Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism

[Qre:us]

Let's look at your post: I can't even take THAT literally.

the literal is slightly better than the "liberal interpretations" because all you can do is take the authors at their own word.

You used the term "word" instead of "words."
Hmm. I guess they all had the same word, rather than each having separate "words."

Actually, the words 'their own' suggests an individual thought/separate 'word' by each author. The difference between pluralization of the word, 'word' vs 'word(s)', would be more indicative of one collective idea/word, versus, many different p.o.v....still all within one individual author. /anal

But, to elaborate on Babylon Candle's thought, I guess it comes the question of how to study theology? If there can be both a literal and a liberal interpretation...moving beyond the philosophical...to applicability (which is the case for a lot of theists - i.e., amounts to a certain adherence/practice in their every day lives).....how does one reconcile that whatever interpretation they are believing is fitting? Is it about experts? Is it about different thoughts and picking and choosing what fits best with one's own inherent ideology (is there even an inherent ideology?)? Or, is it following the masses? Or, default, picking one at a time, and finally settling on the one that works 'best'?

 

[Qre:us]

The discourse between proponents of Intelligent Design and proponents of Evolution are amusing to me as each side attempts to understand and discuss the issues while using a different paradigm.

Exactly!!! Hence the reason why it is ridiculous to bring Intelligent Design into the realm of science.

Science makes NO comment, either way, on the supernatural. Existence or non-existence.

 

[Mitzy]

jesus loves you all either way

 

[Qre:us]

jesus loves you all either way

So do pretty unicorns! They love everyone, but, I don't think Jesus loved the unicorns.

 

[EcK]

So do pretty unicorns! They love everyone

 

[Mitzy]

unicorns dont exist you stupid stupid man >=0

 

[EcK]

unicorns dont exist you stupid stupid man >=0

U can't prove it!
I win by default !!!

 

[hopeseed]

What's your take on this controversy?
[And I think I indeed enjoy provocative debate for the sake of it.]

It would benefit all sides and everyone in between to realize that we all don't have to agree.
Beyond that, I think there is science (defined by one thing and that is when testing an idea it follows the scientific method, that's it) If it does not follow the scientific method, then it is another way of figuring something out.

It is of course good for a society to be able to think about things in different ways. But if it does not follow the scientific method it is not science, it's something else.

So to creationist, I say, why do you need to call yourself scientific? You’re religion, it's ok, just be in the category of religion. It is silly when people can’t just disagree and let it be!

 

[Qre:us]

THIS IS WHY WE SAY, "YES" TO DRUGS, KIDDIES!!!

 

[Mitzy]

jesus has the ganja

 

[EcK]

And this concludes today's talk.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Creationism - Irrefutable evidence of the evolution of stupidity!

 

[Lark]

I dont believe in any of those theories, there are category errors going on there. A little like getting a sociologist to disassemble and reassemble your car. Different disciplines, different purposes, different, different, different.

 

[Blank]

Oddly enough, EcK's post seems to predate RaptorWizard's by over three years.

Why the hell did you bother to necro this thread with a more than underwhelming picture?

 

[sprinkles]

It should be Creationism vs. abiogensis, or Intelligent Design vs. reducible complexity.

ID and Evolution aren't opposed. Nor are Creationism and Evolution.

Abiogensis is the concept that life arose by itself through natural events. Creationism tends to oppose this.

Intelligent Design opposes reducible complexity. Basically all the components of something need to be able to happen on their own. ID has mostly been shot down because given examples of irreducible complexity have all turned out to be actually reducible to smaller components that could occur on their own. They thought that if something is irreducibly complex, such that it must exist as a whole structure with complex parts or not at all, then it requires intelligent design. Problem is that things don't work that way.

The last thing that got solved to put down the defense of ID was the flagella of microorganisms - they believed that the flagella was too complex to arise out of more basic components and must have been designed. This too was eventually found to be false.

Edit: also Creationism and ID tend to imply each other but they are not the same. This is because ID states specifically that certain things must have been designed to exist. Creationism doesn't have this exact specification because it's possible that something didn't have to be designed or consciously created, yet still was anyway.

 

[ygolo]

If someone provides a specific, self-consistent, testable definition for "irreducible complexity". Then we can talk about it as a scientific concept. For the most part, all I see the ID community do is point to something and say that is irreducibly complex (ATP synthase was one, but homologues for it, and some sense of its evolution were known for this even before ID people pointed to it).

RNA world and simulations regarding the origins of life is an area of research (although I find it rather speculative at the moment) I am interested in. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the competing theories I find favorable regarding how life originated on earth. If pansmermia is true, than it leaves open the question of how life originated to begin with.

 

[Mole]

We now know there are more planets in the universe than stars, so it is likely life has begun on countless planets. And we know that life will be ordered by natural selection.

At the same time we know on planet Earth that some protestants and most muslims believe in creationism or intelligent design.

Both can't be right so we look to the evidence using our reason. And what do we find?

We find the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming and the evidence for creationism or intelligent design is underwhelming.

And what we have yet to discover is how life began on this planet and all the other planets.

Perhaps a clue is that all life is made from the very stuff of the universe so perhaps we will find life arises naturally all over the universe, and then proceeds by natural selection.

 

[sprinkles]

If someone provides a specific, self-consistent, testable definition for "irreducible complexity". Then we can talk about it as a scientific concept. For the most part, all I see the ID community do is point to something and say that is irreducibly complex (ATP synthase was one, but homologues for it, and some sense of its evolution were known for this even before ID people pointed to it).

RNA world and simulations regarding the origins of life is an area of research (although I find it rather speculative at the moment) I am interested in. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the competing theories I find favorable regarding how life originated on earth. If pansmermia is true, than it leaves open the question of how life originated to begin with.

Yes. People just want to believe, that's all.

Some people will say "Where are the transitional fossils?" then you go and find a transitional fossil and they will say "See?? Now you need even more transitional fossils! There's TWO gaps now!"

When H. sapiens idaltu was discovered and classified as a modern transitional human, one organization went so far as to say that "These weren't humans. They were animals that looked like humans." and justified it by saying "You classified them as Homo sapiens idaltu. Since they aren't Homo sapiens sapiens, they aren't human."

 

[WALMART]

:deadhorse:


i really hope there's a graphic for that

no? darn.

 

[BlueGray]

:deadhorse:


i really hope there's a graphic for that

no? darn.

:beathorse :