User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 162

  1. #61
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Drifter View Post
    Bottom line is, humans didn't evolve from apes, humans are apes. Believing that species were created separately, or that the Earth is 10,000 years old, is a small step above believing the Earth is flat.
    There is a distinction between Old Earth Creationists(OEC) and Young Earth Creationists(YEC).

  2. #62
    Senior Member Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Regarding education, I think teachers should teach both concepts. The whole 'anti-intelligent design' argument at schools worries me purely on the basis of accessibility of information. Forbidding it cultivates censorship. It's certainly a modern belief and I think teachers should address it due to the significance within America. For example, consider the strides astronomy has made when you compare the Copernican model with the Geocentric model.

    On a personal level, I think most individuals will rationally favour evolution over intelligent design.
    I may be bested in battle, but I shall never be defeated.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Samurai Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    There is a distinction between Old Earth Creationists(OEC) and Young Earth Creationists(YEC).
    True. I respect Old Earth Creationists quite a bit more than YEC's, but their viewpoint is still unsupported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noel View Post
    Regarding education, I think teachers should teach both concepts. The whole 'anti-intelligent design' argument at schools worries me purely on the basis of accessibility of information. Forbidding it cultivates censorship. It's certainly a modern belief and I think teachers should address it due to the significance within America. For example, consider the strides astronomy has made when you compare the Copernican model with the Geocentric model.

    On a personal level, I think most individuals will rationally favour evolution over intelligent design.
    That's great, but just make sure Intelligent Design is not taught in a science classroom, as science, because it simply is not. It would, however, be perfectly fitted to a Religion unit in a social studies class.
    Hands in the air, it's a robbery.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anentropic IxTx View Post
    What's your take on this controversy?
    [And I think I indeed enjoy provocative debate for the sake of it.]
    The fact that it is a controversy in the first place makes me :steam:. Simply put, it's incomparable. One is science, the other, a delusion.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Anentropic IxTx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    LII?
    Posts
    268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The fact that it is a controversy in the first place makes me :steam:. Simply put, it's incomparable. One is science, the other, a delusion.
    I know...

  6. #66
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    In general response to the OP, to me Intelligent Design (as a concept, with nothing else attached to it) is much more interesting to think about than Biblical Creationism.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  7. #67
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    The fact that it is a controversy in the first place makes me :steam:. Simply put, it's incomparable. One is science, the other, a delusion.
    Question: Is the Big Bang also a delusion? If not, then the notion of creationism has scientific merit, you just need to separate the literary form of creationism presented in the bible and interpret it in a metaphysical way: The Universe we now inhabit wasn't always like this - it had a beginning and it will have an end.

  8. #68
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    ... The Universe we now inhabit wasn't always like this - it had a beginning and it will have an end.
    Will this end really only be another beginning?... Of course that would be based on the theory that the Universe is like a donut infinitely folding in on itself, then there can really be no end or beginning, just now... The way it should be!
    ... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

  9. #69
    Member Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    86

    Default

    There's no incompatibility between divine creation and evolution to the extent that when 'devout' atheist Fred Hoyle contemptuously invented the term Big Bang it was to dismiss it as "Genesis dressed up as science". It happens I was reading the Vatican's view on this this afternoon: God creates intelligible rational universe which then performs functions expected of it (including diveinely-guided evolution) while God is also a permanent Creator responsible for continuously 'keeping existence existing' and anybody who treats the bible like a science book has to believe that the world is a disk (or possibly square) in a bubble surrounded by infinite water. Not even the loopiest creationists go that far!

    There's nothing illogical about that position. I don't happen to hold, it, I prefer something more mystical where 'God' is whatever comes as a greater abstraction than Energy - Potential, Essence perhaps - but not a 'person' and 'creation' in the sense of perception as physical form is an illusion created by senses trapped in that physicality. See Qabbala, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism for variations on the same theme.

    I keep wondering if this silly debate might be being kept going because scientists rarely like dissent any more than religious believers do and Darwin needs a lot of stretching and twisting to fit everything now known about evolutionary development. Even he admitted that sexual selection often over-rode random selection so that sometimes the survivors are not really very 'fit' at all. Some creatures too become so specialised that (as one person who worked with endangered species once joked) they deserve to become extinct because they try so hard to do so. The Giant Panda is one and some kinds of Koala share its fondess for a diet of one species that itself likes specialised growing conditions, and reluctance to mate.

    Then there is Darwin and the Eyeless Cave Fish. It's easy to see Darwin accounting for development, less so for atrophy. Lamarckian evolution was originally much more a negative theory baed on the loss of unused faculties. In one of those remarks that's had its intention completely turned round (like Schroedinger's Cat). Lamarck himself said that that he did not mean that the blacksmith's son necessarily inherited the blacksmith's muscles.

    Darwin in a form he would probably never recognise has become its own kind of theocracy it is heresy to question or add to. I think we should be looking to a variety of evolutionary mechanisms and moving from 19th century focus on the individual (or even below individual to the gene) to a more modern one considering evolution of holistic interacting environments. Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting ideas about morphic field too. Has anybody noticed in fact how closely competitive Natural Selection agrees with Laissez-faire Capitalist theory of the day? That vcan't be coincidence - it was a form of background putlook.

  10. #70
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    First we created our gods and our gods created us.

    Now we create technology and technology creates us.

    In both cases the process is unconscious.

    The next step is to make the process of creativity conscious.

    But once creativity becomes conscious, what is the next step?

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Frosty in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 03:44 PM
  2. Intelligent Design
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO