Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?

[Servant222]

If a scientist explains how the Universe was formed, but then when asked how it all began says "well, there was this Big Bang", is that any more scientific than me saying "God created it."?

If a scientist explains that life started as a single, simple cell, that, instantly upon formation, was able to reproduce itself and continued to evolve into the multitude of life forms that we see today, but attributes the original formation of that cell to an amazing accident caused when a lightning bolt zapped inorganic material and made it come alive, is that any more scientific than me saying "God created it."?

I think there is more than enough intellectual material and curiosity there, but at the same time unfathomable mystery, to justify discussing these issues in any venue- be they scientific or religious.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be scarred for life if they were asked to consider the notion of an intelligent Universe Maker and a Creator when the question of how the Universe and life began comes up in a science classroom.

 

[ab1385]

If a scientist explains how the Universe was formed, but then when asked how it all began says "well, there was this Big Bang", is that any more scientific than me saying "God created it."?

Yes. Because the scientist says, or at least many have in the formation of our understanding, "how is it that the universe came into being?" Then someone discovers that all the universe is moving apart from each other. The only way that this can be true is if the universe was once closer together, and if we go far enough back it must all originally have come from one place.

This was originally a problem for scientists, and was regarded as religious nonsense because it necessitated a beginning, and a beginning is seen as needing a cause. Before this realisation it was assumed that the universe existed in a steady state, neither expanding nor contracting, and that therefore there was no need for a beginning or a creator.

Then other scientists have made discoveries about relativity and singularities, which are the best explanation we have for the way all matter could come from one place.

You however assert that you believe that your interpretation of a 4000 year old text says that God created everything in such a way that we can look at it all and deduce a creator did it, and therefore evolution has not happened. This is not scientfic.

If a scientist explains that life started as a single, simple cell, that, instantly upon formation, was able to reproduce itself and continued to evolve into the multitude of life forms that we see today, but attributes the original formation of that cell to an amazing accident caused when a lightning bolt zapped inorganic material and made it come alive, is that any more scientific than me saying "God created it."?

Scientists have many theories about how this happened, but no-one knows. It is more scientific, therefore, to say "it may have happened this way, but I do not know" than to assert something which is true 'a priori'. What we do know is that life eventually came somehow into cellular being, which then grew to work together, and form multicellular organisms. These have evolved to form us and all life we can see.

I think there is more than enough intellectual material and curiosity there, but at the same time unfathomable mystery, to justify discussing these issues in any venue- be they scientific or religious.

I disagree that there is much unfathomable mystery about the origins of life on Earth, there is just that which we currently do not know. Many commonly known scientific facts nowadays were once considered unfathomable, but a lack of current knowledge does not mean we will never know.

There is no problem with discussing those issues, the problemt hat people have is schools teaching that which is false, i.e. that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. It is not. I think that it is not only OK, but is good to discuss philosophical implications of, reasons behind, and ideas of intelligent design, just in a religious education lesson.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be scarred for life if they were asked to consider the notion of an intelligent Universe Maker and a Creator when the question of how the Universe and life began comes up in a science classroom.

I do not deny for a second an intelligent creator. That is not the issue. The issue is whether current science shows that to be the case, which it does not. Neither does it deny it. Science merely says that it cannot know on such issues, but we do know that creatures evolved on earth because of their surrounding environment, and chance mutations. Science simply cannot make a stand on this issue.

The issue for me isn't "is there an intelligent designer?" but is trying to prove His existence through a medium incapable of doing so discrediting the intelligence and rational thought of christians, which I believe it is. Hanging on to a non-scientific 'proof' of God's existence says to most people who know better that Christians believe in God because they misunderstand the way the world works.

We simply have to live in the real world for people to take us seriously and not view us as deluded or misguided fools.

 

[Servant222]

You however assert that you believe that your interpretation of a 4000 year old text says that God created everything in such a way that we can look at it all and deduce a creator did it, and therefore evolution has not happened. This is not scientfic.

I do believe that in creation we see a Creator; an intelligent Universe maker, but as to what mechanism He used to make the universe as we now see it, I think we still have a lot to learn.

I also believe that evolution is as well-established as many other laws (not theories!) of science, and a mechanism that God may have used, at least to a degree, to create the multitude of species that we see today.

I disagree that there is much unfathomable mystery about the origins of life on Earth, there is just that which we currently do not know. Many commonly known scientific facts nowadays were once considered unfathomable, but a lack of current knowledge does not mean we will never know.

Agreed. By unfathomable, I meant things that we presently have no way of understanding. But having said that, I also believe that we should never be so naive as to believe that we will ever understand the "unfathomable" complexity of the Universe- in that regard, we are like a dog or cat that looks up and sees an image on a television set- but will never, ever figure out how that image got there, never mind how to build a television set. But the fact that the universe is infinitely complex is a good reason, in my opinion, for bringing God into the discussion of how the Universe came to be.

There is no problem with discussing those issues, the problem that people have is schools teaching that which is false, i.e. that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. It is not.

This has been a problem- Christians who rigidly, and therefore unscientifically, hang on to their interpretation of Scripture, even when it conflicts with scientific evidence. I think the long held belief of an earth-centered Universe was a good example.

I think that it is not only OK, but is good to discuss philosophical implications of, reasons behind, and ideas of intelligent design, just in a religious education lesson.

This isn't practical, since few schools these days have religious education classes, and churches aren't really doing this well either. This is a very unfortunate aspect of our present education system- which has put such a strong emphasis on science, and is failing to give students the more rounded education that I believe they should have. I think many of our present social problems can be traced to this less than holistic education.

The issue for me isn't "is there an intelligent designer?" but is trying to prove His existence through a medium incapable of doing so discrediting the intelligence and rational thought of christians, which I believe it is. Hanging on to a non-scientific 'proof' of God's existence says to most people who know better that Christians believe in God because they misunderstand the way the world works.

We simply have to live in the real world for people to take us seriously and not view us as deluded or misguided fools.

I couldn't agree more- when Christians tenaciously hang on to beliefs- usually based on their interpretation of the Bible- that totally conflict with scientific evidence and reasoning, then we risk putting our faith into disrepute.

This is especially true when those beliefs have nothing to do with salvation- except to drive people away from ever considering Christianity, and therefore never having a chance to experience the peace that comes from knowing Jesus Christ.

I am not suggesting that Intelligent Design should be taught in a fashion that brings our faith into disrepute and discourages someone from embracing Christianity. Quite the contrary- Intelligent Design should be taught in a way that makes people aware that there may be answers beyond our human and scientific comprehension that will answer their questions about the meaning of life.

BTW, great discussion; thanks for contributing!

 

[intricatic]

Sure, why not.

 

[AngCath]

no, ID should not be taught in schools unless it is a philosophy class.

