial DNA. As stated in the studies I read about all humans having one common mother. This isnt a so much a theory if they know how mitochondria DNA lineage information is passed on from only the mothers side. So they "Know" that we have one common mother amongst all of us.

How is that possible if you say which came first? The chicken or the egg? Good question. Suppose human kind will ponder that for a long time. However if a being is advanced enough you could theorize that they could make something out of nothing. So "Eve" would be the first human. Secondly if you took the earth bound humanoid. Genetically altered them to a more intelligent and productive state. You would get the same effect? Would you not?

Interesting discussion. Whoever many of us could have parts of the truth. We may never know....

Another question that I have thought about. Why is it that the majority of humans use approx 10-15% brain capacity. Einstein they theorize used 25%. Is this designed into us? Is it some evolutionary quirk? Possible "GOD" made us that way to keep us from challenging "GOD". Maybe we were made to genetically alter every so many thousand years to get smarter. I mean it did take us 200k years to develop our current society. A bit of a long time if you think of it. Scientist suggest we havent changed much since homo sapiens appeared on earth 200k years ago. Is "GOD" keeping the brothers down?. Just might be! Maybe a cruel evolutionary quirk?...

Another question that I have thought about. Why is it that the majority of humans use approx 10-15% brain capacity. Einstein they theorize used 25%.

That is an urban myth, and nothing more.

Since intelligent design follows the scientific theory about as much as believing that faeries and unicorns exists, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Any scientific journal would look at the so-called 'theory' and begin laughing at it so hard that milk would fly out their noses.

All intelligent design is is creationism - God. It's a cop-out for a 'scientist' who doesn't want to do any real work.

That is an urban myth, and nothing more.

and one that really needs to die. the only thing that makes it at all plausible is that it is so obviously false and easy to check, and yet people still believe it.

Since intelligent design follows the scientific theory about as much as believing that faeries and unicorns exists, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Any scientific journal would look at the so-called 'theory' and begin laughing at it so hard that milk would fly out their noses.

All intelligent design is is creationism - God. It's a cop-out for a 'scientist' who doesn't want to do any real work.

Creationism is typically based around the Christian faith, intelligent design tends to be a little more non-denominational (but there are certainly "stealth Creationists" and all that sort of stuff).

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. I don't think I ever stated that I thought it was...

I just find it frustrating that anyone who stands up and says "I like the idea of intelligent design" is automatically labelled a Christian trying to subvert the cause of science. I like the idea of intelligent design as it appeals to me... I'm not Christian and I think Darwin's theory of evolution is the best means we have currently to describe the natural process of things.

My personal intelligent design belief is simply a prefix (for want of a better description) to everything we scientifically understand about the creation of the universe and how things ended up where they are today.

With intelligent design comes the automatic assumption that you are believing in some sort of higher power, since something more intelligent 'designed' us.

(creationism - God) = intelligent design

With intelligent design comes the automatic assumption that you are believing in some sort of higher power, since something more intelligent 'designed' us.

(creationism - God) = intelligent design

That's what I said, right?

The problem is intelligent design is a cop out. It basically says "We can't exaplain what happened, so some deity must have done it." That runs contrary to the very essence of science itself. Science is founded on logic, and the thorough investigation of the world around us. To suddenly lose our curiosity and sate our desire for fact with an untestable and unquestionable panacea would set us back immeasurably.

If we had stopped wondering about the strange curiosities of gravity, and simply said "God must be doing it" then we would never have come up with relativity. If we had simply dismissed the peculiarities of observable planetary orbits in favor of "God is doing it" we would still believe the earth is the center of the universe.

Simply answering any question that seems too complex with "I guess God must have done it" would essentially halt all scientific development as we know it. Considering the fact that modern evolutionary theories are highly important in different areas of medicine, it could set back human health.

In conclusion Intelligent design = bad thing

I dont think it a bad thing at all.. just because we recognize there is an intellegent design behind the universe dosn't mean we can't study that design.. The more we study it, the more we are able to understand the perfection of the design.. Evolution dosn't disprove creationism.. because you can fit evolution very nicely into creationism .. and creationism fills in the voids we've yet to uncover (for now) so that we have some sense of our reality..

