For awhile now we've been seeing an on-going war between scientific thinkers who view natural selection and evolution as the accepted theory of life on earth and the people who favor the ridiculous, yet strongly held belief in Creationism - which is basically the literal events of the book of Genesis.
Well since the Creationism idea wasn't taking hold, despite years of politicking and sneaky things like putting disclaimer stickers on textbooks and such, the creationist minded folks came up with a new cause de celebre - Intelligent Design.
In a nutshell, Intelligent Design postulates that aspects of life are too complex to have come about by natural selection or evolutionary science or biology and thus must have an intelligent design source. ID supporter are quick to say (in an effort to deflect creationism in sheeps clothing attacks) that ID does not specify what the intelligence is. (Let's come back to that)
So basically, these folks cannot believe that life evolved from a complex interaction between natural forces, but have no problem believing that some guy went "abracadabra" and made everything.
The concept of ID requires some form of "higher" intelligence to have designed life on earth. So who or what is the intelligence? By their own assertions, it could be God, Zeus, Hera, Klingons, pink unicorns or blue monkeys. But somewhere along the line some form of intelligence must have designed everything because we can't currently answer every minute question. Well part of that is true, but part of it isn't.
Natural Selection is a theory that has massive support and mountains of observable data to support it. ID does not. All it has is some unanswered questions that some folks have decided require an intelligent designer vs. just questions we have as yet been unable to answer.
Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that people widely believed that illness was based on an imbalance of humors and that bleeding was the way to fix it. Of course this was before bacteria and germs were discovered so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Today, of course, we know differently, but only after time and science caught up enough to answer the question.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - billy
very well put. if there is an argument, it is within evolution itself as to the fine details of the theory, not between id and evolution. id proponents want to insert themselves into the debate but they have no theory to offer.
2 - Kurt
I invite everyone to check out http://www.venganza.org/index.htm
The true intelligence behind ID is The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
For proof of Unintelligent Design, I submit my (thankfully now absent) appendix, your wisdom teeth, and the generally idiotic design of our bodies.
3 - billy
i like the logic of the id proponent:
its too much of a stretch to think that complexity developed over billions of years of interactions, where there is a ton of evidence that it did
but is is feasible to an id proponent to belive:
an invisible spaghetti monster snapped his fingers and created it all spontaneously, even though this is absurd and contrary to evidence.
4 - apollos
Creation Research
5 - alethinos59
What is so sad in this debate - if you can call it that - is that a lot of people, including mentally and emotionally "mature" Christians don't see this as an "either/or" situation.
God's a pretty clever fellow. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that He could set everything in motion, knowing the outcome of things. No need to snap fingers. No need to wave a wand. Since God, by definition is beyond the scope of Existence He is seeing things we can never hope to see.
The issue then becomes simply a matter of Materialistic Philosophy or not. In other words, do you believe that there is Spirit suffusing Existence or not?
There are plenty who accept that evolution is correct, but disagree with strict materialists who insist that Humans are "simply" a happy accident of evolution.
They believe that humans DID evolve, because the evidence points to that. However, they contend that Human Beings have "always" been human - i.e., beings with a rational soul - no matter what our bodies might have been like...
The point is this: science WITHOUT religion is base materialism... and religion WITHOUT science is base superstition...
6 - Rudicus
Is there something wrong with base materialism?
I see where you are going with this, but I just come back to Ockham's Razor.
The theory of natural selection could exist with God - as in God used evolution to create, but it is perfectly fine without it, so why do we need to add that extra layer in - especially for unproven supernatural beings.
When considering ID or creationism, without God or supreme being or flying spaghetti monsters, there is no theory - it's all gone.
7 - Rudicus
And apollos, it is my practice to not take seriously any arguments whose premise involves the phrases "possibly" "most likely" "certainly" "would make sense that" or "must have been."
Thanks for the link though - very entertaining.
8 - Bird of Paradise
After careful observation Aristotle concluded that maggots (and, subsequently, flies) emerged as living things from the non-living substance of dung. This theory, popular within science, endured all the way into the late 18th- early 19th centuries.
Ironically, modern macro-evolutionary theory is dependent upon the exact same theory.....only hidden behind a longer time-frame of hundreds of millions/billions of years.
I suppose anything is possible if you believe in it strongly enough. Oh....I'm sorry....now I really AM confused....It's supposed to be the ID folks who are bringing religious belief into science....right?
9 - Duane
I love it when Christians use sarcasm in their "arguments."
10 - billy
Ironically, modern macro-evolutionary theory is dependent upon the exact same theory.....only hidden behind a longer time-frame of hundreds of millions/billions of years.
wrong, this has nothing to do with evolution, except in the warped mind of a person who does not understand it.
and exactly how would ID explain this?
oh yeah the invisible spaghetti monster did it by snapping his fingers.
11 - Taloran
Apollos in comment 4 links to The Institution for Creation Research.. Top right of the front page is what appears to be their mission statement:
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in "the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:4,5).
I don't think this is site is likely to sway the minds of either the ID believers or the evolutionists.
