I think the crux of the argument is that evolution is a process that has been proven but it doesn't prove the origins of life, it just proves the development and processes that have allowed life to flourish. It seems that Intelligent Design is more of a thought describing how life came about more so than how life continued to change.
I think the crux of the argument is that evolution is a process that has been proven but it doesn't prove the origins of life, it just proves the development and processes that have allowed life to flourish. It seems that Intelligent Design is more of a thought describing how life came about more so than how life continued to change.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Yes, that's definitely true. Creationism (hence it's name) tries to explain more than evolution. It doesn't, however, make that explanation in a scientifically verifiable way. Hence, my desire to see evolution (the science) taught in a science classroom and Christian creation (along with other creation stories / theories) taught in a religion class.
It's a nice arraignment . Children get the science behind how we arrived in 2007 in the science classroom. In a religion course (which I think kids should take), they get exposed to religious beliefs and practices from around the world, focusing on the 'biggies' - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
Demon-Xanth
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2000
- 20,551
- 2
- 81
The difference between science and religion:
Science is okay with being wrong from time to time, they just update the books.
The bible hasn't been updated for about 400 years and the Qur'an for about 1400 years. It's considered heresy to speak against the bible, and it's considered against shiara law to be critical of the Qur'an.
Note: the Qur'an didn't exist as a book until after 632 and the Bible's new testament until 1516.
So, with science, if you think something is wrong, and can prove it's wrong, science changes to accept the new knowledge. With religion, if you think something's wrong, you're not allowed to speak against it because people centuries ago knew everything.
As far as evolution goes, just look at the trend for average height of people. You'll notice that over the centuries people in many areas are indeed getting taller. Also, look at people in northern areas, they're typically huskier and lighter skinned than people in hotter regions, where people are skinnier and darker skinned. That's evolution.
Science is okay with being wrong from time to time, they just update the books.
The bible hasn't been updated for about 400 years and the Qur'an for about 1400 years. It's considered heresy to speak against the bible, and it's considered against shiara law to be critical of the Qur'an.
Note: the Qur'an didn't exist as a book until after 632 and the Bible's new testament until 1516.
So, with science, if you think something is wrong, and can prove it's wrong, science changes to accept the new knowledge. With religion, if you think something's wrong, you're not allowed to speak against it because people centuries ago knew everything.
As far as evolution goes, just look at the trend for average height of people. You'll notice that over the centuries people in many areas are indeed getting taller. Also, look at people in northern areas, they're typically huskier and lighter skinned than people in hotter regions, where people are skinnier and darker skinned. That's evolution.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Intelligent design is not valid scientific theory because it is not falsifiable.
"For instance, the law of gravity states that more massive objects exert a stronger gravitational attraction than do objects with less mass when distance is held constant. This is a scientific law because it could be falsified if newly-discovered objects operate differently with respect to gravitational attraction. In contrast, the core idea among creationists is that species were placed on earth fully-formed by some supernatural entity. Obviously, there is no scientific method by which such a belief could be shown to be false. Since this special creation view is impossible to falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an oxymoron. Creation science is a religious belief and as such, does not require that it be falsifiable."
- "Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science?", by William F. McComas
Intelligent Design is Creationism with one change. "God" is now "a creator entity."
The story of Creationism tried to evolve to suit its new environment, by donning a disguise.
ID is a threat to true science, and Chris Comer was trying to defend science.
A curious bit about evolution - people often say, "We never see a species turning into another one."
For one thing, that's because our lifespans are puny compared to nature's timescales. Second, there's our definition of "species." It's all in how life forms are categorized by us. Is a human from Africa different in some way from a human from Asia? Yes, there are undeniable differences. Perhaps another intelligent life form on another planet would categorize them as being two different "species." We do not.
That definition itself may play a fundamental role in the public's perception of evolution, though the timescales involved, and the sheer number of generations and, ultimately, iterations of offspring produced, also serve to turn off people to these things. When you start talking about millions of years, and millions of generations, too many people get a buffer overflow error, and go back to their failsafe answer: "God did it." Three words, no millions of anything, not much to have to try to understand, and it alleviates the feeling of, "There is something out there that I do not know."
With the "God did it" "explanation," then the source of everything is suddenly known. You don't need to ponder changes taking place in billions of life forms over millions of years, because there's an easier answer for our highly intelligent, yet spectacularly limited brains to comprehend.
"For instance, the law of gravity states that more massive objects exert a stronger gravitational attraction than do objects with less mass when distance is held constant. This is a scientific law because it could be falsified if newly-discovered objects operate differently with respect to gravitational attraction. In contrast, the core idea among creationists is that species were placed on earth fully-formed by some supernatural entity. Obviously, there is no scientific method by which such a belief could be shown to be false. Since this special creation view is impossible to falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an oxymoron. Creation science is a religious belief and as such, does not require that it be falsifiable."
- "Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science?", by William F. McComas
Intelligent Design is Creationism with one change. "God" is now "a creator entity."
The story of Creationism tried to evolve to suit its new environment, by donning a disguise.
ID is a threat to true science, and Chris Comer was trying to defend science.
That's one of science's great strengths is its acceptance of change. It allows for progress. Static beliefs of religion prevent progress by definition.
A curious bit about evolution - people often say, "We never see a species turning into another one."
For one thing, that's because our lifespans are puny compared to nature's timescales. Second, there's our definition of "species." It's all in how life forms are categorized by us. Is a human from Africa different in some way from a human from Asia? Yes, there are undeniable differences. Perhaps another intelligent life form on another planet would categorize them as being two different "species." We do not.
That definition itself may play a fundamental role in the public's perception of evolution, though the timescales involved, and the sheer number of generations and, ultimately, iterations of offspring produced, also serve to turn off people to these things. When you start talking about millions of years, and millions of generations, too many people get a buffer overflow error, and go back to their failsafe answer: "God did it." Three words, no millions of anything, not much to have to try to understand, and it alleviates the feeling of, "There is something out there that I do not know."
With the "God did it" "explanation," then the source of everything is suddenly known. You don't need to ponder changes taking place in billions of life forms over millions of years, because there's an easier answer for our highly intelligent, yet spectacularly limited brains to comprehend.
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
ID claims that evolution does not explain the way life changes, and that a supernatural being had to be involved
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Which is exactly why it should never be brought up when discussing science, especially in a science classroom.
Actually that's a secular trend, not evolution.
The skinner & darker/huskier & lighter things though are evolution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter