It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[BobRyan]

Right, but neither would they need to, as the ID argument does not purport to explain what the creator actually is; only that there is a creator. Honestly, I see this as just another reason to stop calling it theistic evolution and start calling it intelligent design.

Logically that is true.

But if you start a thread on Intelligent Design the strongest opposition comes from those claiming to be Theistic Evolutionists. At that point they make a distinctively atheist argument even though as they say - they are not atheist.

 

[Diamond72]

There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design.

Judge John E. Jones III, issued a comprehensive ruling concluding that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The court's decision emphasized that Intelligent Design lacked scientific merit and was a form of religious advocacy.

 

[Diamond72]

Science relies on its predictability

My son (his team) was hired by Amazon to check up on the people that installed their robotics. On one location they found 1,000 violations that needed to be fixed. Before Amazon would pay them. People want something that is not going to break. When you get in your car, you want to know that car is going to start. Who do you trust to build you a car that is going to get you where you want to go?

Elon Musk found a way to land a space ship. Can you imagine the math that goes into that? Before Musk (his team) they would crash a space ship and not try to use it for more than scrap metal.

In Creation VS Evolution, you have people with PhD's in science that are in an argument with High School drop outs who simply were not paying any attention in their Science class or were to busy trying to defend their beliefs. If creationism could build a car or land a space ship then people would take them a lot more serious.

There is nothing wrong with Creationism as long as you recognize the limitations. I am YEC, OEC, Theistic and so on. They are all limited in what they can do but that does not make them non valid. The MAIN thing I like about YEC & Bishop Ussher is they accept that Adam, Eve & Moses were real people that made significant contributions to the point where we still talk about them and remember them today. That is a significant contribution to the discussion.

 

[Diamond72]

Sure, say the moon moving around earth and earth around Sun. They are repeatable phenomena.

Actually the planets effect each other in an un predictable way because the math is to difficult for us to figure out.

 

[FaithT]

Theistic means of God.
Theistic evolution means Evolution guided by God.
If you have ever watched Prometheus, it presents the development of species by alien beings, i.e., "intelligent design."
Saying theistic evolution differentiates it from Prometheus.

"I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design."
Nope. You have read it wrong. Feelings are usually not good sources of information. Why not just ask people why they call it theistic evolution rather than surmise something evil about them?
Peace

I believe in evolution guided by God.

 

[John Helpher]

Judge John E. Jones III, issued a comprehensive ruling concluding that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The court's decision emphasized that Intelligent Design lacked scientific merit and was a form of religious advocacy.

Here is a quote from John E. from an article about it:
The “overwhelming evidence” has established that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” Jones wrote.

It's hard to believe this guy is an actual judge.. Either he is unable to understand the concepts and or he's using his position of power to safeguard a personal opinion. It is factually wrong that intelligent design is just a "relabeling" of religion.

Intelligent design does not deal with which God or creator is the correct or accurate one. It says nothing about religion. It only states that according to the available evidence, all that we see must be the result of a mind. The evidence shows that all the organized, coordinated information we see in life could not have arisen nor develop through random, irrational processes.

It is indoctrination to deny children access to information simply because some people have personal disagreements with the concept of a God-Creator, especially when that information so clearly shows up all the distortions and exaggerations with evolutionary theory.

 

[dwb001]

Judge John E. Jones III, issued a comprehensive ruling concluding that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The court's decision emphasized that Intelligent Design lacked scientific merit and was a form of religious advocacy.

And courts ALWAYS get it right.

And why would it be necessary to decouple ID from religion? The fathers of modern science didn't.

 

[dwb001]

I believe in evolution guided by God.

And have you considered all the problems that creates?

 

[Aaron112]

Judge John E. Jones III, issued a comprehensive ruling concluding that Intelligent Design is not science and that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The court's decision emphasized that Intelligent Design lacked scientific merit and was a form of religious advocacy.

Weird how the world defends its own science, and does not admit that its own science is not the determiner of truth.
Science/scientist who follow Jesus learn by His Grace what is truth,
and are silenced (or attempted to be silenced)
by the worldly science.