 

[ebia]

no, ID should not be taught in schools unless it is a philosophy class.

Of course even there one has problems, because "Intelligent Design" as normally presented is something dressed up to look like science to try and get it into science classes.

"Does the majesty of creation point towards the existance of a creator God?" or similar is a great question for a religion or philosophy class, but don't dress it up to pretend it's science, nor try and pretend that it doesn't have religious implications, as ID tries to do.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I find it interesting that at the same time there are debates about having intelligent design in public schools there are complaints that the US doesn't have enough trained scientists to fill US graduate schools and the needs of US industry (thus causing both to import foreigners to fill the gap).

It is the same nonsense that is pushing intelligent design that is destroying the US as an industrial nationl.

 

[Servant222]

I find it interesting that at the same time there are debates about having intelligent design in public schools there are complaints that the US doesn't have enough trained scientists to fill US graduate schools and the needs of US industry (thus causing both to import foreigners to fill the gap).

It is the same nonsense that is pushing intelligent design that is destroying the US as an industrial nationl.

You make it sound like Intelligent Design is this monster taking over entire curriculums and therefore degrading education as a whole- now that is nonsense. I just don't see a problem if a geology or biology teacher or professor in the course of discussing the fossil record or the origin of life also mentions the possibility that the first living cells, and the universe, was created by God. This isn't propaganda that is going to mesmerize students and make them into zombies- they can take or leave that possibility, just like they can any theory that is presented to them.

The U.S. education system, in my opinion, is falling short of fulfilling needs because it doesn't get enough funding, and therefore doesn't have enough money to attract the calibre of educators that it should be. Couple that with a lack of support staff, like science aides, large classes that force many teachers to simply become baby sitters, homogenous grouping that lumps students of widely varying abilities into the same large class, and more social and psychological problems, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I believe that if we DID in fact have smaller classes and put as much value into philosophy, religious education, art, music and all the other subjects that provide an individual with a balanced intellectual grounding, we would be far better off.

And we haven't even touched on the subject of drugs, and their incredible impact on education and the economy in America. The country keeps going after the foreign suppliers of drugs (and not even that in Afghanistan!) without asking why there is such an insatiable demand for those drugs. I would submit that at least part of the reason is that students today do not have the philosophical and religious grounding that they once had, and therefore do not have a good sense of right and wrong, or know much about the attributes of an ethical life that considers the needs of others, as well as their own.

 

[Servant222]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that in Darwin's time, religious and scientific education were quite intertwined, and the paranoia we have today about mentioning the G- word in a science class would have been laughable.

Is there any evidence to suggest that students from Christian schools, where Intelligent Design is in fact presented as part of a balanced curriculum, fare any worse than "normal" schools?

I would guess not, and maybe even the contrary, which is probably why there appears to be such a growing interest in private Christian schools- even by non-Christians. Now we just have to balance out the funding so that parents don't have the artificial financial constraints that discourage them from sending their kids to schools where they think they can get the best education.

 

[ebia]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that in Darwin's time, religious and scientific education were quite intertwined, and the paranoia we have today about mentioning the G- word in a science class would have been laughable.

Is there any evidence to suggest that students from Christian schools, where Intelligent Design is in fact presented as part of a balanced curriculum, fare any worse than "normal" schools?

I would guess not, and maybe even the contrary, which is probably why there appears to be such a growing interest in private Christian schools- even by non-Christians. Now we just have to balance out the funding so that parents don't have the artificial financial constraints that discourage them from sending their kids to schools where they think they can get the best education.

One would need to know how many Christian schools actually teach ID in science classes, and then compare them to like schools that don't, for (say) accessing students to science courses at university.

But even that's besides the point - you can't teach kids that ID is science because it isn't. It amounts to lying. If you teach them about the idea, then you have to make it clear that it is not a scientific idea. To not do so is ethically unsustainable.

 

[ChristBearer]

Evolution is fact, therefore it should be taught in schools as such. And I don't mean micro/macro evolution, because there is no macro/micro-evolution, there just is evolution.

Depends on what you mean by evolution. Micro evolution is fact, macro is not. There is a huge different between the too. Micro is a variation within a certain kind of animal (dog, wolf, coyote, will always be a dog) macro evolution is a different kind of change, it breaks the limits and turns into another kind of animal altogether.

Creation and ID should be taught about as religious ideologies in religious education, because they are in fact religious ideologies, and not science.

I choose to disagree, especially with ID. Why should ID be taught in religious ideologies when it doesn't even focus on the designer but it focuses on physical things we can observe and study to see if it inhibits the hallmarks of design. ID would be philosophical/religious if it's object of study shifted to who the creator was, but as long as it's focus is on what is created, it is in the realm of science.

That this much is not obvious to everyone makes me cry. Well, OK, not literally.

Hehe... I'm sorry you feel that way

What on earth is this 'macro evolution' that people harp on about?

If a species does so called 'micro evolve', but is separated into two different groups by geology or any other reason, they will genetically diverge. They will eventually diverge far enough that they will no longer be able to interbreed. This is true, but the KIND of animal is still the same. The didn't and no matter how much time given will not become a different animal. At least that's not in the realm of science to discuss. This is what, I believe, you refer to as 'macro evolution'. There is no macro- and micro- evolution, there is just the same process on different timescales. What you refer to as 'macro evolution' is not only the same process as what you refer to as 'micro evolution', but is an unavoidable logical consequence of it.

Huge difference, and they are far from one in the same.

There is simply no way round this argument. We have all the evidence we need to show that it happens. We cannot watch it happen, logically, as it takes too much time. Where do you stand? ID? Do you not worry that you didn't observe God designing? Or creating, should you be a creationist?

Again and again I see people saying that there is no evidence for evolution, or what you refer to mistakenly as 'macro evolution', when there clearly is. I simply don't understand why this is. But regardless of that, if you accept that a species 'micro evolves', i.e. a species evolves at all, then it will, if separated into two groups in a different environment, separate out into what is essentially two different species. I don't see how you think this argument is at all avoidable.

Again see my above. Macro and micro are big differences, one is just a variation within a kind, another says the changes are unlimited and organisms can turn into completely different organisms given the time. I strongly believe dogs will always produce dogs, they may variate and some may to a point where they can't interbreed, but it will always be a dog.

That is why so called 'micro evolution' being a fact means that 'macro evolution' is a fact, because they are one and the same thing. Simply not true until you can prove macro-evolution occurs scientifically. Therefore, 'macro evolution', or more correctly, 'evolution' is also a fact. Some teachers (I'm not accusing you) present micro-evolution as fact, and they rightfully do so, but when they try to sneak in something much bigger behind it (all organisms have a common ancestor because of micro evolution) that's where I draw the line. There are limits. You keep stating they're one in the same, where is the evidence? In the past 6,000 years we observed dogs produce dogs. The exact way that this happens isn't totally understood, like anything else in science. Therefore we have the 'theory of evolution' - this is the theory of how evolution occurs, not whether it does, as so often seems to be the view. Disagree. It's a theory that tries to prove all organisms have a common ancestor. It's not so much how, you can't assume it did happen then find out how it could have happened (most evidence I do find it how it might have happened) prove with science that it actually did!

