NationStates Jolt Archive

Perusing General, I've noticed a lot of people saying "evolution vs. intelligent design: which one is correct," or something to that meaning. Technically, however, there is no contradiction between evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is the idea that species have gradually changed over the cousre of natural history in order to create new species. IDers don't dispute that claim. What they do challenge is natural selection - the idea that these changes were a result of natural processes. IDers say that nature taking its course could not have produced such complex organisms as exist, and thus some divine being must have controlled or "designed" their evolution. This explanation in and of itself explains why ID isn't really technically a scientific theory, but that's neither here nor there (sort of).

Creationism does dispute evolution, but scientists certainly don't. Fossils that are older than 6000 years tend to disprove literal creationism rather well.

Oops, kinda slipped into argument there, but back to the original point: "Creationism v. evolution" and "natural selection v. intelligent design." Unless I'm completely crazy. Which is entirely possible.

Bumper cars.

Bumper cars.
correction, bumper poster

correction, bumper poster
*Pokes*

Bumper sticker :p

Excellent job at argument distillation.

[Sips drink] Mmm, that's good accuracy.

Though I would propose that natural selection states that natural forces are in play with regards to eventual evolution, while ID'er propose a supernatural cause that intentionally and closely mimics natural forces at work.

Perusing General, I've noticed a lot of people saying "evolution vs. intelligent design: which one is correct," or something to that meaning. Technically, however, there is no contradiction between evolution and intelligent design. Evolution is the idea that species have gradually changed over the cousre of natural history in order to create new species. IDers don't dispute that claim. What they do challenge is natural selection - the idea that these changes were a result of natural processes. IDers say that nature taking its course could not have produced such complex organisms as exist, and thus some divine being must have controlled or "designed" their evolution. This explanation in and of itself explains why ID isn't really technically a scientific theory, but that's neither here nor there (sort of).

Creationism does dispute evolution, but scientists certainly don't. Fossils that are older than 6000 years tend to disprove literal creationism rather well.

Oops, kinda slipped into argument there, but back to the original point: "Creationism v. evolution" and "natural selection v. intelligent design." Unless I'm completely crazy. Which is entirely possible.

I hate to do this to you, but you're wrong. They do contradict. Natural selection is a fundamental part of the theory of evolution. In fact, it's what makes evolution still a theory. Scientists have actually observed microevolution in bacteria in the lab. Without natural selection, there is no theory of evolution. Therefore, taking issue with natural selection IS taking issue wiht the theory of evolution. Sorry.

The term "evolution" as defined above does not contradict ID. The Theory of Evolution, which is what is meant in Evilution vs Cretinism debates, does contradict ID, because it speficies the mechanisms--that is why it's a theory, not the "fact of evolution". The mechanisms specified do not include the invisible sky farie undetectably causing the mechanisms to work, much as the Thoery of Universal Gravitation is at odds with the Intelligent Falling hypothesis.

ID has been used to mean everything from "God guided evolution/natural selection" which isn't contradicted by Evolutionary Theory per se, to "God made things directly and in their final form" which most definitely does. Both and everything in between claim the title of ID.

Bumper cars.
Rubber baby buggie bumpers.

The term "evolution" as defined above does not contradict ID. The Theory of Evolution, which is what is meant in Evilution vs Cretinism debates, does contradict ID, because it speficies the mechanisms--that is why it's a theory, not the "fact of evolution". The mechanisms specified do not include the invisible sky farie undetectably causing the mechanisms to work, much as the Thoery of Universal Gravitation is at odds with the Intelligent Falling hypothesis.
I feel obligated to stand up for the Cretans.

The "theory" (really, a hypothesis) that God created the universe is not theirs.