Censoring God: Why Is Science Establishment Threatened By Intelligent Design?

[nvxplorer]

I have to agreee with Bible Defender's assessment.

Thus far I have not seen evidence of transitional forms. The ones they do cite are sketchy and even scientists don't all agree on what they are. Problem is, nobody can prove it, and until they do, evolution will just go on as "evidence" with no real substantial proof to back it up.

Intelligence could only have derived from an intelligent creator. The intelligence in the complexity of all life indicates an intelligent creator.

SackLunch,

Whether we have found transitionals is actually irrelevant (though we have more than enough to support the theory).

The simple inescapable fact is that life forms were very different 10 million years ago, and different still 100 million years ago. This fact cannot be denied. There is absolutely no evidence that God spontaneously created species after species at different points in time. And in fact, there is no biblical account for this either.

Life forms change over time. This is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains how this has occurred. Even if current theory is incorrect, the fact remains that life forms change over time.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I have to agreee with Bible Defender's assessment.

Thus far I have not seen evidence of transitional forms.

Are you literally blind or are you lying?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#bony

Transition from fishes to first amphibians

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

Transitions among amphibians

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph2

Transition from amphibians to first reptiles

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1

Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

Transition from reptiles to first birds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird

Evolutionary Transitionals From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds

Transitional Forms of Horses

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm#Horses

Transitional Forms of Whales

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

Transitional Human Fossils

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm#Transitionals

Intelligence could only have derived from an intelligent creator. The intelligence in the complexity of all life indicates an intelligent creator.

This is where your ignorance in the matter severely hinders your ability to make such assertions with any credibility whatsoever.

 

[SackLunch]

I’ve read ID. I’m guessing you have not. It ultimately suggests that complex structures, such as ourselves, were created by design. This is nothing more than thinly veiled theistic propaganda dressed up to look like a scientific theory. It uses a lot of scientific wording (almost solely when talking about other actual scientific theories) and fails to give a testable alternate explanation for the complexity of life. It’s pure religious propaganda designed for the purpose of weaseling into the school curriculum.

I suggest you read up on it as well as the Theory of Evolution. Any serious inquiry will show you how wrong you are.

[/b]

As a side note, I recommend you read Sun Tsu’s the art of war. It’s where the quote you so horribly mimed came from. It may do you some good to follow your own advice.

Hey, I thought I did pretty good on that quote.

There's alot more to ID than what you are saying. I disagree that it's propaganda. What I've studied from ID is actually very scientifically-based. I suppose you'd have to take more time to parse through those sites, but I can understand that people don't have all this time in the world to do so.

Nobody ever claimed ID is athesitic. Of course it is religious-based to some degree. And my concerns still remain about the idea that it should be taught in school. So just don't go around thinkin' that crazy 'ol fundie SackLunch is trying to thinly veil propaganda to try to get religion taught in schools. It's not true. And like I said, the likelihood of Biblical Creationism being taught in the schools is very low anyhow, unfortunately. Although it most certainly WAS a part of the school curriculum in days past (days WAY past).

AND I think also that politically, it would take a LONG time with LOTS of infighting if it ever does come to pass.

 

[Tomk80]

Intelligence could only have derived from an intelligent creator. The intelligence in the complexity of all life indicates an intelligent creator.

Think this statement through before you use it. It can only lead to infinite regression.

People are intelligent. Intelligence can only be derived from an intelligent creator. So people are created by a 'creator'. This creator is intelligent, because intelligence can only be derived from an intelligent creator. So this creator must have a creator. The creator's creator must be intelligent, so it must be created an intelligent creator. This creator's creator's creator must be intelligent, so it must also be created by an intelligent creator. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Wotan]

Hey, I thought I did pretty good on that quote.

Of course it is religious-based to some degree..

there you go you have blown your arguement already, religion doesnt come into science at all, it is not testable and you cannot get predictions out of it! the point of creationists making up ID was to try and get science on side to give proof, you cannot start scientific theories on religion, it...isnt...science...

 

[SackLunch]

SackLunch,

Whether we have found transitionals is actually irrelevant (though we have more than enough to support the theory).

The simple inescapable fact is that life forms were very different 10 million years ago, and different still 100 million years ago. This fact cannot be denied. There is absolutely no evidence that God spontaneously created species after species at different points in time. And in fact, there is no biblical account for this either.

Life forms change over time. This is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains how this has occurred. Even if current theory is incorrect, the fact remains that life forms change over time.

I personally believe the finding of transitional forms is essential to the evolutionary theory. It's what evolution is based on. If it can be proven without a doubt that birds came from dinosaurs, humans came from apelike creatures, alligators came from dinosaurs, etc. - then okay, we have something there we can prove. But thus far, the only real proof of speciation we have is a sudden abrupt appearance of species as recorded in the Book of Genesis.