Remember, evolutionary biologists maintain that theories about evolution START once the first living cell was there- the question of where that cell came from, and how it was formed and given both the breath of life, and, at exactly the same instant, the ability to reproduce itself is....... OFF THE TABLE! Why? They taught it in my biology class. I feel that darwinists avoid this subject because they know it didn't happen. If it's off the table then would you agree they shouldn't teach that it all started with a macro molecule?

.

 

[eb693]

I.D should not replace evolution, but should be mentioned briefly alongside evolution. Evolution is the best theory governing how living things develop over time... however, it doesn't deal with how it all started in the first place.

 

[Servant222]

One would need to know how many Christian schools actually teach ID in science classes, and then compare them to like schools that don't, for (say) accessing students to science courses at university.

Agreed- I'd love to see some hard statistics.

But even that's besides the point - you can't teach kids that ID is science because it isn't. It amounts to lying. If you teach them about the idea, then you have to make it clear that it is not a scientific idea. To not do so is ethically unsustainable.

So (a) how do you define science?

and (b) so if I say "it all started with a Big Bang", that is acceptable science, but if I say "God created it.", it is a big lie?

I don't understand why this should be such a big issue- if a teacher in a biology or geology class, in the course of going over various origin theories, states something like "Science can't really explain how the Universe actually began, or how the first living cell capable of reproducing itself came to be, which is why some people believe that the universe is like looking at a watch- its very existence implies an intelligent universe maker.", is that really all that bad? Would that be sufficient reason to boycott the school or fire the teacher?

Again, in a past era, religious and science were taught together and I don't think students had difficulties distinguishing which was which, or felt misled.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

You make it sound like Intelligent Design is this monster taking over entire curriculums and therefore degrading education as a whole- now that is nonsense. I just don't see a problem if a geology or biology teacher or professor in the course of discussing the fossil record or the origin of life also mentions the possibility that the first living cells, and the universe, was created by God. This isn't propaganda that is going to mesmerize students and make them into zombies- they can take or leave that possibility, just like they can any theory that is presented to them.

The U.S. education system, in my opinion, is falling short of fulfilling needs because it doesn't get enough funding, and therefore doesn't have enough money to attract the calibre of educators that it should be. Couple that with a lack of support staff, like science aides, large classes that force many teachers to simply become baby sitters, homogenous grouping that lumps students of widely varying abilities into the same large class, and more social and psychological problems, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I believe that if we DID in fact have smaller classes and put as much value into philosophy, religious education, art, music and all the other subjects that provide an individual with a balanced intellectual grounding, we would be far better off.

And we haven't even touched on the subject of drugs, and their incredible impact on education and the economy in America. The country keeps going after the foreign suppliers of drugs (and not even that in Afghanistan!) without asking why there is such an insatiable demand for those drugs. I would submit that at least part of the reason is that students today do not have the philosophical and religious grounding that they once had, and therefore do not have a good sense of right and wrong, or know much about the attributes of an ethical life that considers the needs of others, as well as their own.

Actually I believe I made intelligent design to be a symptom of the disease.

There is an anti-intellectual and pro-fantasy element destroying the US. We want people who feel good about themselves more than we want people that can think.

 

[ab1385]

Depends on what you mean by evolution. Micro evolution is fact, macro is not. There is a huge different between the too. Micro is a variation within a certain kind of animal (dog, wolf, coyote, will always be a dog) macro evolution is a different kind of change, it breaks the limits and turns into another kind of animal altogether.

I think you still have not read what I mean by evolution - the divergence of animals so that they are no longer of one species. We are all, essentially, of one 'kind' by your definition, Carbon based earth dwelling cellular organisms.

Besides, saying that something os of one kind is nonsense unless you can say how you define what that kind is, and how you go about deciding which 'kind' an animal or plant is.

This not only doesn't help, nor does it in any way disprove evolution, but it is not in any way supported by evidence, I'm afraid.

Huge difference, and they are far from one in the same.

No, you don't want them to be the same. Even by your definition, "macro evolution" happens - the separation of animals so that they can no longer interbreed, and become different species. How would you define this new concept of 'macro evolution'? Remember, if it includes forming new kinds, you need to be able to define what a kind is.

Again see my above. Macro and micro are big differences, one is just a variation within a kind, another says the changes are unlimited and organisms can turn into completely different organisms given the time. I strongly believe dogs will always produce dogs, they may variate and some may to a point where they can't interbreed, but it will always be a dog.

This is true, but the KIND of animal is still the same. The didn't and no matter how much time given will not become a different animal. At least that's not in the realm of science to discuss.

Well, in a sense you are correct. Any descendant of a dog will always have a dog as its ancestor, this much is fairly obvious. What you are wrong to state is that a dog is not part of a greater whole that everything evolved from.

Your strongly believing doesn't change this. all you are doing is defining a kind as a level up the taxonomic scale, but it still doesn't hold to be the end of the theory. Whatever is evolved from a god will always be a descendant of a dog, and so, in a sense, be of dog 'kind'. However, since dogs and cats and all other mammals are descended from one type of animal originally, they are all of mammal 'kind'. In turn, all mammals and plants are of multicellular 'kind'. All multicellular and monocellular life are of carbon based life form 'kind'. It is true that one 'kind' will never evolve into another 'kind', but it is equally true that all life is of one, ultimate kind, that we all evolved from.

All you are saying through talk of God creating kinds is that evolution didn't do the evolving as far as dogs, but has done since. There is of course no reason to believe this, nor is there any way that what you are saying denies evolution happening. What you have described is what you seem so against - your so called 'macro' evolution.

Simply not true until you can prove macro-evolution occurs scientifically.

Some teachers (I'm not accusing you) present micro-evolution as fact, and they rightfully do so, but when they try to sneak in something much bigger behind it (all organisms have a common ancestor because of micro evolution) that's where I draw the line. There are limits. You keep stating they're one in the same, where is the evidence? In the past 6,000 years we observed dogs produce dogs. The exact way that this happens isn't totally understood, like anything else in science.

OK, lets start from the beginning again. Your definition of micro evolution includes the ability to make new species, which is defined as creatures which cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. What you deny is the ability to make new kinds. You therefore define 'macro' evolution (since no scientific definition has ever been needed as there is no such individual entity) as the creation of a new 'kind' (of which, again, there is no scientific definition) through the process of evolution. Correct?

