10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > Evolution Education > Discussions > Topic: Must evolution and Creationism (Intelligent Design) always be at odds?
Topic: Must evolution and Creationism (Intelligent Design) always be at odds?

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.


	Must evolution and Creationism (Intelligent Design) always be at odds? January 26, 2006 5:03 PM That's a question that came to mind when I was reviewing the earliest threads for this group, back when it had a different name and purpose. I found this comment by an early member and it got me to thinking. http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=18186&archival=1 Cassandra L. I'm a die hard scientist, and no doubt evolution rules, but I think it is by intelligent Design. Just finished a book called "A Case for Creation" It was full of scientific argument for a creator. My reply to her was: Dale H. Thank you for your input. Although this group does assume that biological evolution is a confirmed fact, there is no problem with having a variety of viewpoints expressed within that context. For example, the fossil record clearly shows that Earth has undergone several catastrophies in which the majority of animal species were wiped out. This event is called a mass extinction. It is possible that the story of Noah's flood, written and edited thousands of years after the event, was an actual example of a mass extinction that took place about 10,000 years ago and is now only remembered in the form of the various flood stories preserved in the ancient mythologies of the Greeks, Babylonians, Hebrews, Hindus, and many others. Indeed, the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last ice age must indeed have caused massive flooding that would dwarf any that has occurred in recorded history! Later, I said in another thread: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=103523&archival= "I know if I were the Creator, I would have done a far better job of creating all species from scratch than what we really have in nature. For example, I would have DESIGNED animals so that ALL species would be live bearers, not egg layers and ALL animal parents would take an active role in the raising of their young!" Here's the problem: If I, in my mere human intellect, know that it is senseless for any animals to lay eggs and then to abandon them, why could not an "intelligent designer" understand that? And to that, I'd add now: I certainly would not have designed the leaves of plants to be green (black would absorb far more sunlight) or given fish and amphibians hearts with less than four chambers, or allowed humans to have appendixes that serve no purpose! Could I be more intelligent than the designer of life on Earth? [ send green star]
Don Q.	In a word January 26, 2006 7:56 PM YES! I D is crap. Politics really. Not science. Not religion. Just crap, intended to muddy the waters of science with doubt, for children who know no better. Makes the rednecked bible thumping morons feel better about twisting their childrens minds toward treating their mythology as more than story, like they have been ordered to do. The whole thing makes me want to go postal on the scoundrels encouraging it to go on. But I will sit and stew, because some people will never relinquish their power over those who refuse to think. Of course if we all continue to let this ride, we'll end up with rich retarded trailer park trash in the White House. Um, oh yeah, never mind. [ send green star]
Woodrow F.	January 26, 2006 8:31 PM Religion and Science should never have any reason for disagreement if both are true. Disagreement only occurs if either or both present falsehoods as fact. Although it is impossible to prove a negative, science is always faced with the necessity of providing replicable verification of any statement. It is always in a constant state of finding confirmation of any and all statements. Religion, need only depend on the faith of the followers. Sadly it can be a blind faith that is blind to evidence. True faith based on verification and historical data, can withstand the same tests as science. Although at the present time there seems to be an impassable block between the two, that stumbling block should erode away as science adopts some concepts of philosophy and religion learns to recognise the value of scientific verification. Yes there is what appears to be conflict, but the conflict need not be. Schools should be obligated to teach both, each within the boundries of it's proper classification. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	Why is the sky blue ? Whatever God ! January 26, 2006 9:06 PM Reality is the Language of God, written by the Hand of God. Whatever ''God''. The SAME God for every living Thing that ever was. As long as religions refuse to accept God and His Creation in Reality, they will continue to suffer from their hate and fear of Truth and suffer in their wars to defend their words, their lies. http://beyondbeliefs.blogspot.com/ [ send green star]
