Intelligent design

[aminorthreat55]

Is it science? Discuss.

[osunfg]

im gonna say no due to the lack of using the scientific method

[aminorthreat55]

im gonna say no due to the lack of using the scientific method
That's where I stand as well.

[richter915]

no, not even close.

It's creationism in disguise.

[noodledancer]

does anyone, anywhere consider it science?

[sleepygrlgreen]

i'm sure people do.

i don't see how though. intelligent design is as far from science as anything can possibly get. there are no facts, you can't prove it, you can't test it, there's nothing about it that would allow anyone to deem it even the least bit scientific. it's theology. nothing more.

[osunfg]

i dont see many people saying it is a science on here, considering we're all hardcore christian conservatives. ;)
however i would love to hear some debates from the other side just for the sake of it.

[richter915]

i dont see many people saying it is a science on here, considering we're all hardcore christian conservatives. ;)
however i would love to hear some debates from the other side just for the sake of it.
it doesn't matter. Everyone who's brought up ID/creationism...I've pretty much shut down...all the politics guys...anyone really. This issue pisses me off like no other. When my friends go drinking, one of them in particular gets really pissed off about Creationists in this country...we just yell about it for a while.

[richter915]

does anyone, anywhere consider it science?
I can't find the exact number but since Bush came into office in 2000, a dozen or so school districts have since required intelligent design to be taught in science curricula as a science. Probably the most absurd thing since the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Luckily some people have sense. I linked this article before but here it is again: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/

[richter915]

who the fuck said yes?? hmm?? who??

read this:

"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)"

see that point about Falsifiability...ID lacks that. Actually, ID theory cannot hold true for most of those points.

[aminorthreat55]

I found a good counter-point to it in a newspaper article:

Copyright 2005 The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Limited
Canberra Times (Australia)

December 29, 2005 Thursday Final Edition

SECTION: A; Pg. 15

LENGTH: 857 words

HEADLINE: No matter how it's dressed up, 'intelligent design' is inherently religious

BYLINE: Keith Lockitch

BODY:
J OHN JONES, a US District judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled earlier this month that "it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom" -on the grounds that "intelligent design is a religious view." Advocates of "intelligent design" are outraged; the Discovery Institute, the leading organisation promoting the theory, calls it an "attempt to censor science education." But "intelligent design" can play no part in a proper science education, because it is an inherently unscientific theory.

Proponents of "intelligent design" aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religiously based. Writes one leading advocate, Michael Behe: "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself -not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs." Proponents of "intelligent design" claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory -that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an "intelligent designer." Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the "intelligent designer" be God.

"Design," writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator." Indeed, "design" apparently requires surprisingly little of the "designer's" identity: "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don't explicitly name the "designer" -as long as they allow that the "designer" could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study -that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

But does it? Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfil the requirements of an "intelligent designer"? It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that "design" proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of "designing" the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own "designer." If "design" can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian "designer" would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another "designer." One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world. Such a "designer" would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such.

The only "designer" that would stop their quest for a "design" explanation of complexity is a "designer" about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study -a "designer" that "transcends" nature and its laws -a "designer" not susceptible of rational explanation -in short: a supernatural "designer." Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, "intelligent design" is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one "candidate for the role of designer" need apply.

Dembski himself -even while trying to deny this implication -concedes that "if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence." It must, he admits, be that of a "transcendent intelligence" to whom he euphemistically refers as "the big G." The supposedly non-religious theory of "intelligent design" is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science -to pretend, as one commentator put it, that "faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope." The insistence of "intelligent design" advocates that they are "agnostic regarding the source of design" is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a "designer" who is susceptible of scientific study -in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible "designer" is nothing more than a gateway god -metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

No matter how fervently its salesmen wish "intelligent design" to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character.

It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.

Keith Lockitch, who has a PhD in physics,is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. The institute promotes the ideas and objectivist philosophy of writer Ayn Rand.

[richter915]

ahh Pete you're getting me mad! it's too early (for me) to get this way. The article I linked is also about what Jones (the coolest Republican ever) said in Dover...which is "yo, you creationists are ***s yo"

[richter915]

here's some logic for ya based on this statement: ""Design," writes another leading proponent, William Dembski, "requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator." Indeed, "design" apparently requires surprisingly little of the "designer's" identity: "Inferences to design," contends Behe, "do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." According to its advocates, the "designer" responsible for "intelligent design" in biology could be any sort of "creative intelligence" capable of engineering the basic elements of life. Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role."