I agree that life forms change over time. However, these changes only apply within the species.

 

[belladonic-haze]

CENSORING GOD
Why is the science establishment so threatened by the intelligent design movement?

Because ID is rubbish???

 

[A4C]

I personally believe the finding of transitional forms is essential to the evolutionary theory. It's what evolution is based on. If it can be proven without a doubt that birds came from dinosaurs, humans came from apelike creatures, alligators came from dinosaurs, etc. - then okay, we have something there we can prove. But thus far, the only real proof of speciation we have is a sudden abrupt appearance of species as recorded in the Book of Genesis.

I agree that life forms change over time. However, these changes only apply within the species.

Exacly. Again demonstrating that the evidence supports ID and not evolution. It is only bad science that would say otherwise

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

There's alot more to ID than what you are saying.

Really there’s not. 98% of the ID “Theory” can be summed up as “Beef with current explanations for the complexity of life”. The remaining 2% is a rather non-scientific proposal that can be summed up as “Since we have beef with all the current explanations then we propose that there was an intelligent designer involved”. There is no way to test this lay “theory” though (since it’s not scientific).

I disagree that it's propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da (n.)

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

Yes it is.

What I've studied from ID is actually very scientifically-based.

Show me.

 

[random_guy]

Are you sure science is scared by ID? It seems if anything, religion is scared by science. You said that ID was scientific and this site (ICR) was an example. However, did you read their beliefs?

1. The Bible consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
2. All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the creation week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

How can it be scientific if it already has the conclusion that the Bible has no errors whatsoever. Who would be more likely to ignore evidence, scientists, who try to come up with new theories and destroy old ones, or ICR, who must maintain that the Bible can never be false, less their beliefs are destroyed?

What about their preconceived belief that evolution in any form is false since they are required to follow the Bible and believe in special creation? How is it scientific to start from this viewpoint and do research in only this viewpoint?

Look at what I bolded. It's religion's way of saying don't accept science. Religious fundamentalists are threatened by science, not the other way around.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exacly. Again demonstrating that the evidence supports ID and not evolution. It is only bad science that would say otherwise

And it's already been shown that "bad science" is defined as "showing ID to be wrong".

 

[AElfwineNerevar]

12 pages and still no coherent explanation of the tenets of ID beyond the fact that the universe was designed by an "Intelligence"....hmmmmm.

 

[A4C]

Religious fundamentalists are threatened by science, not the other way around.

I am not threatened by good science, in fact I welcome it. I am however "put off" by bad science.

 

[Self Improvement]

And of course Literal Interpretation of the Bible Defender never answered my question.

 

[Self Improvement]

I am not threatened by good science, in fact I welcome it. I am however "put off" by bad science.

Than why are you a YEC?

...still wondering about those sinkholes on the moon...

 

[Elduran]

I am not threatened by good science, in fact I welcome it. I am however "put off" by bad science.

And of course the only distinction is that "bad science" disagrees with your world view, right? Other than that, the scientific method behind all real science is the same.

 

[nvxplorer]

I am not threatened by good science, in fact I welcome it. I am however "put off" by bad science.

You are threatened by anything that contradicts your narrow interpretation of an ancient myth. Any such contradictions are labelled bad science by you.

You should move to the US and join AiG. I hear they need some good hands at the new creation museum.

 

[wowbagger]

Evolution cannot explain human consciousness, human altruism, or the reasoning power of the human brain.

You may want to read up on the mountains of research into Evolutionary Psychology done over the last 150 years or so.

Maybe you just missed it, so here's an intro page: http://www.hbes.com/intro_to_field.htm

Have fun!!

 

[Nightson]

Because it needs to be said again...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#bony

Transition from fishes to first amphibians

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1

Transitions among amphibians

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph2

Transition from amphibians to first reptiles

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1

Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

Transition from reptiles to first birds

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird

Evolutionary Transitionals From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm#Birds

Transitional Forms of Horses

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm#Horses

Transitional Forms of Whales

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

Transitional Human Fossils

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm#Transitionals

 

[UberLutheran]

As I've stated before, the fact of intelligent design is self-evident. We are without excuse.

which back up your statements.

The can include:

- bibliographies of specific articles and books
- specific web sites of authoritative sources who have done research in the area which supports your theses

Stating that intelligent design is 'self-evident' is a statement of faith, much as saying God has pre-ordained certain people for salvation and those whom God has not pre-ordained for salvation are irrevocably damned is a statement of faith, or the individual makes an individual decision for or against God is a statement of faith.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm not interested in statements of faith. What I would like to know is if you can provide specific sources which provide substantial validation of your thesis statements.