You claim creationism can't be proven, because at present it can't.. we lack the tools needed to understand how it is nature could be designed by an intellegence beyond ours. In fact one could argue it arrogance to dissmiss the idea of creationism, simply because it would suggest an intelegence beyond ours. The only way you can prove something, is to set out to solve it... The only reason why Creationism is not testible thus provable.. is because we've yet to design a test in which to gague it...

and just because we've yet to think it up, does not mean it does not exist

Since intelligent design follows the scientific theory about as much as believing that faeries and unicorns exists, intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

Any scientific journal would look at the so-called 'theory' and begin laughing at it so hard that milk would fly out their noses.

All intelligent design is is creationism - God. It's a cop-out for a 'scientist' who doesn't want to do any real work.

is that so ? isn't one of the fore-most evolutionist suddenly questioning everything he has studied all his life ? ... suddently the evolutionist begins to consider creationism.. what you say about scientists laguing at that so called theory with milk flying from their noses.. doesn't seem so credible afterall

Just because we havn't thought up a test to gage intelligent design dosn't mean there isn't one..

If you don't believe everything in the bible, then you are arbitrarily picking and choosing which bits you like and which bits you don't like and throwing them out.

Then you admit that the bible is flawed. Yet, I thought it was supposed to be the word of god. How can the word of god be flawed?

ID is basically the argument from complexity

1. Look at how complex everything is! (The "Oh wow" argument)
2. This COULDN'T have happened by chance.
3. Therefore, something more complex must have created this.
4. That something more complex is god.

The problem: If there needs to be a complex designer to create a complex world, then by your own argument, god MUST have been created by something else even more complex. Now you're stuck into an infinite regress of ever increasing complexity.

I never said that. God is the first, the last, and the eternal designer. He holds up the universe as He is, in a sense, the law without it. By the way, God is complex and we can't understand Him. He was not created by anything because he always was and will be. THis promblem as you see it doesn't exist if he doesn't exist inside the universe (although he has the ability to transcend through it).

In response to your other arguement about a 4th century statement of political beliefs is the creed, then I guess it is in part. When I say it today, I am making a statement, freely and with total consent, that separates me from others of other beliefs. It's what separates me from you and since I wouldn't make such a claim without probable knowledge that it is more right than that of any other religion. :eek: (Yes, I went there).

As a a part of it, If you don't believe that God created the world in some way, then you ARE NOT a Christian nor can you claim to be one. A credo, which forms the word creed, means I give my heart and so I do so willingly. ID is just another way of saying He created the world.

IN response to your arguement about picking and chosing through a flawed book, I don't. It's the spirit of the word that is more important than the word itself. It is NOT FLAWED in that sense. It's a human book so by definition of the word human it will be flawed. :cool:

Even the devil :eek: can quote the Bible in his support as you may note.
PS If you believe in evil, that presupposes a God bk otherwise there is no real reason to have one, especially in evolution where it's survival of the fittest and most proliferating organisms.

If you are an athiest or something else trying to mend the errors of my ways in believing silly myths, then you better try someone else because I'm not going to bite. I've bet my life on the existence of a God and therefore continuation is futile if you don't believe in God. By extention, I believe in intelligent design, which I would bet my life on. :rolleyes:

...What idiot first decided that evolutionary theory was about saying that humans are the ultimate intelligence?

Most humans are fricking idiots and are only alive due to the efforts of the slightly smarter ones.

Most scientists I've dealt with will nod and sigh in agreement.

With intelligent design comes the automatic assumption that you are believing in some sort of higher power, since something more intelligent 'designed' us.

(creationism - God) = intelligent design

I think it is more like:

Creationism + Brain = intelligent design

Since the idea is that the law of cause and effect says that the cause cannot be greater than its effect, then by extension you say the effect (presumably God) had to be at least equal to if not greater than humans/creation. Random evolution therefore would be contrary to the existence of the human mind and its intelligence (well at least some of the minds...)