Josh K.	January 26, 2006 11:46 PM You had to come up with this topic right as I was gonna hit the bed. I will reflect more on it, but I do not think that they must be at odds. I am reminded of a part from Contact, after Dr. Arroway comes back from her journey (Jodie Foster, for those who have only seen the movie). Once she is done being grilled in front of Congress, she is attacked by a bunch of reporters. At her side is Palmer Joss, the religious character in the movie. He makes a statement concerning, "we are both searching for the Truth." That is how I can kinda see it, it is Truth, coming at different ways. If, as religion habitually assumes, God is all-powerful, then he could have designed it however he wanted. That is how the argument goes. Science, on the other hand, makes empirical observations about the world, but with no metaphysical reasoning behind them. Just the facts. Thus, it is entirelypossible that an all-powerful lord of the universe is guiding these facts to be just the way they are. I think that science, for too long, has been attacked by religious conservaties as being unspiritual, immoral. Science is neither of those; it is a blank slate. That is its power, and also its limiting factor. Science makes no judgements as to the reasons behind the natural world, only that it formulates theories that correlate well with the observed data. I think they can be compatible. My thoughts are getting jumbled, so I'm off to bed. HOpefully tomorrow some semblance of clear thought will emerge and I will write more. GREAT TOPIC!! [ send green star]
Kyle M.	January 27, 2006 1:54 PM The real question is: Are evolution and intelligent design compatible under Christianity? Religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, to the best of my knowledge, have no conflict between evolution and creationism. In fact, they have little conflict between religion and science. Under Buddhism, it is considered a way of inquiry into the world, and therefore spiritual world. These ultraconservative, wingnuts aren't going to budge from their view of Christianity. Remember, they use the bible to justify hate, classism and even racism in some cases. Yet the question still remains for true bible scholars, is evolution compatible with creationism. The Vatican seems to think so, as do many other denominations. Whether they can get that message out and heard more than the wingnuts remains to be seen. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	Religions must destroy Truth. January 27, 2006 2:04 PM Lies can not survive in the presence of known Truth. Just as much as competing religious lies are the mortal enemy of religions, so to is Truth. Belief can only exist in the absense of competing beliefs and Truth and so they have been builing borders and armies and murdering each other in the NAME of god and the NAME of christ. To them, the last religion left alive is ''The Good One''. [ send green star]
	January 27, 2006 5:59 PM Idon't claim to know the answers any more than the rest of you, but I am certain of this: Unless we are willing to question our most basic assumptions, even about evolution, we cannot claim to be truly scientific. It may indeed be possible that an Intelligent Designer DID create the Earth and all life on it only a few thousand years ago. I just feel in my deepest being that such a Designer, if He exists, would either be incompetent, or intentionally made the Earth to look old to fool us into accepting evolution as true (which would make Him a liar). My sense of ethics is repulsed by such an idea. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	January 27, 2006 6:16 PM The actual problem is that Truth is LIMITED to REALITY. Since Science LIMITS itself To the observation of that TRUTH, it can not answer the questions raised by the LIMITLESS IMAGINATIONS of religions which have not required to support their imaginations with evidence from Reality. http://www.ernestcline.com/dmd/ [ send green star]
anonymous	The FACT is... January 28, 2006 12:49 PM Neither Evolution, nor Intelligent design has any PROVEN FACTS. Neither can be proven. Evolution was created by a man who wanted to make a story of how the Earth was created. How come when one person says something, the rest of the world follows? Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster were ideas created by a group of people, and now everybody else wants to believe it even though it was made up. If everybody believes what one man says, they are also following what some people did with religions. They asked questions about how the world was created, so they made up a believable story to answer the questions. [report anonymous abuse]
