[_ Old Earth _] Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate

[Gabbylittleangel]

I thought I had posted this in the science forum yesterday, but inadvertently posted two copies in Current Events. :
There is a public forum on "Topix" in Tampa, and I would like to invite those of you who are well spoken in the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate to visit their forum.

Have at it!

TOPIX- Tampa Fl- Public debate on evolution vs intelligent design

Father,
I pray that you will anoint your children with wisdom and truth. I pray that You will call upon those that You would have enter comments into this public debate, give them the words to speak, with grace and truth. Your word does not return void. I pray that through the posts of your people that there will be many that come to knowledge of the truth, and find their way to the cross. I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ, for Your glory. Amen.

 

[Slevin]

A public debate on whether to teach non-science in science class? Hey, let's allow parents to determine what maths are taught to their kids too!

 

[Dunzo]

A public debate on whether to teach non-science in science class? Hey, let's allow parents to determine what maths are taught to their kids too!

I don't want calculus to be taught to my kids. It's purely theoretical!

 

[Guest]

A public debate on whether to teach non-science in science class? Hey, let's allow parents to determine what maths are taught to their kids too!

And I don't want history taught to my kids: history is relative to who is recording it .

 

[Guest]

I thought I had posted this in the science forum yesterday, but inadvertently posted two copies in Current Events. :
There is a public forum on "Topix" in Tampa, and I would like to invite those of you who are well spoken in the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate to visit their forum.

Have at it!

TOPIX- Tampa Fl- Public debate on evolution vs intelligent design

Father,
I pray that you will anoint your children with wisdom and truth. I pray that You will call upon those that You would have enter comments into this public debate, give them the words to speak, with grace and truth. Your word does not return void. I pray that through the posts of your people that there will be many that come to knowledge of the truth, and find their way to the cross. I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ, for Your glory. Amen.

So is this going to be a discussion in Intelligent Design vs Evolution or Creationism vs Evolution?
Because Intelligent Design is not Creationism...

 

[Dunzo]

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

It most certainly is.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

The purpose of this thread was to post the link to a public debate...not for atheist to act silly.
If you like, feel free to start your very own "Place for atheist to act silly" thread.
Thank you.

 

[Guest]

The purpose of this thread was to post the link to a public debate...not for atheist to act silly.
If you like, feel free to start your very own "Place for atheist to act silly" thread.
Thank you.

So you're not starting a discussion, but advertising another forum on this forum?

 

[Guest]

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

It most certainly is.

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

 

[Dunzo]

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

I don't see the difference. Simply wrapping up creationism in a shiny box and naming it something different does not make it different.

Creationism states that god created the universe.
Intelligent design states that a god created the universe. Intelligently. Since virtually 100% of ID advocates will say the creator is the christian god, I don't see a difference at all.
Same thing.

 

[Guest]

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

I don't see the difference. Simply wrapping up creationism in a shiny box and naming it something different does not make it different.

Creationism states that god created the universe.
Intelligent design states that a god created the universe. Intelligently. Since virtually 100% of ID advocates will say the creator is the christian god, I don't see a difference at all.
Same thing.

Intelligent Design only speaks about the creation of life and it has nothing to do with the Biblical accounts of Creation. The difference is that Intelligent Design does not recognize the "higher being" as the creator of the world, but only as the creator of microbiological life and it tends to go along with Evolution as the driving force after that. It's closer related to believing in Aliens who came to Earth and created life here. Again, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's definitely not Creationism.

 

[Slevin]

Intelligent Design only speaks about the creation of life and it has nothing to do with the Biblical accounts of Creation. The difference is that Intelligent Design does not recognize the "higher being" as the creator of the world, but only as the creator of microbiological life and it tends to go along with Evolution as the driving force after that. It's closer related to believing in Aliens who came to Earth and created life here.

Except that stating aliens creating life doesn't answer the question of "where did that alien life come from?"

 

[Guest]

Intelligent Design only speaks about the creation of life and it has nothing to do with the Biblical accounts of Creation. The difference is that Intelligent Design does not recognize the "higher being" as the creator of the world, but only as the creator of microbiological life and it tends to go along with Evolution as the driving force after that. It's closer related to believing in Aliens who came to Earth and created life here.

Except that stating aliens creating life doesn't answer the question of "where did that alien life come from?"

Again, I don't support that idea... but I'm just saying that it's not Creationism, neither is it based on some observations or scientific conclusions. It's a pretty baseless theory, makes little sense, and I consider it worthless.

 

[Jayls5]

Intelligent Design is not Creationism

It most certainly is.

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

Sorry buddy, they're the same. ID is creationism with a few words to distance itself from its obvious religious motivations. If you follow the ID argument, it leads to God. Let us take the other possibility according to the ID apologists... that we were designed by another intelligent source. This same logic would apply to that intelligent source as well. We would have to suppose that something even more intelligent and complex made the thing that created us. We are then supposed to revert back to that age old "God" explanation where we somehow lose the will to ask what made God complex enough to design everything.

 

[Guest]

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

Sorry buddy, they're the same. ID is creationism with a few words to distance itself from its obvious religious motivations. If you follow the ID argument, it leads to God. Let us take the other possibility according to the ID apologists... that we were designed by another intelligent source. This same logic would apply to that intelligent source as well. We would have to suppose that something even more intelligent and complex made the thing that created us. We are then supposed to revert back to that age old "God" explanation where we somehow lose the will to ask what made God complex enough to design everything.

Again, I don't subscribe to the idea of Intelligent Design... I want to point out the difference:
1. ID does not use Christian theology, nor is it Creationism.
2. ID does not suggest the world was created 6k years ago, like Creationism does.
3. ID does not suggest that God created Adam and Eve, but rather another "being" created microbiological life.
Overall, it is true that the other we can pose the same question for the "other being", and end up with a conclusion that there needs to be a God, but that is dramatically different from Biblical accounts from Creation.
Again, I don't support the idea of Intelligent Design, but I just want to point out that it is not Creationism by any means. If anybody Christian is trying to use intelligent design in their arguments against Evolution, they're only hurting themselves because they're denouncing the Bible and God's word.

 

[jwu]

ID does not suggest that God created Adam and Eve, but rather another "being" created microbiological life.

As far as i know ID doesn't make any specific statemens as to what exactly the designer designed, and where his involvement stopped.

What you describe seems to be more like an explanation for the origin of life itself...but as far as i know ID is supposed to explain the diversity of life as well.

 

[Vic C.]

1. ID does not use Christian theology, nor is it Creationism.

2. ID does not suggest the world was created 6k years ago, like Creationism does.

1) Who's Christian Theology? The literalistic creation account or other, more allegorical accounts that other believers here have pointed out elsewhere, in other threads?

2) This is not true. Not all believers adhere to a 6k old creation. Some believe in a 12-13k creation. Either way, that would be YEC or Young earth creationists. There is also the OEC or Old earth creation belief.

3. ID does not suggest that God created Adam and Eve, but rather another "being" created microbiological life.

I'm with jwu. I'm not sure ID makes any claim on where ID starts, stops and may start up again.

So with that, ID could very well fit into some believer's theology without conflict with God or the Bible, as several believer's have posted in various other forums here. Bottom line for me however is that the God of the Bible is my "designer' and all Man is doing is trying to figure out His "methods". ;-)

Here is the Discovery Institutes's site:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

 

[Jayls5]

Don't be confused, Intelligent Design is not Creationism, although it seems like a modern spin-off sometimes used by Christians. Intelligent Design does not identify God as the creator, but a higher being, which of course could be God due to the lack of definition. It's a small difference, but this is as close to being an atheists and not knowing anything about science as a person can get.

Sorry buddy, they're the same. ID is creationism with a few words to distance itself from its obvious religious motivations. If you follow the ID argument, it leads to God. Let us take the other possibility according to the ID apologists... that we were designed by another intelligent source. This same logic would apply to that intelligent source as well. We would have to suppose that something even more intelligent and complex made the thing that created us. We are then supposed to revert back to that age old "God" explanation where we somehow lose the will to ask what made God complex enough to design everything.

Again, I don't subscribe to the idea of Intelligent Design... I want to point out the difference:
1. ID does not use Christian theology, nor is it Creationism.
2. ID does not suggest the world was created 6k years ago, like Creationism does.
3. ID does not suggest that God created Adam and Eve, but rather another "being" created microbiological life.
Overall, it is true that the other we can pose the same question for the "other being", and end up with a conclusion that there needs to be a God, but that is dramatically different from Biblical accounts from Creation.
Again, I don't support the idea of Intelligent Design, but I just want to point out that it is not Creationism by any means. If anybody Christian is trying to use intelligent design in their arguments against Evolution, they're only hurting themselves because they're denouncing the Bible and God's word.

Fair enough. I was arguing the general conclusion of a deity that both necessarily share. The intricate details are irrelevant to me.

To assert that ID does not argue for a deity is at best a half truth, and at worst downright false. By declaring a mechanism as being too complex to be formed by "random chance" (a complete bastardization of evolution by the way), THEN attributing that mechanism to a higher intelligence, it necessarily leads one to continually beg the question what "greater" thing made each successive creator.

The obvious end goal is God, since He is the only "intelligent source" purported by theists who is not only complex enough to make any mechanism (that has the ability to make us), but magically doesn't require the same line of questioning we did for every other intelligent creator.

This criticism is successful against any theist who claims an irreducible mechanism. If something is too complex to be created by evolutionary processes, then one cannot ever logically reach God without those premises ALSO being attributed to God. To assert that God does not require a more complex creator and allow Him to "create itself" or "always exist," begs the question why another designer couldn't have that exact same explanation. In order to exempt God from needing a more complex source, one would have to resort to a typical explanation of "omnipotence" or something similar. That's how it usually goes though... when logic breaks down, give God the ability to break logic! This also begs the question why anyone bothered with the argument in the first place. Why not just say "GOD EXISTS DESPITE LOGICAL ABSURDITY BECAUSE HE IS ALL POWERFUL!" I can only speculate that it's because it sounds less convincing, and one is less likely to gain a potential convert. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

So Jayls5, let me ask; do you actually think your existence, your flesh and blood and ability to function in a human manner, is some random act of this so-called theory of evolution? Then you would say that's logical and our faith isn't? How does one function day in and day out believing they have no specific purpose in life? The mathematical odds of your theory and it's end results are far more astronomical and incomprehensible than our belief in God as creator and sustainer. I wonder, who has more faith here, atheists or believers? One of us have a lot to lose if we're wrong.

Even Einstein, one of the wizards in mathematics, conceded to a God created type of design. What about Newton? Both men did not see Faith as their enemy. Both believed in a higher power, especially Newton, who was a man of great Faith and one of our most influential scientist of all time. You seem to be driving a wedge between Faith and science that these men just didn't see or feel they needed.

I'm not venting on you, but on this idea that Faith is illogical. But I shouldn't be surprised, this is the way of the secular world. :-?

 

[jwu]

The mathematical odds of your theory and it's end results are far more astronomical and incomprehensible than our belief in God as creator and sustainer.

Just wondering...what are these odds and how were they calculated?