That is an urban myth, and nothing more.


In refference to the small percentage use of the human brain. Check the web Nimzonia. This urban myth cannot be disproved from what i have read. There is one site on the web that says its not true. However that site had on the same page ufo information. Hardly a scientist I would guess. Judging by alot of posts I read. I would guess the 10% is a rule and not an urban myth :p

...What idiot first decided that evolutionary theory was about saying that humans are the ultimate intelligence?

Most humans are fricking idiots and are only alive due to the efforts of the slightly smarter ones.

Most scientists I've dealt with will nod and sigh in agreement.


Amen Brotha!

Evolution( the responese to evironmental pressure, in order to survive), is the HIGHEST FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

is that so ? isn't one of the fore-most evolutionist suddenly questioning everything he has studied all his life ? ... suddently the evolutionist begins to consider creationism.. what you say about scientists laguing at that so called theory with milk flying from their noses.. doesn't seem so credible afterall

what the hell are you on about?

Evolution( the responese to evironmental pressure, in order to survive), is the HIGHEST FORM OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

How do you know it's a response? It's just sheer luck that anything evolved by that logic. Random mutations HAVE NO DESIGN. In that case, existence is worthless and resistance is futile 'cause we're all gonna die and I have no reason to be moral.

In refference to the small percentage use of the human brain. Check the web Nimzonia. This urban myth cannot be disproved from what i have read. There is one site on the web that says its not true. However that site had on the same page ufo information. Hardly a scientist I would guess. Judging by alot of posts I read. I would guess the 10% is a rule and not an urban myth :p

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

we use all of our brain at various times. we can and do observe this directly through various sorts of brain activity scans. there is absolutely nothing to this myth beyond widespread repetition.

Free Soviets,
Yes I did see that page. Dont think we can say for sure one way or the other. The "Myth" explains alot of stuff that goes on though. I guess much like "GOD" does... :rolleyes:

Dont think we can say for sure one way or the other.

if we can see that activity takes place in every part of the brain - and certainly much more than ten percent of it - i think we can pretty safely say one way and not the other. i've seen images of the scans. you can too.

How do you know it's a response? It's just sheer luck that anything evolved by that logic. Random mutations HAVE NO DESIGN. In that case, existence is worthless and resistance is futile 'cause we're all gonna die and I have no reason to be moral.

Well. No reason except making the world a better place for you and everyone you care about and all the offspring you'll find yourself caring about vicariously.

Oh.

Think of it this way: What reason does an almighty entity have for being moral? (Not that yours ACTS that way)

I think that evolution lacks the creation idea. So I find they compliment each other perfectly. At some point whatever is the creation force of the universe made life, then watched it from afar, seeing what would appear, perhaps coming in once a while to tweak it here and there etc.

I think that evolution lacks the creation idea. So I find they compliment each other perfectly. At some point whatever is the creation force of the universe made life, then watched it from afar, seeing what would appear, perhaps coming in once a while to tweak it here and there etc.


I have an issue with the quote at the bottom of your posts Arenestho, simply because it is wrong.

Some info regarding the word Chrestians (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-sio/sio-eso2.htm).

And some more (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990709/001142.html).

Still more (http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/08/pre-eusebian-witness-to-testimonium.html).

So, ya know... suck it up :p :D

So are you saying that it is possible that at some point in the past, man was perfect and death did not exist?

Evolution doesn't address that, so it's outside of the scope of this discussion.

However, I am not going to deny it, because it can neither be proved nor falsified. I choose to dismiss the idea due to the lack of evidence, but I'm not going to say that it didn't happen.

O_O;

No, he's not saying that at all. He's saying that we evolved from simpler lifeforms. That at sometime in the past, our ancestors were analogous to slime mold. How you got "perfect and death did not exist" from what he said can only be explained by the willful ignorance you display.
I said no such thing. Evolution describes how life can change over time through random mutation and natural selection. That's it. I'm not saying anything else, just that.