The problem is that you are, in a sense correct, but misunderstand that the only way that kind can be defined as such a way as for this to be true is to be descended from a common ancestor. Thus, all life is a single 'kind', animal is a sub-kind, mammal is a sub-sub-kind, and so on, until you get to canine, then dog. Well done, you have just discovered taxonomic structuring of life.

This is what evolution is. It is only by stating that kinds were created at a certain point that you deny that this idea of macro evolution exists, but you have misunderstood what evolution is. You have stated that new species separate out to form separate species. You then said that a species can not cross 'kinds' - a dog cannot become a cat for example. All kinds must be descendants of a common kind. This is true, but the point is that the further up you go, the further back you have to go to find what the kind is that links us all. Why do you say that it is OK for a dog to give us dogs, coyotes, and wolves, but not for an earlier mammal to give us cats and dogs? How do you decide that a dog is a kind, and not say a coyote is the kind? It doesn't make sense as not only do you not have a system whereby you can reliably say what level a 'kind' is at, science already has, and by your reasoning the only way it can be accurate with the way the world works is for the 'kind' to be life.

This is why there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. If a dog can evolve into a coyote, and this is micro-evolution, why can species before a dog not evolve into the dog species, and this be called micro evolution? How is this in any way a different process? It is not in any way different. It's just the higher up the taxonomic scale you go, the further back you have to go to find out when the creature existed who gave rise to that kind. Ultimately, if you go back far enough, you'd find a single celled organism that was the ultimate ancestor of us all, and gave birth to 'life' kind.

I Disagree. It's a theory that tries to prove all organisms have a common ancestor. It's not so much how, you can't assume it did happen then find out how it could have happened (most evidence I do find it how it might have happened) prove with science that it actually did!

It is not quite how you put it. We did not decide that it happened arbitrarily that it happened, then try to figure out how and if it did. The ability to study small changes in DNA through generations, and survival of the fittest being seen in species show us that a species can evolve. As I explained above, this will, over long time periods lead to the creation of at least two descendant species, who will then diverge and so on. This mean that life must, originally, have had one ancestor who was at the start of the chain. Geological fossil records and other evidence show us that it has happened, that we have evolved, and that the further back we go the more common the ancestors are.

We THEN need to figure out how it happened, by which we mean that there have been times of slow change and times of fast change, and we're not sure why. There are other things we do not know about how it happened, but a lack of knowledge about something does not make the rest of it untrue. What we know is that it happened, and a lot about how, just not all about how.

Chances of life happening are irrelevant to evolution. We don't know how life started, but that is not what the theory of evolution is. The theory of evolution, in itself will quite allow for God to have created the first cell, for example, and that have no bearing on evolution at all.

That said, the chances of it happening are impossible to figure out without knowing it just happened. What we can be fairly sure of is that it didn't just all suddenly happen that in one second there was suddenly self replicating life, at least, not by our current definitions of life.

What seems more likely is that naturally occurring chemicals cause other chemicals to become like themselves, through purely chemical reactions. This can happen with actually very basic molecules, not nearly as complicated as cells alive today. Like a prion protein for example, only less complicated again. These sort of molecules are not alive, but actually quite likely to occur.

Through lightening, UV radiation damage, volcanic heat, or any other of a multitude of physical phenomena can cause these molecules to subtly change, bond with each other, change chemical composition. Most will lose all their ability to chemically change other molecules to become like themselves, but one in a million becomes more complex, and more able to change other molecules into itself. This one is more able to do this than the precursor molecule, so this one becomes the dominant molecule, as these molecules that they are turning into themselves are used up.

This process gets these molecules more and more complex, until they are a variety of molecules working together. Eventually they come together to for life.

Now that is a really bad explanation of the process, but it comes down to this. All you need for life to form is a molecule able to change other molecules around it, in an environment able to change that molecule. This scenario is not only less unlikely than your assumption of how evolutionists think life came about, but is actually unlikely to NOT happen, given the amount of molecules there are in the universe. This scenario is a near certainty to happen somewhere in the universe.

I.D should not replace evolution, but should be mentioned briefly alongside evolution. Evolution is the best theory governing how living things develop over time... however, it doesn't deal with how it all started in the first place.

Indeed it does not teach how it happened. That is other theories, the most likely of which is outlined above.

So (a) how do you define science?

Actually not that hard. Science is the study of the world through the scientific method. I really can't be bothered to type that out here, so see this article on Wikipedia to see what this is, and then feel free to ask again if you don't see why this is not what ID is.

and (b) so if I say "it all started with a Big Bang", that is acceptable science, but if I say "God created it.", it is a big lie?

Not so much a lie, but not a hypothesis testable by the scientific method. If you say God did it in a certain way, and that if that way were true then (a) or (b) would be true, and we can test if (a) or (b) are true, then that would be a scientific hypothesis. If it was wrong, it would be possible to show it to be such.

So to say "God did it" is not necessarily wrong, just not scientific or testable.

I don't understand why this should be such a big issue- if a teacher in a biology or geology class, in the course of going over various origin theories, states something like "Science can't really explain how the Universe actually began, or how the first living cell capable of reproducing itself came to be, which is why some people believe that the universe is like looking at a watch- its very existence implies an intelligent universe maker.", is that really all that bad? Would that be sufficient reason to boycott the school or fire the teacher?

There are two points here worth addressing. Firstly is what "science" can and cannot explain. Science is a method by which we seek to explain things, not an entity in itself. Thus science cannot tell us anything, rather that we can use it to test out ideas to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Because we have not got all the answers yet does not mean that "science cannot tell us how...", just that we do not know yet. We may never do, or we may somehow find out in the next decade, but our use of science potentially can tell us how the universe began.

Our current lack of knowledge is very different from saying that the scientific method is incapable of telling us how the universe or life began, which, as our understanding continues to increase, it may well do.

Secondly, it would be wrong to say that "the universe's very existence implies an intelligent universe maker". It does not imply that any more than the existence of a rock implies that volcanic activity is intelligent or in any way sentient at all. For that exact rock, with that exact atomic structure to have come into being at that exact tie was INCREDIBLY unlikely. I mean that rock has a more complicated atomic structure of the first life forms. How could it have happened that way? Was the volcanic activity that created it intelligent?

There is, similarly, no reason to believe, that if the universe was created rather than existing in cyclical eons of time, ever expanding and contracting, there is still no reason to suspect that however it was created was through an intelligent maker. That is simply something that science cannot comment on. The chances of us existing exactly as we are were minute, just as the chances of our hypothetical rock existing exactly as it does. But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, does it?

Again, in a past era, religious and science were taught together and I don't think students had difficulties distinguishing which was which, or felt misled.

You don't? What do you base your thoughts on what they felt on?