	January 28, 2006 4:23 PM Neither Evolution, nor Intelligent design has any PROVEN FACTS. Neither can be proven. Well, I can't prove that World War II happened either, because I didn't see the events associated with that war directly, but since both the physical evidence and the recorded testimonies of people who lived decades ago indicate that the war happened, I accept that it did. Evolution was created by a man who wanted to make a story of how the Earth was created. How come when one person says something, the rest of the world follows? Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster were ideas created by a group of people, and now everybody else wants to believe it even though it was made up. If everybody believes what one man says, they are also following what some people did with religions. They asked questions about how the world was created, so they made up a believable story to answer the questions. In science, nothing should be taken on faith, without evidence. If evolution was merely a story, I wouldn't buy it either. I only do because of a considerable amount of evidence that has been gathered and studied over the past two centuries that supports evolution. One man (if you mean Charles Darwin) did not make up such a story, for it took thousands of men and women to construct a picture of biological and geological evidences for evolution. As for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, while claims may have been made regarding those creatures, investigations have turned up no actual evidence for the existence of them. Therefore, science cannot study them, though scientists may still look for them. Incidentally, even as an evolutionist, I don't consider the writings of Darwin to be anything like sacred scripture, to be followed without question. No one in science is above criticism or questioning. [ send green star]
Josh K.	January 28, 2006 4:48 PM As posted above, "Neither Evolution, nor Intelligent design has any PROVEN FACTS. Neither can be proven." That is hard sentence to put out there, for your idea of proven seems to be rather weak. What does proven mean to you? Can it be seen happening? Can it be recorded by an independent, objective machine? What does it take to be "proven?" If it merely means seeing something by your own eyes, then probably 99.999% of what you "know" is unproven, and therefore bunk. The concept of water. Have you ever seen a single water molecule? How do you know, then, that it is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? Or does this fall into the same category as evolution? The fact is that evolution, on at least a microscopic genetic scale, has been demonstrated by reproducable laboratory experiments. It has been viewed how mutations create fluctuations in the genetic code, and how some of them become the dominant characteristic with time, until the whole thing starts to shift again. Countless experiments have shored up this theory. As far as the macroscopic, epoch-level time scale, the theory that was postulated known as evolution has very closely mirrored what has been found in fossil records, dna samples taken from ancient humans, and other instances. If people were to find evidence that evolution was incorrect, that it failed, it would be thrown away, or modified until it worked with what was physically present. It is not perfect, there are still parts we are learning about. Some of Darwin's original claims in his theory have been proven false, with the advent of newer, more sophistocated technology and a broader scope of science. However it is the best model we have, and fits the data that is observable countless times over the intelligent design argument. [ send green star]
Josh K.	January 28, 2006 4:56 PM Thomas P., " The actual problem is that Truth is LIMITED to REALITY. Since science LIMITS itself To the observation of that TRUTH, it can not answer the questions raised by the LIMITLESS IMAGINATIONS of religions which have not required to support their imaginations with evidence from Reality." I have studied a lot of things in my life, and one of the most mysteriious, gorgeous things that I have found is how science has dreamed up, and proven, things that the wildest imaginations would have a hard time conceiving. Things like black holes, DNA, fractal geometry in nature, molecular structure, the human brain. It took men of limitless imagination to first come up with some of these ideas in the first place, and for a long time they were considered flights of fancy. Truth is limited to reality? Reality defines our truth, and has revealed more imaginations than one could hope to believe. Now, metaphysical questions are a completely different story, and quite outside the scope of this thread. Asking "what came befor the big bang" and such is a totaly different realm of questioning, reasoning, and mentality. [ send green star]
	Thank you, Josh January 28, 2006 5:10 PM We must never assume we know completely what reality is, was, or ever will be, for in the blink of an eye it can change and we may discover something at any time that will rock our preceptions of the universe or life to its foundation. Both Copernicus and Darwin took great risks to put forth a view that changed how we view ourselves, though many in both cases fought bitterly against the new view. Let us be more open minded and humble in the future. [ send green star]
Michelle M.	No, of course not! January 28, 2006 7:06 PM Intelligent Design is a poetic concept that is very often an appropriate emotional response to watching Nature! It's just NOT SCIENCE! It's intuition! It's not something that can be verified by experimentation and observation, at all. But it's a very natural thought, when watching how things work. [ send green star]
Kyle M.	January 29, 2006 7:47 PM Which once again shows that "intelligent Design" is in the eye of the beholder. Some see the beauty of the designer's creation, while some view it more cynically. Why would something create a world such as this in which only 1% of all mosquitoes survive to reach adulthood or children die of rare genetic diseases? What makes that intelligent? With evolution, on the grand scale of things, there is nothing better or worse. We can talk about survival of the fittest, but we are really dealing with probability. If some really, awesomely fit creatures become trapped in an ice storm and become extinct, so be it. If two orgaisms compete or cooperate, it's still difficult to tell what will be the eventualy outcome. If some unfit idiot has a lot of rich friends with lots of power, he can still become president. It is this acceptance of uncertain outcomes that differentiates evolution from the wingnut brand of intelligent design. Now, it does mean, however, with the right knowledge we can make predictions and hypotheses as to what some of those outcomes are likely to be. That is, there is still tremendous potential amongst all of this uncertainty. [ send green star]
Leo M.	As the Vatican has pointed out... January 31, 2006 6:08 AM As the Vatican has pointed out, there isn't a great deal of difference between Old Earth Creationism and Evolution. Basically, that God created the first living cell, the "Seven Days" of the Bible Creationism story are measured in millions or billions of years, and Evolution was the Bible God's chosen method of converting the first living cell into all the other forms of life on Earth. After all, first came water and land, then came animals and plants, and finally came human beings. Evolution is a mechanism which explains the gradual change of microscopic creatures into life as we know it today. It is not the same as Abiogenesis, which is separate from Evolution and not required to accept Evolution as a Scientific Fact and a Scientific Theory (but certainly not a Scientific Hypothesis, it passed that stage quite a long time ago). All the Vatican did was replace Abiogenesis with "God set the life ball rolling", and replace "God created all life instantly" with evolution as the mechanism for turning the original cell into all other life. Your average Evolutionary Theory biologist--especially the Christian ones--doesn't really have a problem with the Vatican's concept of Evolutionary Theory, since it is indistinguishable from Evolutionary Theory. The only people who might be annoyed are the Abiogenesis folks, but again, Abiogenesis isn't required for Evolutionary Theory. The problems come into play when one tries to argue the Young Earth Creationism position, or the "Intelligent Design" position. Young Earth Creationism is easily refuted. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, tries to do an end-run around the flaw in basic Creationism (Young or Old Earth), which is "The easily refutable Bible God did it", by refusing to define the designer. The problem is that Intelligent Design still requires a definition of the designer, or else there can be no reasonable assumptions made about the design. In the absence of a definition of a designer, the only designer example to compare life's "design" to, is Human design. And life certainly does not look man-made. In fact, most of Intelligent Design consists of attacking perceived "vulnerabilities" of Evolutionary Theory, claiming that Evolutionary Theory is false, while making no sustainable positive arguments in favor of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design folks also argue that Evolutionary Theory isn't a Theory because it isn't falsifiable, despite Intelligent Design proponents yelling until they are blue in the mouth that Evolution has been falsified. So since Intelligent Design is largely based on attacking Evolutionary Theory, Intelligent Design must always remain at odds with Evolutionary Theory. The alternative would be to try and justify the unjustifiable position of Intelligent Design. [ send green star]
Botyfltiger E.	Link for reading May 28, 2006 7:36 AM http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=933 As we in the States know it is UNlawful to demand that any Pubilc school teach ANY FORM of religion as fact. Can't it be said that when Darwin came up with his theory of evolution out came the religion fundamentalists saying it was all lies, only cause it contradicts their theory that a unforseen being created the entire world in 7 days? Peace and Love [ send green star]
Sam H.	Margaret... May 28, 2006 7:44 AM ...I think he did that in six days. Remember, he rested on the seventh! And I always wondered why he had to rush. S/He must have had big plans for that weekend. [ send green star]
Sam H.	Do You Ever Wonder... May 28, 2006 7:52 AM ...about what God did the week before S/He created the world? [ send green star]
	May 28, 2006 7:59 AM I still say that my most damning argument against Intelligent Design is that I myself would have had far better designs for the organisms that exist today. Most people that are impressed by the "designs" of animals really lack the imagination to think of better ways to do things. They blindly accept the way things are, not trying to see how anything can be improved. That attitude is really anti-science. If you can't see how things can be improved, why bother with science at all? [ send green star]
	Sam May 28, 2006 8:09 AM Actually, the latest understanding of the origin of the universe indicates that prior to the Big Bang, time itself did not exist. Without the existence of space produced by the Big Bang, time had no meaning. And without time, references in space have no meaning. So in a sense, the theological idea that God as Creator exists outside space and time makes perfect sense. Unfortunatly for Creationists, that means that God cannot be studied directly by scientists. Science is all about references to space and time, as well as things within the physical universe. But if a Creator or Intelligent Designer cannot be directly accessed by science, then even if you could infer the existence of such a Creator, that would lead to no actual knowledge of Him/Her/It/Them. And blindly assuming at any point that Intelligent Design caused something, rather than at least attempting to find a natural explanation, is a perfect way to STOP the advancement of science altogether! [ send green star]
	Time... May 28, 2006 8:27 AM ...has to be relative to something. The reason that there was no time before the bang was that there was no related force or matter upon which it could be measured. Consider the way we measure time: rotation upon the Earth's axis, orbital travel around our star, etc. Our notion of time is constrained by the very space and peculiarity of our particular place in the universe. Were we to colonize Mars, our current perceptions of time would quickly prove meaningless. [ send green star]
Rick S.	May 28, 2006 8:30 AM Intelligent design won't ever be comfortable with evolution as long as it is the domain of a rather narrow view of all Creation. The largest stumbling block remains the rather odd... and very limited view of God that it possesses. It needs to rid itself of it's latent "Bunker" mentality. Until that core group of Christians can get past the false idea that their faith is under attack by an exterior world then the two will never come to terms. As Kyle mentioned in a previous post, such faiths as Buddhism (my path) and Hinduism (or by it's proper name Sanatana Dharma) quite comfortably exist side by side with Evolutionary thought. The emerging ideas from Physics on the formation of the Universe and the quirks observed in Quantum Mechanics only seem strengthen many of my friends (and myself) who follow both those paths. The aberation of anti-science thought is more the province of fundamentalists.... fundamentalists of any faith.... whose whole world view is built upon and sustained by that "Bunker" mentality. It is... at it's very heart.... a theology formed upon "Us against the World" I suspect that we will likely never see ID theory and Darwin exist comfortably together in the same sentence as long as ID theory is only Creationism dressed up in a lab coat a little shameless compliment to Dale here.... You run a good and thoughtful site here Dale, it is always a breath of fresh air to visit here.... thanks [ send green star]
Thomas P.	May 28, 2006 8:39 AM Humans invented words to teach children about what we have seen with our eyes. Soon, every civilization saw the damage caused by lies and passed rules against lying. But you can't sell ''Soap'' without telling lies, and so, here and now, lying is not against the rules. Here, Damage is Legal. [ send green star]
	May 28, 2006 8:51 AM Fear is what motivates religious fanatics, Thomas. The leaders fear losing control of their flock, so they sooth the egos of their followers with what they really want to hear (we are the best, we are the ones who will be saved, we have knowledge others do not). The followers fear losing their salvation, so they cling to what makes them feel good, actual facts be damned. Then they make up excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse for what they already believe to justify that belief to others. Their case may sometimes appear logically consistent, but it still does not measure up against the reality of the world at large. In science, that's what really matters. The only thing I fear is the possibility that too many people believing in lies will destroy our civilization. Of course, if that happens, we never deserved to be civilized anyway. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	May 28, 2006 8:59 AM The intelligent designer needs to get over here and straighten out this mess before religions succeed in cursing each other to hell defending the differences in their magic beliefs by cursing a Creation made of Pure Truth. This is the atomic age. The earth is being consumed, by presidents and priests, to build killing machines and to raise armies of physical attackers and physical defenders, each kept mindless by the heat of hate and battle. Their bullets and hate escalating, creating more bullets and more hate to replace the Love and nurturing that create Life ... laboring now to accomplish nothing that God would call ''Good''. Life can not survive another 2000 of war over lies made of mere words. So God, You better get over here.... your experiment is about burn itself at the stake. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	May 28, 2006 9:16 AM Because Truth created all of this, and only Truth cancreate the future, I expect that this universe will keep itself clean of everything else. The good news for this galaxy is that if we destroy ourselves, then the rest of this Galaxy will be safe from our corrupting influence. Those people who CARE about the future of Life in the universe, can celebrate in either case ... our survival or our extinction. Those who actually live for the God of the universe are not very greedy. [ send green star]
Thomas P.	May 28, 2006 9:28 AM At another forum, after discussing the hate being taught to children by the feuding rulers of borders and beliefs, I wrote this odd piece that rings remarkably true. . . Writing it surprised even me. Return To Eden Some say that the creator of a billion galaxies has to stand somewhere, or has to be somewhere. Some say that a tiny Human Mind would recognize the creator of galaxies if he saw the creator of galaxies. Some say that we would have to stand somewhere, and look somewhere to see God, and they will tell us where to stand and where to look. The Crusaders think they are going to bring ''Order to Chaos'' with their words, swords, V2 rockets, and patriot missiles. But they are the Chaos. They were told to stand somewhere, to look somewhere, and told they are seeing God, and told that all the other people in the world are dragging Humanity away from that tiny god they think they see. I ask you, is there anywhere in the universe you can look without seeing God ? When a new born's eyes open, then what do they see, and who is doing the looking, if not God ? Where is God NOT ? The religions will tell you where God is NOT, and tell you that they will help you look for God, so that you will believe that you need them to find God, and make you believe that you need to look somewhere else for God, and not here where you are, and where He is. The creator of galaxies is not standing on one. Where God is not, there is nothing. You already found God on the day you were born. When you continue to Admire and Cherish this Universe that you see, then you will know God and yourself for eternity. It is perhaps the reason that I am at peace, even amidst the chaos. I am doing what life does with what it was given to do it with, perhaps our seeds will land on furtile ground and we will endure the storms... perhaps not... But even a God could ask no more of us than to do our best to keep creation alive and well. [ send green star]
Sam H.	Dale May 28, 2006 10:41 AM Religion can always adjust its beliefs to fit what’s popular on a particular day of the week. Remember how hard religion fought against those who didn’t believe that earth was flat. I have a feeling they don’t teach that the earth is flat in schools anymore, even Catholic ones! I don’t have a problem with anyone questioning the theory of evolution. If the theory can't stand the scrutiny, then there is something wrong with it. Repackaging creationism as intelligent design is an evidence of scientific dishonesty. The pseudoscience they rely on to advance ID makes it easier for them to fool people. They can believe whatever they want. Even they can argue that the earth is still flat and it doesn’t bother me a bit. What I can’t stand is someone invoking scientific purity to argue that the theory of evolution is not science while accepting virgin birth as a scientifically proven fact. If we are going to allow religion to appoint itself as the arbiter of science, we might as well allow science to examine those religious facts. Then, we’ll see who will come out ahead! [ send green star]
	Thank you Woodrow! May 31, 2006 1:05 PM "Religion and Science should never have any reason for disagreement if both are true. Disagreement only occurs if either or both present falsehoods as fact." The problem created by the ID proponents is that they not only, as I said elsewhere, try to put the cart before the horse, but that they do so from a point of not only assuming that ONE idea is axiomatic, but actually assume that TWO ideas are axiomatic - namely the existence of G-d and the Factual Truth of the Torah Text. Neither of these two ideas are verifiable, therefore cannot be used scientifically - regardless of how you choose to pack it. The existence of G-d and the Truth of Torah is, and will always be a matter of BELIEF. But this is the prevailing problem with fundamentalist beliefs - they believe they are facts. Dov [ send green star]