I would just like to point out the Bible is the word of God interperted by the people writeing it. Then it got translated several times which could change the meaning of somethings also.
Then god wrote or inspired men to write an imperfect book which was capable of being mistranslated and distorted. He also took no inspirational part in keeping the translations accurate. This all powerful god is obviously not interested in letting us know of his existence, but rather in creating conflict.

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=35&version=31&context=verse)

There are reasons why fundamentalists interpret the bible literally.
Yeah, they're simple minded individuals. Looking into what something means on a deeper level takes too much thinking. It's easier to just take things at their face value.

With intelligent design comes the automatic assumption that you are believing in some sort of higher power, since something more intelligent 'designed' us.

(creationism - God) = intelligent design
Yet, nearly ALL ID proponents (not quite all, but at least 95%) are fundamentalist christians.

is that so ? isn't one of the fore-most evolutionist suddenly questioning everything he has studied all his life ?
Which evolutionsist is this? It's interesting that most biologists that are accused of believing in ID due to some quote almost always end up having the quote come back to them, only to find out that they've either been misquoted or had their quote taken out of context.

For example, when Hawking at the end of Brief History of Time wrote, "When we understand these mysteries, we will understand the mind of god." Christians LOVE this quote, but he did not mean it religiously. When we understand how the universe works, we will know what god is attributed to know.

Christians also LOVE to pull out the Einstein quote, "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein was an atheist, but had a reverent awe for the universe. Many physicists feel that way about the universe and refer to the mechanics of the universe as "god". Einstein was refering to the emerging theory of quantum physics, which he very much disliked because he liked the idea of a very orderly universe. He liked the idea of causality, and quantum physics seems to remove causality at the partical level.

I never said that. God is the first, the last, and the eternal designer. He holds up the universe as He is, in a sense, the law without it. By the way, God is complex and we can't understand Him. He was not created by anything because he always was and will be. THis promblem as you see it doesn't exist if he doesn't exist inside the universe (although he has the ability to transcend through it).

Huh? How can you say that we can't understand god and then sit there and describe him to me? You don't know that god is an uncaused cause and transcends the unvierse, you're guessing. If something complex HAS to have design, then god HAS to be designed himself. Therefore, you cannot logically argue for design from complexity.

IN response to your arguement about picking and chosing through a flawed book, I don't. It's the spirit of the word that is more important than the word itself. It is NOT FLAWED in that sense. It's a human book so by definition of the word human it will be flawed. :cool:

Then god wrote a flawed book. If he is all powerful, then he can write it in such a way that it CANNOT be flawed in any way. If it is flawed then either god is not all powerful (in which case the bible is not reliable), god wanted it to be flawed (in which case god WANTS conflict amongst men, which makes god evil), or god did not inspire the bible.

Even the devil :eek: can quote the Bible in his support as you may note.
PS If you believe in evil, that presupposes a God bk otherwise there is no real reason to have one, especially in evolution where it's survival of the fittest and most proliferating organisms.

I can have evil without god or the devil. I can describe the deliberate harming of another as an evil perveyed upon another human. There is no universal evil, only evil in relation to the situation.

How do you know it's a response? It's just sheer luck that anything evolved by that logic. Random mutations HAVE NO DESIGN. In that case, existence is worthless and resistance is futile 'cause we're all gonna die and I have no reason to be moral.
The design is through natural selection. Life is designed to fit its environment. As the environment changes, life changes to fit it. There are small lakes miles beneath the surface of Antarctica, and there is life in those small likes. There is life based on sulfur rather then carbon living near volcanic vents on the ocean floor. There are life forms that prefer for the ph balance of their environment to be around 1, which as acidic enough to burn enamel. There are life forms that prefer for the ambiant tempreture to be around 400 degrees F.

Climbing Mount Improbable once again ...

Thirdly, if you actually read into the Bible, Jesus was at the forefront of rights for women. He appeared to them first after his death, even though they were not considered acceptable witnesses in court at the time. He openly spoke to them and did consider them to be equal to men in many respects. IN the early Church, they were treated as equals and even served as deacons. The idea wasn't carried to fruition in the history of the CHurch to present day, sadly.

