President Bush Endorses Intelligent Design?

[livendive 8]

Quote

The way i see it, there's 2 options. Either there is a God and he created the universe, or there is no God and the universe created itself (evolution).

Why are those the only two options? I can imagine an awful lot more than those. Let's start with "there is a God but he didn't create the universe", "there is a God and he created an evolving universe", "there isn't a God, something/someone else created the universe", etc.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Some may not have a problem with God using creation, but Christians should. If you're a Christian "Theistic Evolution" basically blows away all biblical authority, on which Christianity is founded. Most Roman Catcholics (like the pope) wouldn't have a problem with it because they've been adding stuff to the bible for hundreds of years anyway

you're missing the point. believing in evolution is not "adding something to the bible, or blowing away biblical authority.

evolution & science are the study of physical mechanisms. Religion is the study of spiritual truths. One does not blow the other away.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AlexCrowley 0]

With regards to theistic beliefs of creation.

I grew up Church of England (episcopal?), the creation was considered a nice story but not a real story. Evolution was accepted as how things happened with God being 'The Big Bang'. It's amazing how cleanly the relious and scientific side fit together.

I am not a christian, but their version never seemed contradictory. It wasnt til I heard about US creationists and the 6000 year wackiness that I discovered people actually believe a translated bible literally. The problem is mostly in context. Back in college my philosophy teacher introduced me to Strongs dictionaries. In the same way the fable says Eskimos have 27 words for snow you'll see the same in the Bible.

For instance, the greek texts have many words which were translated down as 'faith', there are two primary roots and 6 or 7 others that are used throughout the texts. Each of these words have different contexts, different synonyms that could easily create a very different truth. Personally I've never thought that perhaps the translation teams for the KJV were Gods little helpers to correct every mistake that was in the original language versions - but I guess that's a possibility. You'd imagine that God being God would have added an afterward, perhaps an 'Introduction to the Complaet and Revised Modern Bible aka "What I really meant to say" by God. oops tangent.

What was my point? Oh yeah. Very few Xtians I've ever met believe that the Bible is the exact word of god. It is a very small extremist sect that holds those beliefs. For the rest of the Christian world both God and Evolution exist in perfect harmony.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

evolution & science are the study of physical mechanisms. Religion is the study of spiritual truths. One does not blow the other away.

Oh how I wish that there were more religious people like you.

However, if you choose to take the bible literally then it does indeed blow science away, because then we're not allowed to look at the surrounding Universe and think.

I once met a devout muslim who started studying astrophysics because it fit so well with the Qu'ran (is that how it is spelled?). He considered it homage to Allah to better himself in science. However, most other religious people I have met have considered it a virtue to be ignorant about the world around them. Luckily there are exceptions (also among physics professors at universities).

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

I think that creationists came up with a way of dividing evolution into two "kinds" of evolution for the sake of holding onto some shred of hope that their creationist theory is valid. Evolution is evolution. There is no qualitative difference between what you call microevolution and macroevolution.

This is not the case. Google the two terms.

Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

The philosophy behind science should also be taught in schools, but unfortunately it isn't so many people just take whatever "science" says as fact, but the real fact is that "science" chagnes it's standpoint and opinion on stuff all the time, and really doesn't know much for sure at all.

Science is not philosphy. Science trys to explain a phenomena through observation and experimental investigation. The problem is you want science to have a hard core definition of a phenomena that applies to every situation. That aint gonna happen. Take Newton's theory of Gravity. It has some flaws to it, Einstein refined it. Now does this many their theories work every single time on every single object. No. When you apply their theories on the sub atomic level it goes out the window. Does this mean Netwon and Einstein are wrong. No. It just means that on the sub atomic level different forces are at work. I'm sure Kallend and Billvon have a better grasp than I do since Physics was hell for me in college.

Quote

Intelligent design IS another very valid theory, with much scientific backup, but people never hear or read about that side of things, they merely dismiss it as religious babble.

Do you have any links to these scientific studies.

[Lindsey 0]

It's not necessary for me to google the two terms. I have a very clear understanding of what we're talking about. There are some who would like us to believe that they are two separate processes, but I stand by what I originally said....evolution is evolution. Assertions that evolution is real on a small level but stops at some point so that it doesn't influence progression of life on a larger level don't hold water, imho.

Quote

Quote

I think that creationists came up with a way of dividing evolution into two "kinds" of evolution for the sake of holding onto some shred of hope that their creationist theory is valid. Evolution is evolution. There is no qualitative difference between what you call microevolution and macroevolution.

This is not the case. Google the two terms.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

This is not the case. Google the two terms

The ability to google something doesn't mean it's real. I can google werewolves, jackalopes, and how to put the foil on my head so the space rays don't read my brain.

Small numbers can be grouped to make big ones. Why is it so difficult to believe that small changes, when taken over time, become big ones?

And why is it so difficult to conceive of a God who can do things we can't really understand fully? Why would one think he doesn't want us to try to figure things out?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Macroevolution had not been observed, cannot be measured, and is largely speculative.

Check here.

Quote

I know science knows quite a bit, but teaching things as fact when they are theory is the bit that bugs me.

Please define theory for clarification. I don't think our definitions match.

[Lindsey 0]

HEY! Aren't you supposed to be brushing up on your science?!

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[livendive 8]

Quote

And why is it so difficult to conceive of a God who can do things we can't really understand fully, or who doesn't want us to try to figure things out?

I have no difficulty conceiving forces and entities that do things we can't really understand fully. I'm confused by the second part of your quoted text though. Are you suggesting that God doesn't want us to try to figure things out?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

... The fossil record is quite telling, unless in your world Earth is only 6000 years old and those artifacts were planted by God. Nice dodge, but nothing supports that fantasty.

Ahh but you don't understand. The fossil record exactly supports the flood. When God started the floods the smallest animals were the first to die. Hence they are found in the lowest layers. Honestly .

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not but I hope you realize the very early fossils are aquatic. Since these animals lived IN WATER, at the bottom of the ocean, it's unlikely they would have even noticed a flood.

illegible usually

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Are you suggesting that God doesn't want us to try to figure things out?

Some people seem to think that way. I probably didn't word that as carefully as I could.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Intelligent design is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory. I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis since no amount of evidence could prove it wrong.

There's proof on intelligent design. Look at the Platypus. A mammal that lays eggs. I mean come on. That's pure genius.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

This is not the case. Google the two terms

The ability to google something doesn't mean it's real. I can google werewolves, jackalopes, and how to put the foil on my head so the space rays don't read my brain.

Huh, if you really used Google you'd know that there are vendors who can build a spaceray blocking helmet for you for as little as $129.99.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not but I hope you realize the very early fossils are aquatic. Since these animals lived IN WATER, at the bottom of the ocean, it's unlikely they would have even noticed a flood.

Using logic I learned on SC I feel the need to argue this point.

What are you talking about? I exist in the air but notice when it's windy!!!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[pajarito 0]

The problem of genetic improbability

Quote

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!

[EricTheRed 0]

ummm no.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/Nature03_Complex.pdf

Proof, not faith.

illegible usually

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

I do wish they would teach evolution as theory though and not fact. It's far from proven.

what sort of 'facts' are missing exactly? If we dig up a bone, we can date it - do you believe that or not?

If it turns out to be millions of years old - do you believe that or not?

If I find light from distant stars using proven methods and theorems of physics and mathematics, then I can also date many parts of the universe (and prove they are billtions of years old) Do you believe that?

If thenall these things ARE actually millions/billions of years old, AND we do similar things for thousands of other species/stars, does this not lay down some 'facts' that can support the 'theory of evolution' as fact?

Now let's go to 'intelligent design' cleverly hidden as Christianity.....the world was made in 7 days and is only about 6000-10000 years old or so. Is this a fact and do you believe it?