The problem with that is that we have, in the past and to some degree even now used God to explain what we don't understand. We use this as part of our definition of God, such as in the ID argument. We have problems though when we realise how these things happen. Does that mean that there is now no longer room for God there? If we view God as being the missing link in our gaps of knowledge then it is quite legitimate to say that science is disproving him as we understand what these gaps in our knowledge really are. If we can now look back on things people didn't understand and allocated to God, but which we now know to be, for example, due to bacteria, and say that it was always a natural process all along, why can't we say that this is true of other things we don't know yet, as people should have said of disease when attributing it all to demons and sprits because they had no idea that bacteria existed?

There, that took ages to post, hopefully sorted out a few misconceptions, but I am now having a breather!

 

[Servant222]

Wow, quite the essay- out of respect for the thought you put into it, I promise that I will read it in detail; but first, I think I need some clarification.

In reading through some of the earlier posts, I came to the realization that some comments could be misinterpreted because we may not all share the same definitions for the terms used. I find this is a common problem in a lot of dialogue, and creates unintended conflict.

So let's start with the very first post: how exactly should "intelligent design" be defined? I may be using the term more generally- to refer to the notion that God's hand is evident in all creation, and that, since it is there, we should not feel inhibited from acknowledging that wherever it comes up, including in science instruction. I don't subscribe to how some use the term: a theory of how life developed that is an alternative to evolution, and that should be taught as such.

We also need to define "evolution"- that may have been done already in earlier posts. This is important, though- whenever anyone confronts me in an accusatory fashion with the question: "Do you believe in Evolution?" I always answer by asking "Depends- tell me how YOU define evolution."

So, DaApostle- you may need to enlighten me- what DID you mean by "intelligent design"?

 

[ChristBearer]

I agree it should be taught along side, but I don't share the same view that it's the best. The way I see it, scientists try to eliminate the obvious answer by their definition of science. That something outside the universe was the explanation to the origin of life and the universe. Any theory we develop would be the best theory if it excludes the only obvious answer.

That's not what I meant by kinds and what I'm trying to get across is this: it's not about species. I agree, animals produce different species over time. There are many species of birds, that doesn't mean eventually it will produce a non bird. THAT is macro evolution. It's true birds will diverge and variate to a point where they can't interbreed but they will still be birds. They will never grow new structures and develop a new anatomy altogether. At least that's not in the realm of science.

The definition of species has been shaky too. I would say we have to use our common sense to figure out what animals are the same kind. A polar bear and a grizzly bear are the same kind of animal regardless of whether they can interbreed. A zebra and a horse are the same kind of animal. An eagle and a humming bird are the same kind of animal. I believe in micro-evolution where we will get a great variety of a certain kind of animal, but I never believe it will changed completely over to another animal.

This not only doesn't help, nor does it in any way disprove evolution, but it is not in any way supported by evidence, I'm afraid.

The burden of proof is on you because we haven't seen it happen.

Reptiles becoming birds = different kind.
And just to make it clear again: it's not about species, when talking about macro I'm sure the only thing creationists object to is the issue of the kinds.


In other words dogs produce only dogs but they came from non dogs. How did the non dogs produce dogs then they themselves weren't dogs.

Did a non-dog bring the dog into existence?

I see what you're saying but you have it mixed up. I hope my definition of kind already cleared this up. It's not about classification, mammals is a broad term, and so it multicellular. The examples I gave above are what the same kinds of animals are. And you said my strongly believing doesn't change this, I'm not sure what you mean because I'm the one lacking the believe in macro-evolution. I simply don't see real evidence for it.

I'm not certain what you meant here. But I believe the point came across by now. It's about the kinds. All the dogs came from two dogs, and they will only continue to produce dogs.

OK, lets start from the beginning again. Your definition of micro evolution includes the ability to make new species, which is defined as creatures which cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. What you deny is the ability to make new kinds. You therefore define 'macro' evolution (since no scientific definition has ever been needed as there is no such individual entity) as the creation of a new 'kind' (of which, again, there is no scientific definition) through the process of evolution. Correct?

A) Micro evolution is a misleading term. It would be better called a variation.
B) Dogs will produce a variety of dogs. All of which will be dogs. It's ancestor will always be a dog.
C) To say a dog will produce a horse over time is what I disagree with. You left the realm of science right there..


I'm not getting into taxonomy because scientists can categorize these animals through a variety of similarities. Yes mammals are similar in certain ways, that doesn't prove they're all related, if that was the point of your post.

I may be misunderstanding you and I'm sorry if I am. But are you saying evolution works only if you go back you will find our ancestors were different, one that produced all the variety of organisms we see today, but the process of us producing different kinds over time in the future is impossible? Either case I disagree with both macro-evolution happening in the past and happening in the future.

Because you can tell just by looking. I take it upon common sense. Kent Hovind always says even a 5th grader can figure it out. You can put a dog, a coyote, and a banana, and ask a child which one is not the same kind as the rest, the kid gets it all the time. I'm sure people will get it if you replace the banana with a cat. Coyotes came from two dogs. We know this, it's just another species of dogs, but it's still a dog. It doesn't make sense as not only do you not have a system whereby you can reliably say what level a 'kind' is at, science already has, and by your reasoning the only way it can be accurate with the way the world works is for the 'kind' to be life.

I don't know about you but it makes perfect sense to me. It's not hard for me to believe this as it is what I see.

This is why there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. If a dog can evolve into a coyote, and this is micro-evolution, why can species before a dog not evolve into the dog species, and this be called micro evolution? Because the species that evolved into a dog were already some kind of dog already. They weren't a different KIND of animal. The species that brought dogs would never be a cat, then going back far enough a sponge. How is this in any way a different process? It is not in any way different. It's just the higher up the taxonomic scale you go, the further back you have to go to find out when the creature existed who gave rise to that kind. Ultimately, if you go back far enough, you'd find a single celled organism that was the ultimate ancestor of us all, and gave birth to 'life' kind. And that my friend is macro-evolution! That is where I draw the line because it's simply not proven.



It is not quite how you put it. We did not decide that it happened arbitrarily that it happened, then try to figure out how and if it did. The ability to study small changes in DNA through generations, and survival of the fittest being seen in species show us that a species can evolve. Again my complaint isn't on species but kinds. We have never seen one kind evolve into another. As I explained above, this will, over long time periods lead to the creation of at least two descendant species You take that on faith., who will then diverge and so on. This mean that life must, originally, have had one ancestor who was at the start of the chain. Faith again. If you can't see how you take this on faith then I don't know what else to say, I hope you get the point I'm trying to get across because I'm trying hard.. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying that if we go far back enough through a lot of small changes we had a common ancestor. You again as soon as you say "way back when" left the realm of observation and into faith.. Geological fossil records and other evidence show us that it has happened, that we have evolved, and that the further back we go the more common the ancestors are.

1.The fossil record goes against evolution because we don't see the slight gradual changes.

2.Also how do you explain away the Cambrian explosion?

3.Bones don't prove they had children, let alone different children. All we can conclude is it died.

We THEN need to figure out how it happened, by which we mean that there have been times of slow change and times of fast change, and we're not sure why. Are you saying that sometimes quick changes occurred and that's why we don't see it preserved in the fossil record? If so it's arguing from the lack of evidence. There are other things we do not know about how it happened, but a lack of knowledge about something does not make the rest of it untrue. It doesn't mean we can assume it is either. It means we don't know. Therefore we should assume it is. What we know is that it happened, and a lot about how, just not all about how. Kinda sounds like, he we're here...so we're here...therefore it had to happen! It's usually how Kent Hovind puts it, and coming to this conclusion is to me very illogical.

Chances of life happening are irrelevant to evolution. Sure it is, especially in Darwinian evolution which is what is taught. If the trunk didn't exist, how do the branches? We don't know how life started, but that is not what the theory of evolution is. Then do you agree we shouldn't teach how the first macro-molecule might've became a cell in a science class? It has nothing to do with science and there is no record of the event. It's pure faith. The theory of evolution, in itself will quite allow for God to have created the first cell, for example, and that have no bearing on evolution at all. I worship Jesus who created all things and I don't believe he needed to use death and suffering to bring up man.

You can be sure but again it's on faith. I personally see no evidence or need to believe in evolution because I don't see real evidence, just imagination. And I don't mind that you believe in it, you're my brother in Christ, but I don't like it when it's called science.

What seems more likely is that naturally occurring chemicals cause other chemicals to become like themselves, through purely chemical reactions. This can happen with actually very basic molecules, not nearly as complicated as cells alive today. Have you heard of physicalists? They believe we're purely chemicals. God said he breathed life into us and we have a soul. Huge difference between the two. Like a prion protein for example, only less complicated again. These sort of molecules are not alive, but actually quite likely to occur.

There is no way for a cell to form, it has never been observed even with intelligence guiding it. If you believe God did it then cool, but there is no evidence that it happened, and it's certainly an impossibility of happening with no creator. A cell is more complex than a space shuttle. They reason why many people fall for this is because of the time Darwin wrote his book, they believed back then that a cell was a simple blob of jelly. Today we know there is no such things as a 'simple' cell. Even the most simple is really complex. I would also like to bring up the miller-urey experiment. They got nowhere close to producing life, why is it still taught?

This process gets these molecules more and more complex, until they are a variety of molecules working together. Eventually they come together to for life.

Impossible unless God did it.

It's very unlikely. I could wait billions of years I'll never see a building form regardless of the abundance of matter. I can even squeeze the blob out of a cell and wait, and while it has all the material to make a cell it wont. Just as if I put a frog in a blender and shred it, no matter how long I wait it won't become a frog. A cell is just to complex for it to form by chance. The DNA and it's organelles are just too much to form by what you said.



Indeed it does not teach how it happened. That is other theories, the most likely of which is outlined above.

Alright but it still shouldn't be considered science but be put in a religious class.

Actually not that hard. Science is the study of the world through the scientific method. I really can't be bothered to type that out here, so see this article on Wikipedia to see what this is, and then feel free to ask again if you don't see why this is not what ID is.

I know what the scientific method is already.

Same with "natural processes did it" We simply cannot know. It's not observable, testable, and falsifiable.



There are two points here worth addressing. Firstly is what "science" can and cannot explain. Science is a method by which we seek to explain things, not an entity in itself. ID seeks to explain the design in things we observe everyday. Thus science cannot tell us anything, rather that we can use it to test out ideas to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Because we have not got all the answers yet does not mean that "science cannot tell us how...", just that we do not know yet. We may never do, or we may somehow find out in the next decade, but our use of science potentially can tell us how the universe began. I would go as far to say that science has been making the case for evolution to worse. I'm really sure that this will be one of histories biggest jokes. ( no offense )

Our current lack of knowledge is very different from saying that the scientific method is incapable of telling us how the universe or life began, which, as our understanding continues to increase, it may well do. Agreed. But the case for evolution is only gonna get worse because we keep finding out how much more complex life is.

Secondly, it would be wrong to say that "the universe's very existence implies an intelligent universe maker" It implies a maker. The big bang doesn't explain where matter came from. We know the universe began because of the law of thermodynamics. We can't conclude it created itself, so either we don't exist and we just think we do, or an uncaused cause did it. Read about the Kalam Cosmological argument if you are interested.. It does not imply that any more than the existence of a rock implies that volcanic activity is intelligent or in any way sentient at all. For that exact rock, with that exact atomic structure to have come into being at that exact tie was INCREDIBLY unlikely. I mean that rock has a more complicated atomic structure of the first life forms. There is no way a rock is more complex than even the simplest of cells. How could it have happened that way? Was the volcanic activity that created it intelligent?

Doesn't mean it did either. It's almost impossible and it's pure imagination to do so.

1) Everything that begins has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

 

[ab1385]

I will get to your post soon, but can you please tell me how we know if something is the same 'kind' as something else? Not what it is, as the definition you have given is a little woolly, but what I want to know is how you know what these 'kinds' are. How do you know if a coyote is of 'dog' kind? How do you figure out if, say, elephant and rhino are the same 'kind'? Unless you have a systematic way of defining this, then this becomes such that if I could show you two different animals having a common ancestor, you would change your definition of their kind so that it would still hold true. A 'kind' needs to be a static, definable thing, so that I could see you criteria, and then easily come to the same conclusion as to what kind a platypus was, for example.

 

[ab1385]

That's not what I meant by kinds and what I'm trying to get across is this: it's not about species. I agree, animals produce different species over time. There are many species of birds, that doesn't mean eventually it will produce a non bird. THAT is macro evolution. It's true birds will diverge and variate to a point where they can't interbreed but they will still be birds. They will never grow new structures and develop a new anatomy altogether. At least that's not in the realm of science.

The definition of species has been shaky too. I would say we have to use our common sense to figure out what animals are the same kind. A polar bear and a grizzly bear are the same kind of animal regardless of whether they can interbreed. A zebra and a horse are the same kind of animal. An eagle and a humming bird are the same kind of animal. I believe in micro-evolution where we will get a great variety of a certain kind of animal, but I never believe it will changed completely over to another animal.

I don't understand where you have this definition of 'macro evolution' from. Since no serious scientist considers this idea of 'kinds', we are talking about a different idea here. Evolution, macro or otherwise, is the creation of new species, defined by animals that cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. That is what a speciesis, and is a very sensible way of defining a species, being able to procreate.