It depends what Gospels you read, actually. Whereas Luke was pro-Gentille, Matthew was not. For example, look at the differences between Matthew's version and Mark's version of one of the passages in the Bible: (it does not even occur in Luke's Gospel)

MARK 24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.”


-----


MATTHEW 21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demonpossession.”

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26He replied, “It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.”

I know this is more about race than anything else, and probably not the best of examples, but it does show that there are many differences which make it difficult to distinguish what Jesus's exact opinion on women and other things was.

In refference to the small percentage use of the human brain. Check the web Nimzonia. This urban myth cannot be disproved from what i have read. There is one site on the web that says its not true. However that site had on the same page ufo information. Hardly a scientist I would guess. Judging by alot of posts I read. I would guess the 10% is a rule and not an urban myth :p

Alrighty, aside from that snopes link someone posted, I'll give you these as well. There's loads of others; I just grabbed the first few at the top of a google search. They likely vary in reliability, but at least two are from university websites. On the other hand, the only people you'll find supporting the myth are advertising groups and new age gurus.

http://www.sci-con.org/articles/20040901.html

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/10/brain_usage.htm

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000B077E-AD46-1047-AD4683414B7F0000

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19970501-000016.html

http://utopia.utexas.edu/project/brainwaves/myths.html

Here's the relevant quote from that last link (University of Texas at Austin), in case your 10%-powered brain breaks down before you get to it:

But perhaps the most popular myth (and maybe the most exploited) is the idea that we only use 10 percent of our brain's full capacity. This common myth has been cited to support paranormal abilities, intuition and many self-help methods. Really, though, almost every nerve cell in our brains is active most of the time. Scientists can detect this activity by measuring the electrical currents of nerve cells near the surface of the brain. More complex tests like PET (Positron Emission Tomography) can detect oxygen consumption, blood flow or glucose consumption (the sugar that is the brain fuel) by active neurons in all areas of the brain, not just the surface. Just about ALL of the human brain is busy all the time—even when we're sound asleep.

Perhaps you should check the web, instead of just believing what some guy down the pub told you.

.

Alright, I believe this debate has been sidetracked. I didn't mean to question whether either theory was right or wrong---I meant to argue against those extremists who believe that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible ideas, whether they be atheist extremists who think evolution disproves any possibility of God or religious extremists who believe the Bible/Koran/Torah/Etc. exclude the possibility of evolution.

Alright, I believe this debate has been sidetracked. I didn't mean to question whether either theory was right or wrong---I meant to argue against those extremists who believe that evolution and intelligent design are incompatible ideas, whether they be atheist extremists who think evolution disproves any possibility of God or religious extremists who believe the Bible/Koran/Torah/Etc. exclude the possibility of evolution.

You wouldn't need to be an "atheist extremist" to believe in the concept of "no god". By definition, any sort of atheist (extreme or otherwise) doesn't believe in the existence of a god. Evolution would not necessarily be the vehicle that has caused them to deny god.

Switch the terms around and you've got your reasoning for those "religious-types" who dismiss evolution.

What you're left with are basically agnostics, deists & spiritualists (among others) in the middle that don't have any issues with the idea of god (in whatever form it might take) and evolution being compatible. Unfortunately my knowledge of world religions is pretty slim, I'm sure you'd find some out there that don't have the "creation of the universe" firmly entrenched in their dogma that would also have no issues with the combination of the two (evolution & god).

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism)

If you're a Creationist, you can't be a Deist. If you are a Deist, you can't prove your religion, so it can't be taught in school as science. Creationism is religion and is illegal to teach in schools. Evolution wins.

"How then, did life originate on Earth? Tracing the physical history of the Earth backwards, on strict dynamical principles, we are brought to a red-hot melted globe on which no life could exist. Hence when the Earth was first fit for life, there was no living thing on it. ... Science is bound, by the everlasting law of honour, to face fearlessly every problem which can fairly be presented to it. If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke an abnormal act of Creative Power."
-Lord Kelvin, in his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1871.