Now I ask you - what do you want us to teach kids....the facts or the "facts"

Or maybe you were hoping for an 'eye witness' to the dinosaurs/apes/cavemen?

TK

[Treejumps 0]

Hey whats up TK?

You have to quit using logic. There is no logic in ID and anyone who believes it is not subject to logic.

Here's the real pickle, though, what if the world were a result of ID, but the designer was Allah? That would really cheese off the christian fundamentalists.

The only thing I know for sure is that you will never convice anyone who believes in ID that evolution is reality. They "believe", and because of that, they believe. On the other hand, there are many (most) who understand that evolution is what has occured, but do not find that in conflict with their beliefs.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Creationists have no problem with microevolution, it's macroevolution that the problem lies with. Macroevolution had not been observed, cannot be measured, and is largely speculative.

How do Creationists explain the existence of wheat, then? No wheat existed prior to 10,000 years ago. Macro evolution has very nicely explained the origin of wheat.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

The problem of genetic improbability

***Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available.

That's because other mechanisms are available besides random mutations. Your guy is only looking at one tree and missing the forest.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>We know that species evolve. We have seen new species evolve within our
>the Noah story

Depends on your presuppositions. There's more credence for a world-wide flood than you probably realize or have researched. Presuppositions are everything.

no there isnt.. no matter how often Christians try to claim otherwise.. there is evidence of LOCAL, REGIONAL Flooding, nothing more...

presuppositions have NOTHING to do with it..


ignorance really should be painful... no one would remain so...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Everon 0]

WOW! This is awesome - the first debate thread that I've seen on ID where intelligent comments exist! Okay, I'm no physical scientist, only some background. I'm a mathematician (not really considered science). However, the president's comments show how truly ignorant he is. Firstly, ID is NOT science - far from it. In no way and no form does it invoke the scientific method of discovery - the essential hallmark of any science. It simply is not testable. Period. End of discussion - it does not belong anywhere in a science atmosphere. Further, I don't feel I need to debunk noah's ark, the flood, the earth is the center, etc. as there is ample debunking all over the internet. I won't waste anyone's time.

Those that argue that evolution is taught as fact and not theory must understand that all physical sciences are taught in a similar manner. Nothing is 100% fact - if you want 100% "fact," you'd better stick to mathematics and symbolic logic. Scientific theories (which explain phenomona) could undergo changes all the time - this in no way implies we should abandon them. Every physical science is theory - but it is SCIENTIFIC theory. Not "just a theory." This is the most irritating comment by the IDers in which I have no tolerance.

Finally, IDers will insist on a "designer," and thus a supernatural being doing the designing. Hmmm. The very definition of religion. In the schools? Blatantly unconstitutional! Mr. president, have YOU read the constitution? I already know the answer!

I'm still searching for a blue sky here!

[diverborg 0]

Quote

How do Creationists explain the existence of wheat, then? No wheat existed prior to 10,000 years ago. Macro evolution has very nicely explained the origin of wheat.

there ya go alex

Here's a few questions you could ask yourself if you believe the evolutionary theory. I use to waste a lot of breath on these arguments because it's a area of high interest and I've studied it much. Instead of trying to convince people that true collected science contradicts evolution. I'll let them use a little common sense. Now come on you liberals brag about being so open-minded, think about these a little bit.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6–8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 15.)

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 13.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 18.)

3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 10.)

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? (See page 11.)

5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 13.)

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See pages 9 and 14.)

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? (See page 15.)

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 17.) How could immune systems evolve? (See page 18.)

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)

12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.)

13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 27–30.)

14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old? (See pages 34–38 and 262–267.)

15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination. (See page 33.)

16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 32–38.)

17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.)

18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago. (See pages 259–261.)

These page references are to the website these questions came from, but because I'm computerly impaired I'm not sure how to give you the link to the website.