Creationists support Scientology
Tom Cruise supports Scientology

Creationists agree with Tom Cruise

if that doesn't make you think twice, then you gotta watch Tom Cruise killing Oprah some more.

[preppyak]

Is it science? Discuss.
No, it doesn't allow itself to be disproven, thus there can be no basis in science.

Science, as anyone who had to do Science Fair, is based on hypothesis:

"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

YOu cannot test the existence of an intelligent over-beign in any tangible way but faith, and faith cannot yield a constant result from person to person.

So, it is either not science, or if someone says it is, it cannot be proven correct since the data would never be supported.

[preppyak]

no, not even close.

It's creationism in disguise.
But, creationism is science.

[richter915]

But, creationism is science.
yo, I'm gonna piss on you.

[aminorthreat55]

Haha Tate voted no. Big surprise there.

[richter915]

Haha Tate voted no. Big surprise there.
damn straight he voted no. Anyone with half a fucking brain would vote no.

why would he not vote no???? why would anyone say yes?!?!? GAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[aminorthreat55]

damn straight he voted no. Anyone with half a fucking brain would vote no.

why would he not vote no???? why would anyone say yes?!?!? GAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Yeah, it's fucking ridiculous.

But I've seen lots of not-so-good number regarding the number of people who believe ID should be taught in schools, which is further horseshit save for a few exceptions.

[richter915]

I don't care what people think in their homes...well no I actually care a lot..to the point where I wanna beat em up. but when this kinda shit gets enough support to be put in school curricula...that's just too much for my brain to handle.

[aminorthreat55]

I don't care what people think in their homes...well no I actually care a lot..to the point where I wanna beat em up. but when this kinda shit gets enough support to be put in school curricula...that's just too much for my brain to handle.
Yep. The only time I wouldn't mind is if it were taught in a class on the theory of evolution and competing ideas. That shit should be nowhere near a typical biology class though.

[richter915]

Yep. The only time I wouldn't mind is if it were taught in a class on the theory of evolution and competing ideas. That shit should be nowhere near a typical biology class though.
but it's not even a competing idea because it's science. it can be taught as an alternative thought...which is the same as an idea...but it has to be made clear that it is not science at all. The only place it belongs is in a class on theology and even those kinds of classes are a stretch...it should be taught in places of religious worship and at the home...if parents and priests don't wanna talk about it, then kids, in my opinion, are priviliged to not have to learn about something so dumb.

[getupkid53]

but it's not even a competing idea because it's science. it can be taught as an alternative thought...which is the same as an idea...but it has to be made clear that it is not science at all. The only place it belongs is in a class on theology and even those kinds of classes are a stretch...it should be taught in places of religious worship and at the home...if parents and priests don't wanna talk about it, then kids, in my opinion, are priviliged to not have to learn about something so dumb.

I am not disagreeing with you but I was just wondering if you believe in evolution...

[richter915]

I am not disagreeing with you but I was just wondering if you believe in evolution...
evolution is not a "belief". I AGREE with evolution because it has the most scientific evidence supporting it.

[Beyondclarity]

the biggest difference between evolution and ID is simple...

Evolution involves facts that point to a scientific theory, which one day may be proven to be a fact.

And - the reason ID is not science...

ID has no scientific facts to back it up because it's based on belief.

The reason this is even an arguement is because anyone who believes in something will argue till their death about something that they have no facts to back up.

[Beyondclarity]

evolution is not a "belief". I AGREE with evolution because it has the most scientific evidence supporting it.


You're right on. It is a theory - you don't get to call somethgin a theory without solid facts.

[osunfg]

i think it would be interesting to see some correlational study about proponents of ID and their educational levels. i can imagine 95% have very little scholarly credibility.

[sleepygrlgreen]

"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself -not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs." Proponents of "intelligent design" claim that Darwinian evolution is a fundamentally flawed theory -that there are certain complex features of living organisms evolution simply cannot explain, but which can be explained as the handiwork of an "intelligent designer." .that seems like such a cop out to me. evolution can't explain it therefore it must be the result of some higher being? and how can that possibly be proven? what complex features of living organisms are they talking about that can't be explained by evolution? i'm curious.

[sleepygrlgreen]

You're right on. It is a theory - you don't get to call somethgin a theory without solid facts.

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

that quote comes from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and i think that it's well put.

[richter915]

i think it would be interesting to see some correlational study about proponents of ID and their educational levels. i can imagine 95% have very little scholarly credibility.
this is true. Many sites out there supporting ID and stuff...they don't come from credible sources really.

[getupkid53]

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

that quote comes from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html and i think that it's well put.

Human Evolution is a theory honey.... It has more scientific credibility than ID but it is not a fact. Evolution of species is proven, but humans morphing from another creature has never been proven.

[richter915]

that's a common misconception...the word theory...in the realm of science, for something to be a theory...it's just a well supported idea for something that is fact...evolution IS fact...it does occur, we have seen it happen...it's just how evolution occurs that can be argued. The best known theory is the theory of natural selection...other theories were like...I think Lamarck's use and misuse theory but that was rejected after a while. ID doesn't even fall in there...it completely tries to disprove evolution which is in fact, fact.

[richter915]

Human Evolution is a theory honey.... It has more scientific credibility than ID but it is not a fact. Evolution of species is proven, but humans morphing from another creature has never been proven.
ID talks about ALL creatures being created perfectly. and we can actually track human evolution. It's been pretty well documented. I mean, there's a reason why early homo sapiens look different from current homosapiens. And there's so much supporting humans having common ancestors with other organisms that evolution must have occurred.

[sleepygrlgreen]

Human Evolution is a theory honey.... It has more scientific credibility than ID but it is not a fact. Evolution of species is proven, but humans morphing from another creature has never been proven.it's not as simple as something just morphing into something else. you make it sound like something out of a science fiction novel. it didn't happen over night, it took millions of years.

[richter915]

it's not as simple as something just morphing into something else. you make it sound like something out of a science fiction novel. it didn't happen over night, it took millions of years.
common ancestors between humans and chimps have been proven.

[sleepygrlgreen]

common ancestors between humans and chimps have been proven.this is true.

[sleepygrlgreen]

actually..to add to that, from what i remember reading, about 99% of our DNA resembles that of a chimp.

[richter915]

actually..to add to that, from what i remember reading, about 99% of our DNA resembles that of a chimp.
good point.

if anyone says that God intended for that, I'll kill you.

[FeynmanWannabe]

Gravity = Intelligent Falling. Best article from the Onion. Oh, and um no it's not a science.

[sleepygrlgreen]

good point.

if anyone says that God intended for that, I'll kill you.haha.

[getupkid53]

ID talks about ALL creatures being created perfectly. and we can actually track human evolution. It's been pretty well documented. I mean, there's a reason why early homo sapiens look different from current homosapiens. And there's so much supporting humans having common ancestors with other organisms that evolution must have occurred.

See, right there... you made an assumption (you could even call it a hypothesis). I'm not disagreeing with ID not being real scientific. I'm just saying no one has outright proved human evolution as definitive fact. It's a good theory, but has yet to be solidified.

[richter915]

See, right there... you made an assumption (you could even call it a hypothesis). I'm not disagreeing with ID not being real scientific. I'm just saying no one has outright proved human evolution as definitive fact. It's a good theory, but has yet to be solidified.
it's not an assumption, it's not a hypothesis...it is a scientific theory with loads of data to support it...and by loads I mean it's absolutely overwhelming. You agree that man is an animal. We know other animals evolve. We've noted the evolution of birds from prehistoric reptiles...so what is to argue that man does not? There is no scientific alternative.

[getupkid53]

it's not an assumption, it's not a hypothesis...it is a scientific theory with loads of data to support it...and by loads I mean it's absolutely overwhelming. You agree that man is an animal. We know other animals evolve. We've noted the evolution of birds from prehistoric reptiles...so what is to argue that man does not? There is no scientific alternative.

See, you are comparing us to birds. Yes, there is proof of reptiles to birds... however, there is no prove that man evolved from a single cell organism, a fish, a bird, lizard, ape or anything else. All of that is relative. And you cannot use the method of deduction as fact. Saying that no one has found anything to argue against it doesn't make it a fact. Currently, it is the most probable situation, but that is all. When a scientist comes out and says "I have undeniable proof that man has evolved from whatever"... I will stop arguing your point.

[richter915]

See, you are comparing us to birds. Yes, there is proof of reptiles to birds... however, there is no prove that man evolved from a single cell organism, a fish, a bird, lizard, ape or anything else. All of that is relative. And you cannot use the method of deduction as fact. Saying that no one has found anything to argue against it doesn't make it a fact. Currently, it is the most probable situation, but that is all. When a scientist comes out and says "I have undeniable proof that man has evolved from whatever"... I will stop arguing your point.
there's absolutely no reason to argue that point though. There is actually a lot of proof (mostly molecular and developmental) that supports the evolution of man. Alright, since you're a stickler and just wanna hear that you're right...you're right, I can't say that it's 100% proven fact that man evolved...but you know what...i can say that it's 99.99999999999% fact because the possibility of something else creating modern life as it is is very very unlikely. the fact is, many creationists try and use that .000001% of uncertainty to falsify evolution and that really is kinda pointless and does not justify ID ya know?

[getupkid53]

I agree. I respect your insight as you have obviously done your research. It's very apparent you feel strongly about this issue.

I'm a christian and do believe that this world was created through a higher being. That deals with my faith, not science though. So I voted it isn't a science. I wouldn't expect somebody that is not of faith to agree with my position, but I agree that far too many people talk out of their asses when it comes to this. As a matter of fact, christians tend to do that about most subjects.

[richter915]

I agree. I respect your insight as you have obviously done your research. It's very apparent you feel strongly about this issue.

I'm a christian and do believe that this world was created through a higher being. That deals with my faith, not science though. So I voted it isn't a science. I wouldn't expect somebody that is not of faith to agree with my position, but I agree that far too many people talk out of their asses when it comes to this. As a matter of fact, christians tend to do that about most subjects.
that's actually very very respectable. Most hardline Creationists are just so brainwashed that they refuse to accept what, to me, is common sense. It's totally fine to believe that...you can even be against evolution and support creationist concepts...but to see that Creationism and Intelligent Design or Creation science...are not actual sciences sadly takes a lot this day and age. It pisses me off when people won't make the effort to even understand why evolution makes more sense in scientific terms.

[getupkid53]

It is really unfortunate. I hate when people just shove crap in your face. It really screws over alot of people and the right in general. I actually have started to lean way left because I can't stand the idiocy and hypocricy of the current evangelical's crazy right. Our country is full of crazy's (far left and far right) and most people like us (who can have a debate / discussion without turning it into WWE) are left in the mud.

[richter915]

amillionmiles...I will wound you.

[preppyak]

yo, I'm gonna piss on you.
Creationism is science because it could realistically be supported by the fossil record. It can be proven/disproven.

Like, the theory for Creationism is that the reason the higher up fossils are more intelligent/adept is that they moved to higher ground as the flood came (Noah's Arc, etc). It is incredibly flawed, but it can at least by debated by scientists, unlike ID which is based holy in faith and theology

but to see that Creationism and Intelligent Design or Creation science...are not actual sciences sadly takes a lot this day and age. It pisses me off when people won't make the effort to even understand why evolution makes more sense in scientific terms.

Allow the dictionary to define Science:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

The scientific method then involves designing a hypothesis, an idea that can be disproven through experiment.

Creationist science is a theory, that through the fossil record can be tested, and as it has been for years, disproven. It doesn't change the fact it is a scientific approach, I mean, I hate the Flat Earthers, but they are still scientists because their theory is able to be proven/disproven.

[ArTkY_]

No it's not science. What are you gonna say? "God created the universe." That's pretty much it.

[YearsGoneBy]

I agree. I respect your insight as you have obviously done your research. It's very apparent you feel strongly about this issue.

I'm a christian and do believe that this world was created through a higher being. That deals with my faith, not science though. So I voted it isn't a science. I wouldn't expect somebody that is not of faith to agree with my position, but I agree that far too many people talk out of their asses when it comes to this. As a matter of fact, christians tend to do that about most subjects. i agree 100 % with you

[xLovexAndxLiesx]

i say yes...... i dunno.. i did a current event on this a few weeks ago x)

i mean really.

did we evolve from monkeys? now seriously..?

and where did the monkeys come from?

hmmm...?

now think about THAT!