If anyone is interested in the history of this debate, this essay is rather thorough. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html)

Honestly, I am troubled as to why this debate exists. Don't both ideologies fit together ideally? After all, could we not say that "intelligent design" is responsible for creating the mechanism for evolution, and guiding it? Honestly. Why should two reconcilable things be in conflict?

I think the debate is more to do with whether it is appropriate to teach "intelligent design" in schools as a part of the science cirriculum. I think that whatever people teach their children at home in relation to their religion is their own business, but indoctrinating children religious ideas in science classes is not right.

You wouldn't need to be an "atheist extremist" to believe in the concept of "no god". By definition, any sort of atheist (extreme or otherwise) doesn't believe in the existence of a god. Evolution would not necessarily be the vehicle that has caused them to deny god.

Switch the terms around and you've got your reasoning for those "religious-types" who dismiss evolution.

What you're left with are basically agnostics, deists & spiritualists (among others) in the middle that don't have any issues with the idea of god (in whatever form it might take) and evolution being compatible. Unfortunately my knowledge of world religions is pretty slim, I'm sure you'd find some out there that don't have the "creation of the universe" firmly entrenched in their dogma that would also have no issues with the combination of the two (evolution & god).
Atheists do not deny the existence of god, we do not accept the existence of god as a belief. Absence of belief is not the belief in absence. There is a minority called Strong Atheists who make the positive claim that there is no god, but that is a very small number. Trying to equte strong atheists to the rest of atheism is like trying to claim that Fred Phelps represents all christians.

Atheists do not deny the existence of god, we do not accept the existence of god as a belief. Absence of belief is not the belief in absence. There is a minority called Strong Atheists who make the positive claim that there is no god, but that is a very small number. Trying to equte strong atheists to the rest of atheism is like trying to claim that Fred Phelps represents all christians.

Then my understanding of the definition of the word "atheist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist)" is wrong since I believed that to describe yourself as an atheist was to mean that you do not believe in any deity.

I thought to be unsure/undetermined as to the existence or non-existence of any given deity was agnosticism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic).

EDIT: Okay, I see where I missed the boat. I'll leave everything as I had it so you can see where I was coming from.

I thought to "not believe in any deity" was to deny the existence thereof. However, I can see that you're suggesting that it is to simply not believe regardless of the existence or non-existence of any given deity. A "true" atheist would still not offer belief to a god even if it were to manifest somewhere and start hurling lightning bolts, yes?

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationism)

If you're a Creationist, you can't be a Deist. If you are a Deist, you can't prove your religion, so it can't be taught in school as science. Creationism is religion and is illegal to teach in schools. Evolution wins.

Evolution wins what?

Illegal? For the record, I'm all for removing Creationism/Intelligent Design from the science class since it isn't science. However, to state that it is (or should be) "illegal to teach in schools" is surely wrong? I see no harm in it being taught in religious studies, alongside learning about Buddhism, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic studies and everything else.

Regardless, I thought this discussion wasn't about what is or is not being taught in schools?

The original question was something along the lines of "Why don't more people find both intelligent design AND evolution to be compatible". The answer (in my opinion only of course) is the reason is simply that most ardent followers of evolution do not accept the existence of a deity and those that follow creationism don't accept evolution (except under very specific circumstances).

The only people that would typically embrace both concepts are agnostics & non-denominational "believers" (I count myself in this group). Also for the record, I wouldn't want my personal beliefs taught to anyone. I've worked damned hard at reading various philosophies & religious texts (not to mention a great deal of navel contemplation) to get to the odd place I'm at currently - if someone else wants to be here then let them put in the same bloody amount of effort I did :D

Evolution wins what?
Which theory should be taught in school. Which theory is more plausible/right.

Illegal? For the record, I'm all for removing Creationism/Intelligent Design from the science class since it isn't science. However, to state that it is (or should be) "illegal to teach in schools" is surely wrong? I see no harm in it being taught in religious studies, alongside learning about Buddhism, Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic studies and everything else.
The Supreme Court of the US ruled that teaching Creationism in public schools was unconstitutional, thus illegal. As public schools don't have religious studies classes, only social studies, Creationism will never be taught as being "right" in public schools. (If it is, the ACLU will prosecute.)

You wouldn't need to be an "atheist extremist" to believe in the concept of "no god". By definition, any sort of atheist (extreme or otherwise) doesn't believe in the existence of a god. Evolution would not necessarily be the vehicle that has caused them to deny god.

Switch the terms around and you've got your reasoning for those "religious-types" who dismiss evolution.

What you're left with are basically agnostics, deists & spiritualists (among others) in the middle that don't have any issues with the idea of god (in whatever form it might take) and evolution being compatible. Unfortunately my knowledge of world religions is pretty slim, I'm sure you'd find some out there that don't have the "creation of the universe" firmly entrenched in their dogma that would also have no issues with the combination of the two (evolution & god).
Ok, first of all, you completely misread my quote. What I said was that there are some atheist extremists who take evolution as proof that God doesn't exist, which is absurd. You may not believe in God, and that's fine, but the existance of evolution does not prove that religion is false. Also, your knowledge of world religions is slim, as the Catholic Church, one of the largest religious institutions in the world, has accepted evolution.

The only people that would typically embrace both concepts are agnostics & non-denominational "believers" (I count myself in this group).
That's not true. Even most denominational religious people believe in evolution. Look at the Catholic Church. Perhaps the biggest symbol of denominational religions out there, and it accepts evolution.

Then my understanding of the definition of the word "atheist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist)" is wrong since I believed that to describe yourself as an atheist was to mean that you do not believe in any deity.

I thought to be unsure/undetermined as to the existence or non-existence of any given deity was agnosticism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic).

EDIT: Okay, I see where I missed the boat. I'll leave everything as I had it so you can see where I was coming from.

I thought to "not believe in any deity" was to deny the existence thereof. However, I can see that you're suggesting that it is to simply not believe regardless of the existence or non-existence of any given deity. A "true" atheist would still not offer belief to a god even if it were to manifest somewhere and start hurling lightning bolts, yes?

Absence of belief is not a belief in absence. There is a small minority of atheists that take the positive position that there is no god, and they are called strong atheists, or positive atheists (due to the positive assertion). However, this is a tiny minority, most atheists are what most people would describe as an agnostic.

I define myself as an agnostic atheist. Atheism has to do with belief. I am without a theological belief. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. I am without knowledge of god. They are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, first of all, you completely misread my quote. What I said was that there are some atheist extremists who take evolution as proof that God doesn't exist, which is absurd. You may not believe in God, and that's fine, but the existance of evolution does not prove that religion is false. Also, your knowledge of world religions is slim, as the Catholic Church, one of the largest religious institutions in the world, has accepted evolution.

Actually, my knowledge of world religions isn't that poor. The various forms of Christianity are my weakest area of knowledge, particularly with reference to the modern day stuff. I take steps to avoid learning about it :p

And you never mentioned anything about extreme atheists taking evolution as proof that a deity does not exist... at least not in the first post you made. Perhaps you expressed this elsewhere, forgive me if you did as I got a little tired of reading repetitious posts somewhere around page 4.

That's not true. Even most denominational religious people believe in evolution. Look at the Catholic Church. Perhaps the biggest symbol of denominational religions out there, and it accepts evolution.


I did say "typically"... although my statement could've done without the "only". An oversight on my part, sorry.

FYI, half the people in America don't believe in Evolution. Gallup Poll (http://homepage.mac.com/rondavis/iblog/C791896557/E1631725673/)

It's a sad statement about our education infrastructure.

FYI, half the people in America don't believe in Evolution. Gallup Poll (http://homepage.mac.com/rondavis/iblog/C791896557/E1631725673/)

It's a sad statement about our education infrastructure.
That's a sad statement on the power of blind faith.

"In order to be a christian, you must first tear out the eyes of reason." - Martin Luther