Creationism VS Intellegent Design

[JohnR7]

The United States Supreme Court has determined that Creationism can not be taught in our Government run school systems.

Now the new issue is can Intellegent Design, or Intellegent Designer be taught in our Government school systems.

Ohio just settled this issue by saying Intellegent Design can be taught but it will not be required. It will not be a part of the test required by students to graduate.

Just what is the difference between "Intellegent design" and "Creationsim"?

Do you think the State Boards decision on their guidelines for 1.8 million students is a victory of a defeat for either side of this issue?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/846372.asp

 

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The United States Supreme Court has determined that Creationism can not be taught in our Government run school systems.

Now the new issue is can Intellegent Design, or Intellegent Designer be taught in our Government school systems.

Ohio just settled this issue by saying Intellegent Design can be taught but it will not be required. It will not be a part of the test required by students to graduate.

A wise decision, IMO. Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) Is not even valid science. The logic is flawed and the conclusions are unprovable.

Just what is the difference between "Intellegent design" and "Creationsim"?

IDT replaces the word "God" with "An Intelligent Designer," and leaves out Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Serpent. Beyond that, there's no significant difference between the two. That's why most schools reject the theory: They see it as little more than re-packaging the same old Creationism in pseudoscientific jargon.

Do you think the State Boards decision on their guidelines for 1.8 million students is a victory of a defeat for either side of this issue?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/846372.asp

 

Nobody's doing a victory dance yet; it's far from over....

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
IDT replaces the word "God" with "An Intelligent Designer," and leaves out Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Serpent.

Now that is interesting, just as soon as one side of the debate "leaves out" Adam & Eve. Science decides to pick it up. Now they are the ones that are teaching there was a "Adam" & "Eve". Even if Eve has been around for 120,000 years and Adam was rather new on the scene being only 30 or 40,000 years old.

A wise decision, IMO. Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) Is not even valid science. The logic is flawed and the conclusions are unprovable.

In what way is the logic "flawed"? Because the people who promote "Intelligent Design Theory" do not have enough evidence to back up their claim?

If that is the case, then we need to determine a universal standard as to what is and what is not acceptable "evidence". There are a lot of theorys out there being taught, with little or no evidence. Some are pure speculation.

I am not saying the evidence is not there. It just appears we need a litmus test to determine what is valid and sufficent evidence and what is not.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Now that is interesting, just as soon as one side of the debate "leaves out" Adam & Eve. Science decides to pick it up.

Since when does science "pick up" intelligent design simply because which higher power is involved is not specified (even though we know which higher power is meant to be specified just looking at the ID proponents)?

From the article: "Intelligent design supporters deny that, saying that no designer is specified."

Call it another name, but it's still the same thing.

 Now they are the ones that are teaching there was a "Adam" & "Eve". Even if Eve has been around for 120,000 years and Adam was rather new on the scene being only 30 or 40,000 years old.

I didn't know science was teaching that a specific first modern female human and first modern male human existed.

Last time I checked, in prehistoric archaeology and evolutionary biology it was being taught that populations of primates evolved into other primates and so on until modern humans.

In what way is the logic "flawed"? Because the people who promote "Intelligent Design Theory" do not have enough evidence to back up their claim?

The logic is flawed because it assumes a priori that God exists. It is not a scientific theory--it is a religious belief.

If that is the case, then we need to determine a universal standard as to what is and what is not acceptable "evidence". There are a lot of theorys out there being taught, with little or no evidence. Some are pure speculation.

Sounds like someone is hinting about evolution.

This same someone also said that he doesn't want to know anything about "darwinism"/evolution. If you don't want to know anything about evolution and don't learn anything about it, how can you accurately evaluate evolution as a theory with "little or no evidence"?

I am not saying the evidence is not there. It just appears we need a litmus test to determine what is valid and sufficent evidence and what is not.

That's why the scientific method exists.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
I didn't know science was teaching that a specific first modern female human and first modern male human existed.

Last time I checked, in prehistoric archaeology and evolutionary biology it was being taught that populations of primates evolved into other primates and so on until modern humans. 