LOL

im a moron XD

[richter915]

Creationism is science because it could realistically be supported by the fossil record. It can be proven/disproven.

Like, the theory for Creationism is that the reason the higher up fossils are more intelligent/adept is that they moved to higher ground as the flood came (Noah's Arc, etc). It is incredibly flawed, but it can at least by debated by scientists, unlike ID which is based holy in faith and theology

I think you made a few key mistakes in here. First off Creationism postulates that God has created the universe and mankind. The reason this cannot be a science is because one, that is not falsifiable...one must agree that God created the universe and no other alternative is possible. This also cannot be tested/observed using the fossil records like you go on to say. According to the Bible...all life was put onto boats during the flood...you can't say that the Bible is right with Genesis but wrong with the flood...all has to be considered. Lastly, the main argument against creationism being a science is that it requires belief/faith in a supernatural being. Science is manmade and scientific theory cannot be interfered with by something greater than nature.

Allow the dictionary to define Science:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

The scientific method then involves designing a hypothesis, an idea that can be disproven through experiment.

Creationist science is a theory, that through the fossil record can be tested, and as it has been for years, disproven. It doesn't change the fact it is a scientific approach, I mean, I hate the Flat Earthers, but they are still scientists because their theory is able to be proven/disproven.again this cannot be seen as science because it it still requires a leap of faith.

[richter915]

i say yes...... i dunno.. i did a current event on this a few weeks ago x)

i mean really.

did we evolve from monkeys? now seriously..?

and where did the monkeys come from?

hmmm...?

now think about THAT!


LOL

im a moron XD
you are a moron but that's ok you can learn. We didn't evolve from monkeys, that's a mistake. We evolved from an ancestor which we share with chimps and such. Yes you can go back far enough but that doesn't disprove evolution. The fact is that evolution has a much stronger basis than creationism/ID (which really has no scientific basis)

[richter915]

i agree 100 % with you
that bugs me too kinda...I'm not all to religious but I have nothing against believing in your faith...but to believe something which science clearly proves...it doesn't make sense to me.

[noodledancer]

Creationism is science because it could realistically be supported by the fossil record. It can be proven/disproven.

Like, the theory for Creationism is that the reason the higher up fossils are more intelligent/adept is that they moved to higher ground as the flood came (Noah's Arc, etc). It is incredibly flawed, but it can at least by debated by scientists, unlike ID which is based holy in faith and theology
are you serious!? that whole smarter animals moving to high ground scenario is a bullshit attempt to get around the fossil evidence that supports evolution. if an organism was created in all it's possible variants, the better adapted ones would outcompete the others pretty quickly. one would expect to see a mass extinction of simpler variants, not a gradual progression.

Creationist science is a theory, that through the fossil record can be tested, and as it has been for years, disproven. It doesn't change the fact it is a scientific approach, I mean, I hate the Flat Earthers, but they are still scientists because their theory is able to be proven/disproven.
creationism isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. a scientific theory has a body of scientific evidence that supports it. such evidence exists for evolution. once a hypothesis has been disproven, it's no longer relevant & needs to modified or changed entirely- it doesn't persist in the scientific community indefinitely. holding onto a hypothesis that has no evidence to support it makes you an idiot, not a scientist.

im a moron XD
a least you know...

[richter915]

oh ya, with the fossil evidence somehow signifying noah's ark/the flood...that actually supports evolution.

[richter915]

http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp

sums up a lot of confusions and such.

[Rebs]

No, I support evolution fully, and I'm also atheist, so something like intelligent design is not something I consider.

[richter915]

No, I support evolution fully, and I'm also atheist, so something like intelligent design is not something I consider.
I see myself as more of agnostic because science really can't prove the creation of the singularity which was at the beginning of the Big Bang. I think some kinda higher being comes into a role then.

[Rebs]

I see myself as more of agnostic because science really can't prove the creation of the singularity which was at the beginning of the Big Bang. I think some kinda higher being comes into a role then.
I can see that as well. I go back and forth between agnosticism and atheism, I just cant seem to think of some higher power controlling everything, it's all very creepy in a way.

[ArTkY_]

I be a creationist and I believe in evolution. I'm pretty sure most Muslims do. (at least all the one's I've talked to, even the really religious ones)

Crazy Christians.

[richter915]

I be a creationist and I believe in evolution. I'm pretty sure most Muslims do. (at least all the one's I've talked to, even the really religious ones)

Crazy Christians.
how is it possible to believe in both things?

[osunfg]

whoever was talking about fossils on higher ground being more adept or whatever. that arguement is retarded. however, there is an actual correlation between the complexity of life and the amount of o2 in the atmosphere. thus, with every ice age, life gets pimped out and more complex.

[aminorthreat55]

whoever was talking about fossils on higher ground being more adept or whatever. that arguement is retarded. however, there is an actual correlation between the complexity of life and the amount of o2 in the atmosphere. thus, with every ice age, life gets pimped out and more complex.
So is Discovery Channel going to have a new show called Pimp My Organism?

[/end terrible joke]

[sleepygrlgreen]

I can see that as well. I go back and forth between agnosticism and atheism, I just cant seem to think of some higher power controlling everything, it's all very creepy in a way.i don't really see it as creepy. i just can't fathom some higher power being responsible for life, death, and whatever else. i do believe in a god though, it just gets kinda blurry past that.

[sleepygrlgreen]

whoever was talking about fossils on higher ground being more adept or whatever. that arguement is retarded. however, there is an actual correlation between the complexity of life and the amount of o2 in the atmosphere. thus, with every ice age, life gets pimped out and more complex.ya, i read that. i read that the variations of complexity in organisms has a lot to do with the amount of O2 in the atmosphere.

[noodledancer]

So is Discovery Channel going to have a new show called Pimp My Organism?

[/end terrible joke]
i laughed. just thought i'd tell you...

[aminorthreat55]

i laughed. just thought i'd tell you...
Sweet.

[richter915]

i don't really see it as creepy. i just can't fathom some higher power being responsible for life, death, and whatever else. i do believe in a god though, it just gets kinda blurry past that.
I think it's definitely possible to understand how a higher power could control everything. It requires an active imagination...or a very influential religious leader.

[ArTkY_]

how is it possible to believe in both things?
How is it not? Something evolves, all I have to believe is its God that put that mechanism that makes things evolve.

[dontgrabtindy]

nope

[richter915]

How is it not? Something evolves, all I have to believe is its God that put that mechanism that makes things evolve.
I don't think that's possible. First off, Creationism says that God created the universe and Earth with all life exactly how we see it...in other words...no changes/no evolution. That right there would discredit the occurrence of evolution within creationism.

[ArTkY_]

I don't think that's possible. First off, Creationism says that God created the universe and Earth with all life exactly how we see it...in other words...no changes/no evolution. That right there would discredit the occurrence of evolution within creationism.
Creationism is only one point of view. Islam is different, in it God says that all living beings adapt. So I'm interpreting that as evolution.

Creationist is a bad term, let's just say I believe God made the universe and he controls it, changes and otherwise.

[aminorthreat55]

Haha I was just watching the Daily Show and they were talking about the formation of comets and he goes, "Which were formed billions and billions of years ago OR six thousand years ago . . . depending on whether or not you are wrong."

[ArTkY_]

Haha I was just watching the Daily Show and they were talking about the formation of comets and he goes, "Which were formed billions and billions of years ago OR six thousand years ago . . . depending on whether or not you are wrong."
hahaha, yeah that was great.

[dai the flu]

i dont feel intelligent design should be taught as science, but i do believe in creation.

[mondeoman]

I'm not even sure what ID is but I believe in evolution so I voted no.

[Shatter590]

Interesting philosophical viewpoint on Intelligent design:

Most people equate it with creationism, yes. And I believe that is the reason why it was initially devised.

But look at it this way:

The concept of life lies outside much of what science can identify. Life in and of itself is still not explainable, in that we cannot replicate it techologically (ie, make something living from something not living). That said, it could be implied that something could have been a catalyst to ignite and sustain life. If you follow the idea proposed by Hawking that light itself is possessing of a rote consciousness, and that the concept of light as a giver and sustainer of life holds true, then yes, in a certain, philosophical state, intelligent design can function as a component of astrophysical philosophy.

As a philosopher and a spiritualist, I can accept this as a theory.

However, as an anthropologist, this flies in the face of everything I hold as true scientific belief. I don't care how much you use the mousetrap analogy, or how apt it can seem. Life evolved to this point, and that's all I can accept at the moment empirically.