 

[FaithT]

And have you considered all the problems that creates?

Yes. And my Church says it’s ok, so it’s ok.

 

[dwb001]

Yes. And my Church says it’s ok, so it’s ok.

Because if an organization says it is ok...

 

[Aaron112]

Because if an organization says it is ok...

Isn't that what almost everyone accepts ? Whatever their group says ? Even though usually that is wrong to do ?

 

[dwb001]

Isn't that what almost everyone accepts ? Whatever their group says ? Even though usually that is wrong to do ?

Not me... but I have always been a bit different.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And have you considered all the problems that creates?

It doesn't actually "create" problems that weren't already there latently in the first place ...

... however, regardless of that fact, I think this whole Evolution vs. Design debate should be more or less diminished to the level of discussion.

From my perspective, if others want to hold to a 6 Day literal, Young Earth Creationism, or one of the other theological theories such as Intelligent Design, etc., it doesn't bother me one tiddle. What does bother me is the accusatory finger pointing done by fundamentalist brethren.

That needs to stop.

 

[dwb001]

It doesn't actually "create" problems that weren't already there latently in the first place ...

... however, regardless of that fact, I think this whole Evolution vs. Design debate should be more or less diminished to the level of discussion.

From my perspective, if others want to hold to a 6 Day literal, Young Earth Creationism, or one of the other theological theories such as Intelligent Design, etc., it doesn't bother me one tiddle. What does bother me is the accusatory finger pointing done by fundamentalist brethren.

That needs to stop.

Evolution removes the need for Jesus.
That can be a bit of a sticking point for Christianity.

 

[Diamond72]

It is factually wrong that intelligent design is just a "relabeling" of religion.

It is based on a lack of evidence. They fail to present their case and their purpose is to sell books. Science is agnostic in terms of what can not be proven. They can not prove there is no God. Intelligent design pretty much shot themselves in the foot and did more harm than good.

In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which took place in Pennsylvania, proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) faced challenges in presenting their case in court. The lawsuit was brought against the Dover Area School District by parents and others who opposed the school board's decision to include Intelligent Design in the curriculum.

During the trial, proponents of Intelligent Design were given the opportunity to present their case, defend the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the curriculum, and demonstrate that it was a scientific concept that should be taught alongside evolution. However, their case faced significant difficulties in meeting the standards of scientific evidence and rigor typically required in a court of law.

The court ultimately ruled that Intelligent Design is not science but a religious idea, closely associated with creationism, and thus unconstitutional to teach in public schools under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of religion by government entities.

The trial and its outcome marked a significant legal precedent, reinforcing the separation of church and state in public education and affirming the importance of teaching science based on scientific evidence and principles.

 

[Diamond72]

Evolution removes the need for Jesus.

Not at all. Science tells you how God created the Universe. Religion tells you why. History, Biology and Religion are three different classes and you should not allow yourself to be confused by that. The people who claim there is a problem are in fact the problem. There is no conflict between science and religion. If it were not for science the people would not be alive to argue against science. My brother has done medical missionary work in third world nations where up to half the people die because they do not have science there to keep them alive.

 

[FaithT]

Because if an organization says it is ok...

No, because I’ve studied and studied all this stuff and have come to the conclusion that what the RCC teaches about religion vs science is correct.

 

[dwb001]

Not at all.

Think about it more.

Science tells you how God created the Universe. Religion tells you why. History, Biology and Religion are three different classes and you should not allow yourself to be confused by that.

Neither should you allow yourself to think that they are not interconnected.

The people who claim there is a problem are in fact the problem.

So you are dividing the Body of Christ.

There is no conflict between science and religion.

Never said there was.

If it were not for science the people would not be alive to argue against science.

Incorrect... peoples who do not have "science" live very well, thank you.

My brother has done medical missionary work in third world nations where up to half the people die because they do not have science there to keep them alive.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Evolution gets rid of Jesus.
Think about it and you might get some insight.

 

[dwb001]

No, because I’ve studied and studied all this stuff and have come to the conclusion that what the RCC teaches about religion vs science is correct.

Balderdash.