Evolution and Intelligent Design

[ratcharmer]

Well, religion is characterized by make believe and tradional outgroup hostility. Often dividing everything into your own religious sect and "others".


I think use of vs is somewhat appropriate when talking about evolution and intelligent design.

*cough cough* speaking of outgroup hostility . . . seriously though, you can't just make bold accusations like "religion is characterized by make believe and tradional outgroup hostility" without even citing any supporting evidence. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, no?

If you're worried about going off topic with your argument there is a thread for that.

and as the rest of my post indicated, most authorities on either ID or evolution find the two to be compatible, so why would "vs" be appropriate?

Anyways, when I originally used the term "vs" it was in referrence to lawlmaster's post stating that it was him "vs" other people, and I was trying to indicate that I didn't think a "me versus them" attitude was constructive when trying to discuss something rationally.

[TheOwner]

This board has taken a very negative turn... Please stop thinking of it as "me vs. them."  Ratcharmer is right.

[Artois]

Surely the 'vs' is for: Evolution v's Intelligent Design, the differences ad law cases are well documented.

Maybe the thread should have been called Evolution OR Intelligent Design?

[TheOwner]

Surely the 'vs' is for: Evolution v's Intelligent Design, the differences ad law cases are well documented.

Maybe the thread should have been called Evolution OR Intelligent Design?

Evolution and intelligent design can coexist.  How is it vs?

[Artois]

Surely the 'vs' is for: Evolution v's Intelligent Design, the differences ad law cases are well documented.

Maybe the thread should have been called Evolution OR Intelligent Design?

Evolution and intelligent design can coexist.  How is it vs?

They are two rival theories, for one, that offer completely opposed ideas as to how life started (and evolved).  Intelligent Design is, I believe, discounted among evolutionary theorists, as it cannot be tested or proved, and is therefore outside of scientific/evolutionary theory.

From the point of view of ID, it is possible to suppose that a designer created the original beasts, and they 'evolved', however this implies that a 'intelligent' creator was unable to create perfect beasts, and that they needed to evolve... etc...

So, I guess they can co-exist from a ID point of view (as the evidece for evolution is there, but from an evolutionary/scientific point of view, ID is a non-starter.)

[ratcharmer]

They are two rival theories, for one, that offer completely opposed ideas as to how life started (and evolved).  Intelligent Design is, I believe, discounted among evolutionary theorists, as it cannot be tested or proved, and is therefore outside of scientific/evolutionary theory.

From the point of view of ID, it is possible to suppose that a designer created the original beasts, and they 'evolved', however this implies that a 'intelligent' creator was unable to create perfect beasts, and that they needed to evolve... etc...

So, I guess they can co-exist from a ID point of view (as the evidece for evolution is there, but from an evolutionary/scientific point of view, ID is a non-starter.)

Okay, seriously, every point you just tried to make there has already been covered. In great detail. Multiple times.

Firstly, not being testable by the scientific method does NOT mean that it is untrue. What you ate for lunch yesterday is not testable by scientific means. This does not mean you've been skipping meals.

The "perfect form" argument is outdated and logically unsound. You've made the assumption that a "perfect" form has to be static. I  would argue that being able to adapt  to changing circumstances is generally better than being static. You've also missed the distinction between perfect in God's view and perfect in our eye's.

Evolution does not touch on how life began, and I've already listed examples of some of the greatest scientists of our time who feel there is no conflict between evolution and ID. I believe by "evolutionary theorists" you meant to say Richard Dawkins.

[airframe]

Well, religion is characterized by make believe and tradional outgroup hostility. Often dividing everything into your own religious sect and "others".


I think use of vs is somewhat appropriate when talking about evolution and intelligent design.

*cough cough* speaking of outgroup hostility . . . seriously though, you can't just make bold accusations like "religion is characterized by make believe and tradional outgroup hostility" without even citing any supporting evidence. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, no?

If you're worried about going off topic with your argument there is a thread for that.

and as the rest of my post indicated, most authorities on either ID or evolution find the two to be compatible, so why would "vs" be appropriate?

Anyways, when I originally used the term "vs" it was in referrence to lawlmaster's post stating that it was him "vs" other people, and I was trying to indicate that I didn't think a "me versus them" attitude was constructive when trying to discuss something rationally.

How about crusades or the inquisition? Do I really need back that up?

[Artois]

I think you misunderstood me really well, ratcharmer.

[Korugar]

They are two rival theories, for one, that offer completely opposed ideas as to how life started (and evolved).  Intelligent Design is, I believe, discounted among evolutionary theorists, as it cannot be tested or proved, and is therefore outside of scientific/evolutionary theory.