You do not have any evidence for these 'kinds' - it is an idea introduced by creationists to support evolution bashing - there is no scientific basis for this idea. If there was, then there would be obvious ways of classifying them, and only once one classifies them can one scientifically discuss them. You need to define what they are, and that is not as easy as you seem to make out. a child sees a whale and thinks 'big fish', when it is infact nothing of the sort. You can't sort them by looking at how similar they look to each other, a penguin looks more like a seal than an ostrich or a parakeet, and yet you say that birds are one 'kind'

The real problem with your idea of kinds is that there is absolutely no scientific reason to accept it. There is absolutely no reason to think that there was at some point one of each basic 'kind' from which all modern animals have evolved. There is no evidence to suggest this anywhere.

The burden of proof is on you because we haven't seen it happen.

Reptiles becoming birds = different kind.

And just to make it clear again: it's not about species, when talking about macro I'm sure the only thing creationists object to is the issue of the kinds.

In other words dogs produce only dogs but they came from non dogs. How did the non dogs produce dogs then they themselves weren't dogs.

Did a non-dog bring the dog into existence?

I see what you're saying but you have it mixed up. I hope my definition of kind already cleared this up. It's not about classification, mammals is a broad term, and so it multicellular. The examples I gave above are what the same kinds of animals are. And you said my strongly believing doesn't change this, I'm not sure what you mean because I'm the one lacking the believe in macro-evolution. I simply don't see real evidence for it.

I'm not certain what you meant here. But I believe the point came across by now. It's about the kinds. All the dogs came from two dogs, and they will only continue to produce dogs.

Creationists use this idea of kinds because it is vague enough to be unprovable one way or the other, since species are now accepted to evolve. No-one is suggesting for a second that a bird is going to become a reptile. I'm sure you understand that evolution is about common ancestors rather than a species becoming another different species. I really dont think you've understood the point of my post. You can't define kind by something that looks the same, as looks can be decieving in this regard, and most importantly because the deeper one looks the more similarities one find between all life forms, especially at the genetic level. All the evidence suggests that we did all come from one common ancestor, and there is no reason to suspect that we ever were created as different kinds.

And no, I don't have it mixed up, you misunderstand me. I understand what you are saying about kinds and not being about classification, it is just logically flawed. Sure, we can say that animals such as dogs, wolves, and coyotes share a common ancestor (which by the way was not a 'dog', but something from which they all came similar to all three), but there is no reason to suspect it stops there. What scientific reason do you have for this? Where do you decide where the line is? You can't say you draw a line at a kind, because you have defined a kind by being the creature at that point in evolutionary history. That is circular reasoning. You have to have some reason, external to the idea of kinds being the first level of evolution,

And the burden of proof is on me you say? I disagree, I say it is with both of us. I am not lacking in proof that evolution happened, lets start [urk=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]here[/url] for a reasonably comprehensive load of evidences. Now you show me evidence that we have only evolved from original 'kinds', and that these kinds did not originally share an ancestor.

When you say the point has been made, it has but is far from explained fully. You can't just state that we have evolved from certain 'kinds' without any evidence to support this. Once you say that variation occurs at the genetic level you have admitted that it can happen, so you need to tell me why you think it hasn't. If you don't think you have admitted that then you have not understood how evolution works.

A) Micro evolution is a misleading term. It would be better called a variation.

Variation + selection by environment = evolution. Sorry, but it is that simple.

B) Dogs will produce a variety of dogs. All of which will be dogs. It's ancestor will always be a dog.

Yes it will be, but that doesn't mean it will always look like the dog we have now. It will still always have a dog as it's ancestor, but variation will continue to build up. If you cary something often enough, and there are unlimited possibilities of variation, then eventually you must end up with something that looks incredibly different. Thats what variation is and does.

C) To say a dog will produce a horse over time is what I disagree with. You left the realm of science right there.

And I will happily agree with you there. What I am saying is that a creature, neither dog nor horse but with features of both existed from which a horse evolved, and also from which a dog evolved. A horse will never evolve into a dog or vice versa, but a dog and a coyote may continue to change by small variations until in a million years time they look more different than a horse and a dog do now.

I'm not getting into taxonomy because scientists can categorize these animals through a variety of similarities. Yes mammals are similar in certain ways, that doesn't prove they're all related, if that was the point of your post.

Well, actually, it kind of does, but no, that was not the point of my post. My point was that you have no reliable way of saying whether an animal is of one kind or another. Is a whale a fish kind or not? They look and act very similarly...

I may be misunderstanding you and I'm sorry if I am. But are you saying evolution works only if you go back you will find our ancestors were different, one that produced all the variety of organisms we see today, but the process of us producing different kinds over time in the future is impossible? Either case I disagree with both macro-evolution happening in the past and happening in the future.

I think the problem is that you don't want to understand me, you want to prove me wrong, so you ar making my arguments say something they weren't. I am saying that our ancestors were different from us, this much is obviously true. Since you accept that creatures vary genetically over periods of time, in order for this to have happened to us, which it obviously has, we must previously have been different. The further back you go, the more different we would be. This so far is the logical reult of variation, which you say you agree with.

I am not making any comment about kinds whatsoever, since I do not believe there is such a thing as a 'kind'. Therefore I cannot say there is or is not any possibility of making new 'kinds' in the future. If you are saying that akind is the furthest back common ancestor, which you seem to be, then I would say that all life is one kind, and therefore no new ones will be made, as any new species will be of the same 'kind', i.e. a live carbon based life form.

In the coyote and dog example, if there is genetic variation, how different will a dog and a coyote look from each other in 10,000 years? Are we agreed they will look more different than they do now? Good. So give it another 10,000 years. Then a million. they will look so different that someone now coming at it from a similar POV as you are now would consider them to be different 'kinds'. If there is genetic variation then there is no reason this would not happen.

 

[ab1385]

Because you can tell just by looking. I take it upon common sense. Kent Hovind always says even a 5th grader can figure it out. You can put a dog, a coyote, and a banana, and ask a child which one is not the same kind as the rest, the kid gets it all the time. I'm sure people will get it if you replace the banana with a cat. Coyotes came from two dogs. We know this, it's just another species of dogs, but it's still a dog.

I'm not sure if I even want to address a point made by Dr. Fraud, but I will. You can't say the child got it 'right' unless you define what correct is! And state how you go about defining that. Saying the child agrees with you is not saying the child is right, only that he agrees with you. Why is a horse different from a cat? How similar does it have to be to be of the same kind? Don't get me wrong, I can see that a fox and a dog are similar. I can see that they have a similarity that suggests they are closely related, like perhaps siblings. I can however see how cats and dogs are similar, maybe less so, more like cousins. After all, they may look different but have incredibly similar anatomy, bine structure, and genetic coding.

I don't know about you but it makes perfect sense to me. It's not hard for me to believe this as it is what I see.