WOW, you need to catch up! Just run a search on the internet using the word: "Adam, Eve & DNA".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/999030.stm

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Now that is interesting, just as soon as one side of the debate "leaves out" Adam & Eve. Science decides to pick it up. Now they are the ones that are teaching there was a "Adam" & "Eve". Even if Eve has been around for 120,000 years and Adam was rather new on the scene being only 30 or 40,000 years old.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the use of "Adam" and "Eve" in reference ot common descent, I think you're reading too much into it. "Adam" and "Eve" are merely nicknames used by scientists to give laypeople a frame of reference. It's not an endorsement of religion at all. 

In what way is the logic "flawed"? Because the people who promote "Intelligent Design Theory" do not have enough evidence to back up their claim?

If that is the case, then we need to determine a universal standard as to what is and what is not acceptable "evidence". There are a lot of theorys out there being taught, with little or no evidence. Some are pure speculation.

I am not saying the evidence is not there. It just appears we need a litmus test to determine what is valid and sufficent evidence and what is not.

There isn't any evidence of IDT. It's impossible to test or falsify.

Ask yourself this question: "What would it take to prove IDT wrong?"

Nothing? Therefore it is not a scientific theory

In any case, the flaws have nothing to do with evidence. The very logic behind IDT is faulty, long before we get to the "evidence" stage. The argument has been done before, but I'll go through it again:

IDTers, feel free to correct me, but bear in mind that I'm giving the short version. It goes something like this:

1. The level of order and organization apparant in the universe is far too great to suggest that it was the result of random chance. It must be the product of design.

2. Design requires a designer.

3. Therefore, the universe was designed by some kind of intelligent designer, what religion calls "God."

Let's look at the flaws in the theory, one piece at a time:

"1.The level of order and organization apparant in the universe is far too great to suggest that it was the result of random chance. It must be the product of design."

Well, whether there is order and organization in the universe is a matter of opinion. And whether it could've happened as a result of random chance (which science doesn't say anyway) is another opinion. So yes, we do need a universal standard...

"2. Design requires a designer."

Design requires no such thing. Design requires an explanation, not a designer. Snowflakes are beautifully designed and unique, but does that mean someone had to hand-carve each one of them?

"3. Therefore, the universe was designed by some kind of intelligent designer, what religion calls "God." "

If we reject either statement 1 or 2, then this conclusion becomes meaningless.

There's another way to refure the argument, but this is the short version. I'll post the other one if you like.

Either way, you can see that IDT is more or less dead in the water as a scientific theory.

And we do have a standard for evidence. It's called the scientific method. It is far from universal, since it's run by falliable scientists, but it's the best thing we've managed to come up with.

So far, evolution has met the standard for evidence. It has a few gaps, of course, but for the most part, it passes the test. It's a theory because it can be falsified. No reputable scientist calls it a fact because it is possible (albeit unlikely) that evidence will be found tomorrow that disproves it. Teachers who teach it as "fact" are mistaken, pure and simple. But that's no excuse for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and then melting down the tub.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
So far, evolution has met the standard for evidence. It has a few gaps, of course, but for the most part, it passes the test. It's a theory because it can be falsified. No reputable scientist calls it a fact because it is possible (albeit unlikely) that evidence will be found tomorrow that disproves it. Teachers who teach it as "fact" are mistaken, pure and simple. But that's no excuse for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and then melting down the tub.

Let me ask you one question. Because evolutionists keep hammering away at the first chapter of the Bible. But what would you say of all of a sudden it became known that the first chapter of the Bible was 100% true. Let's say that Jesus himself made a appearance on every radio and every TV station everywhere in the world at the same time. Something only God can do.

Would that change your opinion of the rest of the Bible? If you knew the first chapter was true and did not conflict with anything that science has found to be true?

You say you are building a system of truth. What if all of a sudden God were to plug himself into that system? It could not handle it right now, because God is to powerful. But what if, in time, your system of truth became strong enough, that it could handle the jolt and the shake that would take place, if God were to plug Himself into it.

Would you give it up, because your own system now proves God. Or would you accept, believe and follow God?

 

[Orihalcon]

well, first he'd have to somehow prove that he was jesus. or god. not some kind of rich hacker.

if he decided to prove only one chapter, then that one chapter could be looked at as a fact. the others would still be stuck under the microscope the same way they always have.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Let me ask you one question. Because evolutionists keep hammering away at the first chapter of the Bible. But what would you say of all of a sudden it became known that the first chapter of the Bible was 100% true. Let's say that Jesus himself made a appearance on every radio and every TV station everywhere in the world at the same time. Something only God can do.