Not sure I much care for "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" and I certainly don't want them teaching that to my children in public school.
12 - apollos
Here's another one for you:
Evolution--Impossible.
It's sad how evolutionists can be so arrogant (no sarcasm intended).
13 - Antfreeze
The ID argument says that the universe is so slanted toward the existence of life that a creator must have made it. If any of thousands of different variables were even slightly different, life could not have arose. The smartest scientist I've ever heard of, don't know his/her name said, but if any of these variables WERE any different, we wouldn't be here to note the fact.
14 - Duane
It's funny that Bird of Paradise would cite Aristotle to try to make a counter-argument to science, since he was one of the early proponents of Intelligent Design. If you're trying to convince us that Aristotle was silly, at least be consistent.
15 - billy
if evolution is impossible, why is it used every day.
its like saying, the earth being round is impossible, in the face of scierntists using that fact to do things succesfully.
it cant be denied, because it is used in the lab every day and it qorks.
anyone telling you different is on an ignorant rant and cant provide a shred of evidence to support their theory.
16 - gonzo marx
here we go again....
go to your favorite source to look up the definitions of the following...
postulate
axiom
hypothesis
theory(scientific)
science
metaphysics
evidence
proof
ok?...now following the bouncing ball here...it's NOT that difficult
evolution is a scientific Theory, as such it IS proper to be taught, while explaining and defining the terms and limitations, in a high school science class
ID is an unfounded, and unproven..perhaps even unprovable, hypothesis that belongs in a Metaphysics class, but NOT in HS science(biology specifically) ...since it has NOT passed the rigors fo scientific review
Evolution = Science
ID = Metaphysics
nuff said?
Excelsior!
17 - Rudicus
While I hate to propagate websites that are not based in reality - I do have to send folks back to Apollos' site for this:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2465
In it is a discussion of how Noah's Ark could have worked with all those animals.
Detractors from the Bible story of the Flood have scoffed at the idea of just a few people carrying out all the duties of animal care for a year. Without a doubt, it would have been a daunting task considering the number of animals and the frightening circumstances, but would it have been impossible?
Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision. Noah was told to take two of each "kind" of animal on board, probably represented by today's "families" or "genera" rather than species. For instance, the dog "kind" includes many species; wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat.
Isn't this taking apologetics just a bit too far - despite the fact that it presupposes that the story of noah's ark is real and then it makes a case for it based on fuzzy reasoning and wild conjecture.
If this is the type of "proof" and "science" and "facts" we can look forward to on this site - I don't think we need to really look into it any further. But thanks though this site made my day shiny!
18 - apollos
It is easy to understand why evolutionists can be so hostile to creationists. Because if creationism is true the consequences can be overwhelming.
We've yet to hear any sensible arguments made with respect to the above links. Or shall we just play the silly game of semantics+definitions+hostility = arrogance...
Peace.
19 - Taloran
Apollos, that second link you posted goes to a different page of the same Institution for Creation Research you linked to previously. Those of us who dismissed the original link out of hand, attributing it to the ravings of some medievalists trying to explain lightning and other misunderstood forces of nature, are likely to have similarly dismissed the second one.
20 - Rudicus
Well said Taloran, and frankly I'll take arrogance over ignorance any day of the week.
Also, and I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not in any way hostile, I just hold rampant lunacy and hypocrisy represented as truth in very low regard.
21 - apollos
Yes, very well put gentlemen.
You just proved my equation.
So much for an intelligent discussion.
22 - billy
apollos, what do you have to offer , what is your theory? how can we test it in science class as we do evolution every day? ill bet you dont answer other than to make a crazy story about noah's ark or link to a religious site.
23 - Taloran
Apollos, people of faith have as little chance of convincing the rest of us as we do of convincing them. The difference is we don't usually try.
And as for "intelligent discussion," you've posted two links, a bible-related threat, an unfounded equation, and a reference to said equation. There does not appear to be any intelligent discussion coming out of you.
I looked over the ICR's website briefly. I dismissed what they're proselytizing, as they cannot back up any of their statements without referring to the Judeo-Christian god or the good book, in neither of which do I believe. There is no scientific evidence for either creationism nor ID - it's all a bunch of faith-based hooey. The IDers mantra of "I don't have to prove it, because I believe it" does not wash in an intelligent discussion.
I do not mean to dissuade you from your beliefs - you're welcome to them. But don't pretend that you're holding intelligent discourse here.
24 - Rudicus
I'm confused, what would the intelligent discussion be about? That was the entire point of my article - that the Intelligent Design pseudotheory has no scientific merit.
Subsequently your link to a site that likewise has no real scientific merit does not lead the discussion anywhere.
If you can present anything to support your claim that is based on the scientific method or a reasonable preponderance of the evidence we could go from there, but I didn't see anything that would meet that criteria on that site.
And for the record, you have gone a long way to help establish that ID is creationism in disguise and should be treated as such.
25 - velvet evolver
Did God make allergies?
Did God make a few people drop dead so he could watch the rest of sneeze in the middle of an arguement?
Cuz if he did he's kind of a rotten bastard, isn't he?