From the point of view of ID, it is possible to suppose that a designer created the original beasts, and they 'evolved', however this implies that a 'intelligent' creator was unable to create perfect beasts, and that they needed to evolve... etc...

So, I guess they can co-exist from a ID point of view (as the evidece for evolution is there, but from an evolutionary/scientific point of view, ID is a non-starter.)

Okay, seriously, every point you just tried to make there has already been covered. In great detail. Multiple times.

Firstly, not being testable by the scientific method does NOT mean that it is untrue. What you ate for lunch yesterday is not testable by scientific means. This does not mean you've been skipping meals.

The "perfect form" argument is outdated and logically unsound. You've made the assumption that a "perfect" form has to be static. I  would argue that being able to adapt  to changing circumstances is generally better than being static. You've also missed the distinction between perfect in God's view and perfect in our eye's.

Evolution does not touch on how life began, and I've already listed examples of some of the greatest scientists of our time who feel there is no conflict between evolution and ID. I believe by "evolutionary theorists" you meant to say Richard Dawkins.

When you say that some scientists think the two are compatible let's be a little more specific.

On the one hand, are we talking Intelligent Design(the belief that something else started life, possibly aliens, or perhaps a god) or Creationism(the belief that the God of the bible created life as detailed in Genesis)?

On the other hand, are we talking about Macro Evolution(the idea that a single celled organism evolved into all the different kinds of life we have today, AKA Darwinism) or Micro Evolution(the idea that animals can adapt to their surroundings, and evolve within a certain predetermined(by genetics) amount, ex: wolves into dogs)?

[ratcharmer]

@Korugar: I'm talking about ID, not creationism and as a microbiologist I find the distinction between mico- and macro evolution somewhat artificial. With bacteria and similar organisms the line between one organism and another versus variation within a strain get's really blurry. So you can safely say macroevolution.

@Artois: If I misunderstood your point then please clarify. Simply saying that I misunderstood doesn't help me at all.

@airframe: Two instances of hostility throughout all recorded history hardly make for a compelling case to blanket label all religions as hostile, even if we take it at face value that both of those instances are solely caused by religion (which I really don't buy for a moment). And I could just as easily cite cases of atheistic institutions that caused wide-scale persecution and wars.

Simply put, yes, you do need to back that up. Possibly on a different thread since it's off-topic for this one.

[TheOwner]

@Korugar: I'm talking about ID, not creationism and as a microbiologist I find the distinction between mico- and macro evolution somewhat artificial. With bacteria and similar organisms the line between one organism and another versus variation within a strain get's really blurry. So you can safely say macroevolution.

@Artois: If I misunderstood your point then please clarify. Simply saying that I misunderstood doesn't help me at all.

@airframe: Two instances of hostility throughout all recorded history hardly make for a compelling case to blanket label all religions as hostile, even if we take it at face value that both of those instances are solely caused by religion (which I really don't buy for a moment). And I could just as easily cite cases of atheistic institutions that caused wide-scale persecution and wars.

Simply put, yes, you do need to back that up. Possibly on a different thread since it's off-topic for this one.

So far everything ratcharmer has said is well reasoned and in my opinion correct.  If you don't think that ID is true but evolution is and vice versa, but do not say they can't coexist.  Many scientists who believe in evolution and not Intelligent Design do not believe in Intelligent Design because there is no proof that ID exists.

I find that religion in general is a good way to set rules for yourself.  I read the bible when seeking moral advice.  Everything in there doesn't always sound right to me (Exodus rules on everything), but in most cases the bible gives me a good idea of what is right and wrong.  Some religion extremists are hostile but your average Christian, Muslim, and Jew are not hostile.  I only named those three because they are the biggest three religions in the world, and I know the most about them.

[airframe]

@airframe: Two instances of hostility throughout all recorded history hardly make for a compelling case to blanket label all religions as hostile, even if we take it at face value that both of those instances are solely caused by religion (which I really don't buy for a moment). And I could just as easily cite cases of atheistic institutions that caused wide-scale persecution and wars.

Simply put, yes, you do need to back that up. Possibly on a different thread since it's off-topic for this one.

Two instances througout all recorded history? I'm sure you can think more yourself. Jihads, maybe? I'm not going to even try to list all instances.  Yes, some might have happened even without religions, but often hostilities have been driven by religious beliefs.

No not all religions are hostile, but we're really talking about christianity when discussing about ID.


@TheOwner: So you think not all things in the bible sound right? Sounds like you are picking which bibllical rules to follow and which not, and deciding it by yourself.