Would that change your opinion of the rest of the Bible? If you knew the first chapter was true and did not conflict with anything that science has found to be true?

If Genesis was proven to my satisfaction, I would believe it. If Christ himself appeared on mass media as you describe, I would be satisfied. So yes, I would be convinced.

You say you are building a system of truth.

When and where did I say that? No matter...

 What if all of a sudden God were to plug himself into that system? It could not handle it right now, because God is to powerful. But what if, in time, your system of truth became strong enough, that it could handle the jolt and the shake that would take place, if God were to plug Himself into it.

Would you give it up, because your own system now proves God. Or would you accept, believe and follow God?

If God were to plug himself into my system of truth, why would I have to give it up? God would be part of the "truth."

I think what you're asking is "If God were to reveal himself to me in what I considered to be unmistakable terms, would I believe?" Well, of course I would. Who wouldn't?

As this relates to evolution: Like any other scientific theory, evolution is considered to be "true" until and unless something comes along that proves it false beyond a doubt. So far that hasn't happened. If Christ were to appear as you described, and spelled it all out for us, I think most of the scientific community, not to mention the world itself, would accept Evolution as false and Creationism as true.

Now, let me ask you a question: What if it was Mohammed who appeared on every radio station and TV all over the world?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Now, let me ask you a question: What if it was Mohammed who appeared on every radio station and TV all over the world?

You have to get him up out of the grave first. Jesus already has the advantage on him in that area.

Rev. 1:7a  Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him.

It has been prophesyed that when Jesus returns, every eye shall see Him. The current theory for that is, the only way every eye in the world can see Him is though the televison set.

Just like we are on 1/3 of the TV sets in the world. So one third of every eye can see the pastor preach his sermons. One third of the world right now, can see the miracles and the healings.

I think what you're asking is "If God were to reveal himself to me in what I considered to be unmistakable terms, would I believe?" Well, of course I would. Who wouldn't?

The reason for that question was that the Hebrew people did not question that there was a God. Of course back then, all it took was a earth quake and a little bit of lightening to convince people that there was a God.

But even though they believed that there was a God, they still did not live for God. They did not follow His commandments to live their live the way He wanted them to live. They continued in their stubborness and rebellion, even though they knew there was a God.

So I wonder if the results would be the same today. If people knew that there was a God, would they obey Him and follow His commmandments. Or would they continue to be stubborn and rebellious against Him?

All God wants from us is Justice, Mercy & Humility.  

 

[notto]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Now that is interesting, just as soon as one side of the debate "leaves out" Adam & Eve. Science decides to pick it up. Now they are the ones that are teaching there was a "Adam" & "Eve". Even if Eve has been around for 120,000 years and Adam was rather new on the scene being only 30 or 40,000 years old.

John,

Third warning.

Please re-read your sources on this. As has already been pointed out, this science in no way states that these "adam" and "eve" were the first of anything. The science itself requires there to be a population at the same time and in no way states that these were the first hominids or the first of their kind.

To keep repeating that science has shown them to be the first of anything is not a truth (and if you continue to state it, it is a lie).

Each of these mitochondrial or y chromosomes adam and eve had there own common ancestor before them (the status of mitochondrial eve would have changed hands many times during the development of our species). The method that science uses to determine them as our common ancestor dictates this.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by notto
Please re-read your sources on this. As has already been pointed out, this science in no way states that these "adam" and "eve" were the first of anything.

They were not the first of "anything"? Of course they were. They were the first of your family three and my family tree. We are related guy, according to science we come from the same family tree. There could have been apes, monkey and human like people before "Adam" & "Eve" but we are not related to them.

Go to one of those mail order bride web sites and pull up some of the girls from Ethopia or Kenya and you will see what science says our ancestors looked like.

It leaves me scratching my head, trying to figure out where the blond hair, blue eyed people from the northern part of europe fit into this. Traditional theory was that they decended from Neanderthals. But now science says they decended from Homo sapiens out of Africa just like the rest of us. Maybe it was a mutation in their skin, hair and eye color genes.