I don't disagree that it is easy to see they are related, They obviously are. However, dogs and cats are so similar 'under the hood', so to speak, as to make the same assumption of a common ancestor. And there is no reason to suggest that if we go back further then we are still related to other, now less similar due to variation, animals.

Because the species that evolved into a dog were already some kind of dog already. They weren't a different KIND of animal. The species that brought dogs would never be a cat, then going back far enough a sponge.

And that my friend is macro-evolution! That is where I draw the line because it's simply not proven.

I don't really understand how you can talk about this idea of kinds as if it is at all scientific. The idea of macro evolution as you have presented it is just as proven as the evolution from dog to coyote, which you seem to accept. It is the same process.

1.The fossil record goes against evolution because we don't see the slight gradual changes.

2.Also how do you explain away the Cambrian explosion?

3.Bones don't prove they had children, let alone different children. All we can conclude is it died.

I won't deal with this here, this has already been dealth with a thousand times here and elsewhere. Throwing up these arguments doesn't help as you wont listen to the answer with a view that you may have been wrong.

Are you saying that sometimes quick changes occurred and that's why we don't see it preserved in the fossil record? If so it's arguing from the lack of evidence.

No, I'm not saying that's why the fossil record is not encyclopaedic. The fossil record is not such because of the incredible unlikeliness of a creature becoming fossilised when it dies, due to the very specific circumsances needed for fossilisation to occur. What I wa saying is that there are variations in the speed at which evolution occurs, and we do not know why this happens.

It doesn't mean we can assume it is either. It means we don't know. Therefore we should assume it is.

All I said was that a lack of understanding about 'how' something happened does not affect our knowledge of 'whether' something happened. I do not know how my computer processor is sending this information to the netm that doesn't mean I should doubt that it is doing so.

Kinda sounds like, he we're here...so we're here...therefore it had to happen! It's usually how Kent Hovind puts it, and coming to this conclusion is to me very illogical.

It sounds illogicalbecause you are very slightly missing what I am saying. Any of a million possibilities of species could have ended up being 'us', we were, I suppose, one in a million chance. But any one of those million chances would ask 'wow, one in a million, how unlikely is that?' But if every one of the potential possible species would say that, then the chances of whoever the species becomes asking that it 100%.

Kent Hovind has a way of putting the arguments in such a way as not to say what people are trying to say, and thus they sound illogical. He makes no effort to accurately represent the views of those he is debating. Trying to make it sound stupid is dishonest as well as wrong.

Then do you agree we shouldn't teach how the first macro-molecule might've became a cell in a science class? It has nothing to do with science and there is no record of the event. It's pure faith.

It is far from proven to be sure, so should not be taught as fact, but is the best answer we have and should be taught as such.

I worship Jesus who created all things and I don't believe he needed to use death and suffering to bring up man.

I don't believe he needed to either. Just that he did. And God still uses suffering now to shape his children, I'm sure you are aware of that.

You can be sure but again it's on faith. I personally see no evidence or need to believe in evolution because I don't see real evidence, just imagination. And I don't mind that you believe in it, you're my brother in Christ, but I don't like it when it's called science.

You don't see evidence because you won't accept that it might be true. If you look at the link I posted above I bet you've decided it's all wrong before you've got past the title. Can you, in all honesty, say that you first looked at it and read it through before deciding whether you agreed on it or not? Honestly?

Have you heard of physicalists? They believe we're purely chemicals. God said he breathed life into us and we have a soul. Huge difference between the two.

How and when God gave us a soul I do not know. Nor can we ever know, since that is beyond the realm of what we can use science to discover.

There is no way for a cell to form, it has never been observed even with intelligence guiding it. If you believe God did it then cool, but there is no evidence that it happened, and it's certainly an impossibility of happening with no creator. A cell is more complex than a space shuttle. They reason why many people fall for this is because of the time Darwin wrote his book, they believed back then that a cell was a simple blob of jelly. Today we know there is no such things as a 'simple' cell. Even the most simple is really complex. I would also like to bring up the miller-urey experiment. They got nowhere close to producing life, why is it still taught?

Please, try to understand what people mean by evolution from a source like talkorigins.org, where we both know that it will be fairl represented. That way, if you disagree with evolution, you will disagree with what evolution actually teaches, not what Kent Hovind says it teaches. I don't mean to be insulting, so I apologise if it comes across that way, but your posts show that you do misunderstand some fundamental points of what evolution is and how it works.

People do not 'fall for' evolution, they weigh it up and find it to be a strong theory. People back in Darwin's time didn't have a clue that a cell was involved at all, all Darwin said was that all life had a common ancestor, which was the logical result of the fact that animals and plants evolve, which is what he showed happening.

Please don't make statements that are false like this one - it doesn't help your argument.

Impossible unless God did it.

It's very unlikely. I could wait billions of years I'll never see a building form regardless of the abundance of matter. I can even squeeze the blob out of a cell and wait, and while it has all the material to make a cell it wont. Just as if I put a frog in a blender and shred it, no matter how long I wait it won't become a frog. A cell is just to complex for it to form by chance. The DNA and it's organelles are just too much to form by what you said.

This again shows you do not understand what I was saying about the potential origins of life. But that is still a theory, and who knows, maybe God did do that supernaturally? But our lack of understanding, and therefore assuming it was supernatural, has made Christians look stupid in the past. All I can say is that I do not know how it happened, and that is the current theory, albeit badly explained.

Same with "natural processes did it" We simply cannot know. It's not observable, testable, and falsifiable.

As of now, we cannot test and prove how life started. This does not mean we never will be able to, just that we cannot now. We may never be able to, but on the other hand we may. That is not something you or I can know.

There is no way a rock is more complex than even the simplest of cells.

Well, at a purely molecular level, it has billions of times more molecules, so at the most fundamental level, yes, it is more complex than any cell.

1) Everything that begins has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

How do you know that the universe had a beginning? And is not more cyclical in nature?

I think it did have a beginning, probably caused by God, because there is no scientific way to know this, and because I believe in God as creator, ultimately, of the universe. There is no scientific evidence for this view though.



Blimey, are we done? That took ages!



Can I ask you to do something hard though? Count this as a personal challenge. If I read 'the questions book' written by AiG, with a serious view to seeing if my views as to what and why creationists views are the way they are and with the viewpoint that I may have been wrong all along, will you do the same for me? Would you feel able to read 'River out of Eden' by Richard Dawkis with a view that you may have misunderstood evolution and why we believe it to be true, and that you may have been wrong all along? Or at least read the articles on http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html about what evolution is?

I honestly think that it takes great courage to challenge your beliefs, and I will be amazed if you are willing to read about evolution from an unbiased source to at least see what it really is and what it is not, with the viewpoint that even if you don't think you are wrong, that you might be. Please?