Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

[Sniffles]

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).

 

[Noel]

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.

 

[Samurai Drifter]

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.

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.

 

[Qre:us]

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.

 

[Anentropic IxTx]

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...

 

[Cimarron]

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.

 

[nozflubber]

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.

 

[Prototype]

... 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!

 

[Oleander]

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.

 

[Mole]

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?

 

[EcK]

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?

creativity coupled with technology create Earth's first intelligent life form?

 

[Nihilen]

Such threads really tempt me into trolling.

 

[EcK]

Such threads really tempt me into trolling.

ID do enough pseudo intellectual trolling already.

Try guns, they shine!

 

[Venom]

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.

sit down and shut the **** up.

Darwin is not our god. if darwin was wrong anywhere in his book, it doesnt mean a flying fuck because his book is 200 fucking years old! science has the ability to CHANGE WHEN ITS WRONG! imagine that!? we don't even need darwin anymore. fuck we dont even need fossils! we have the DNA, and thats good enough. believe it or not, our view of evolution HAS changed since darwin. It IS falsefiable, and people like michael behe sit around and whine while they could be doing said research in an effort to prove their shit (as ACTUAL scientists would do).


theistic evolution makes about the least sense of all. if evolution needed God to guide it, then that would mean that he created a universe that was inherently NOT friendly to life! wtf? So god creates this universe thats against life, and only gets life going based on his intervention?

where in theistic evolution do souls come in? did Australopithecus have a soul? did Neanderthals?

If you're going to say, "oh no, all im saying is that i believe creationism has merit, not souls or a personal god or whatever." thats my fucking point. if you dont believe in a personal god/souls, whatever, than saying you believe in creationism is basically meaningless! it means you believe in this ad hoc creator with no intellect, no book, no other purpose than to intelligently design?

if you believe in some Einsteinian 'god' who is basically your word for god, then shut the fuck up. all your doing is confusing the dumb ass religious people who now think you believe in their god. if its not personal, if he cant talk and have a will, then stop fucking calling it god. you believe in plain old energy, get over it.


--im drunk as fuck, so please excuse how much of an asshole i am this evening

 

[simulatedworld]

*ahem*

I think what our dear friend Babylon is trying to say is: what about the 99.9% of species that have existed throughout Earth's history and failed to survive? If every creature is designed specifically by God to evolve and thrive, he's not doing a very good job double-checking his designs, is he?

"Darwin has become his own theology" is a straw man argument against the dumbest of dumb atheists. My favorite anti-Darwin argument is when theists claim that "Darwin even said he was wrong!" etc., their nonsensical black-and-white worldview showing through clear as day. If Darwin was wrong about any one particular aspect of his studies, clearly all of it was totally worthless!

It's the same reason they feel compelled to insist that the Bible is the perfect 100% unalterable word of God, despite the fact that it's been translated into hundreds of different languages which can never line up perfectly with the original text.

The difference here is that science operates in shades of gray; religion shuns them. Science doesn't support evolution just because Darwin said so; it supports evolution because Darwin presented really good empirical evidence for it. Of course he was wrong on various points; that's the whole point of science! Finding ways to modify and improve our understanding by discarding outdated beliefs.

Religion does exactly the opposite. Religion makes a fundamental assumption about the metaphysical nature of the universe and then backpedals until it can come up with a worldview that justifies natural phenomena via its own arbitrarily chosen principles. There's a difference.

 

[Qre:us]

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.

Not the same comparison. By a loooooooooong shot.

It's not even a question of how literally we take the position of creationism and/or intelligent design. Or metaphysics or any of that. The issue with these two sides starts even at a more basic level. As it stands presently, the form Creationism and Intelligent Degisn has taken, shows itself as the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.

Intelligent Design or Creationism, at present, their foundation is as REACTIONARY to the theory of evolution. One example, ridiculousness of irreducible complexity. Thus, their WHOLE position is trying to 'disprove'/counter aspects of evolution, which would then....(as per their 'logic').... 'prove' theirs. They haven't even *justified* why if NOT evolution, by default, it means evidence for ID....that's flawed 'logic' right there. NOT Science.


Disprove other, to prove me. Um...first you gotta establish why *me*. PROVE ME.

The theory of Big Bang does not practice such intellectual dishonesty, nor such flaw in presentation of argument. While disproving of counter theory happens within this debate, there is still a sound justification of *why* Big Bang (and it is not on the premise of 'cuz it's NOT the other').

 

[Venom]

Not the same comparison. By a loooooooooong shot.

It's not even a question of how literally we take the position of creationism and/or intelligent design. Or metaphysics or any of that. The issue with these two sides starts even at a more basic level. As it stands presently, the form Creationism and Intelligent Degisn has taken, shows itself as the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.

Intelligent Design or Creationism, at present, their foundation is as REACTIONARY to the theory of evolution. One example, ridiculousness of irreducible complexity. Thus, their WHOLE position is trying to 'disprove'/counter aspects of evolution, which would then....(as per their 'logic').... 'prove' theirs. They haven't even *justified* why if NOT evolution, by default, it means evidence for ID....that's flawed 'logic' right there. NOT Science.


Disprove other, to prove me. Um...first you gotta establish why *me*. PROVE ME.

The theory of Big Bang does not practice such intellectual dishonesty, nor such flaw in presentation of argument. While disproving of counter theory happens within this debate, there is still a sound justification of *why* Big Bang (and it is not on the premise of 'cuz it's NOT the other').

chaos inflationary theory is WAY more technical than ID. It actually has scientists working FOR it (unlike ID, which only tries to attack evo without doing anything to justify ID)

 

[Oleander]

Bugger knows what Babylon was trying to say but s/he admitted to being as drunk as a skunk. I fear that the religious [non-]argument has become just as much a convenient way for believers in a scientific orthodoxy that calls itself Darwinist but has little to do with what he actually said, to dismiss all other scientific questioning their orthodoxy. Each side is as intransigent as the other and determined to complicate its preferred belief in like adding ever more epicycles to the Ptolemaic cosmos instead of allowing that other ways of investigating it do not amount to heresy against their preferred belief.

 

[Venom]

Bugger knows what Babylon was trying to say but s/he admitted to being as drunk as a skunk. I fear that the religious [non-]argument has become just as much a convenient way for believers in a scientific orthodoxy that calls itself Darwinist but has little to do with what he actually said, to dismiss all other scientific questioning their orthodoxy. Each side is as intransigent as the other and determined to complicate its preferred belief in like adding ever more epicycles to the Ptolemaic cosmos instead of allowing that other ways of investigating it do not amount to heresy against their preferred belief.

1. as i said, it doesnt matter what darwin said at this point, we have all moved on. evolution does no such thing to dismiss criticism that has scientific merit. case in point is how much HAS CHANGED since darwin's first proposals.

2. evolution is not a religion, because it IS falsifiable. michael behe COULD prove something such as bacterium flagellum to be irreducibly complex through scientifically acceptable methods. he however, has yet to do so, not because evolution is unfalsifiable, but because he simply has not presented the evidence.

3. if you are going to argue over why "is it only acceptable to accept criticism that has scientific merit?", then we could be here a while...

4. religion has no method. this is the main problem with religion. there is no convergence on any "truth" using religious means, because there is no method that has been refined to "find" anything resembling "truth" on a consistent and convergent basis.

 

[nozflubber]

bleh....

I swear to Logos, I'm gonna go through my huge ass Aristotle book and point out how you can have creationism backed by philosophical/scientific thought and not blind religious zealotry.

Sometimes, you just gotta break it down Barney style, I guess.