 

[MSBS]

Back to the OP, this is a big win for creationists, if it survives the inevitable court challenges, because ID has now been classified as a viable theory by the politicians in the state of Ohio. By this legislation they are saying the want to allow teachers, if they decide, to teach religious based ideas in public schools by deciding what is a scientific theory regardless of what scientists think about it. Cloaked in all this oh so reasonably worded legislation is an attempt at an end run of the seperation clause.

BTW, ID equals Creationism and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. Hemming and hawing about not specifying a designer is meaningless, a simple examination of who the IDists and their supporters are tells you that.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by MSBS
BTW, ID equals Creationism and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. 

Not really, creationism spends a lot of time trying to confuse the genologys with creation.

Intelligent design makes a distinction between creation and the genology of man. And that can allow for a 16 billion year time frame for the universe.

In a more sane world the debate would be between intelligent design and creationism. Creationists could actually get the job done 2000 years ago, in the early church. But they do not seem to be getting the job done now.

It looks like they are going to get pushed out of the way and the supporters of Intelligent design will take their place.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by JohnR7
They were not the first of "anything"? Of course they were. They were the first of your family three and my family tree. We are related guy, according to science we come from the same family tree. There could have been apes, monkey and human like people before "Adam" & "Eve" but we are not related to them.

So, mitochondrial "eve" had babies who over the generations became our family tree and we are not related to the father of these babies?

Just because the fathers line died out does not mean that we are not related to the fathers tree.

Just because "eve's" line survived does not mean that we are not related to her previous descendants (her "mitochondrial eve") because their lines did not survive. We are still related to her mother, grandmother, great grandmother, etc.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Not really, creationism spends a lot of time trying to confuse the genologys with creation.

Intelligent design makes a distinction between creation and the genology of man. And that can allow for a 16 billion year time frame for the universe.

In a more sane world the debate would be between intelligent design and creationism. Creationists could actually get the job done 2000 years ago, in the early church. But they do not seem to be getting the job done now.

It looks like they are going to get pushed out of the way and the supporters of Intelligent design will take their place.

Only if by creationism you mean YEC. ID can go with OEC or YEC, but it still always has the "C".

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by MSBS
Only if by creationism you mean YEC. ID can go with OEC or YEC, but it still always has the "C".

That is the litmus test of the constitution. It has to represent everybody. The court system has no power to decide between the OEC and the YEC. Sense Intellectual design represents both and all religious groups, then the court system does not have the authority or the power to keep it out of the school system.

In England and many countries in Europe, they had a Goverment approved church. In Rome it is the Roman Catholic Church. In Russia it is the Orthodox Church. In England it is the Common Church or the Church of England.

In American, no church, and no individual church doctorine can be favored over another. Every one is to get full protection and full representation under the law.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Sense Intellectual design represents both and all religious groups, then the court system does not have the authority or the power to keep it out of the school system.

It certainly isn't representative of atheists, and to say it represents all religions is not true when you consider pagans and Buddhists. And considering ID proponents are, not surprisingly, Christians, I wonder which religion would be pushed?

Furthermore, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory, nor does it follow the scientific method, so it should NOT be taught as science, plain and simple.

In England and many countries in Europe, they had a Goverment approved church. In Rome it is the Roman Catholic Church. In Russia it is the Orthodox Church. In England it is the Common Church or the Church of England.

This has nothing to do with anything. We are not England, Russia, or Italy; we are a country governed by a secular government.

In American, no church, and no individual church doctorine can be favored over another. Every one is to get full protection and full representation under the law.

...and that's why church and state are SEPARATE.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by JohnR7
In American, no church, and no individual church doctorine can be favored over another. Every one is to get full protection and full representation under the law.

And none of them may be promoted or endorsed with government money. So regardless of whether Intelligent Design represents OEC or YEC, it has no place in public school.

Congrats John, you've just refuted your own argument.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Nathan Poe
And none of them may be promoted or endorsed with government money.

Do you actually burn books? Or do you just use other methoids to try and suppress wisdom, knowledge, truth & understanding?

I for one am not going to stand around idol while people try and put us back into the dark ages.

We have come to far to go back now.