The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[Sigma]

Read it, enjoy!
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Darwin-Ma...4492063?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189021971&sr=8-1

 

[Cythraul]

Pointing to the alleged untestability of ID is not the right way to demarcate between ID and the theory of evolution or science in general. Any contingent proposition is testable when conjoined with suitable auxiliary propositions, and no individual statement in isolation is testable. Thus, ID and the theory of evolution are in the same boat in a certain sense. A better way to criticize ID is not that it's not scientific or not testable, but that it's just a bad and unsuccessful theory which has produced no worthwhile results, no genuine predictions, and no research projects to speak of.

 

[Death Aflame]

It is in direct contradiction of proven facts, which makes it stupid

So it isn't possible that evolution is just the means of creation and/or design? Keep in mind my initial post was regarding ID as a non-scientific idea.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Pointing to the alleged untestability of ID is not the right way to demarcate between ID and the theory of evolution or science in general. Any contingent proposition is testable when conjoined with suitable auxiliary propositions, and no individual statement in isolation is testable. Thus, ID and the theory of evolution are in the same boat in a certain sense. A better way to criticize ID is not that it's not scientific or not testable, but that it's just a bad and unsuccessful theory which has produced no worthwhile results, no genuine predictions, and no research projects to speak of.

Good post. The evolution/ID debating around here has been pretty godawful on both sides, tbh.

 

[AchrisK]

I would like to request that nobody use any form of the old standby "No person of any nominal intelligence doubts evolution". That statement doesn't mean or prove anything and it has no place in the discussion. If it is used, it will be taken as a sign of weakness.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

everyone knows that the Universe is everlasting, kinda like Unas

 

[AchrisK]

So will references to the Bible as evidence.

ok. But I am not here to argue for ID. My interest is in evolution.

 

[AchrisK]

One thing that caused me to almost have a hard time taking TalkOrigins.org seriously was the article on "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

All the article did was state over and over that evolution (common descent) is a fact, and the mechanism by which it was accomplished (natural selection, etc) is the part that is in the theory stage (unknown to an extent or entirely). It was kinda strange and seemed dumb. I know (knew) I needed to read much more to see why they felt so confident in making such silly sounding claims, and I am doing that.

 

[Jean-Pierre]

I was about to say. Evolution is a very complex biological theory, and one would have to have serious knowledge in the field to comprehend it. It's not bloody magic, it just depends on your expertise.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I would say that the key points behind it can be explained in layman's terms.

I'm not too up on my evolution theory, though. Perhaps someone here can make a decent case for it.

 

[AchrisK]

Well, I am reading a couple of things, and it is complex, but enough of it can be grasped to begin to understand the basic ideas.

Just for everyone's info, I am coming from a background of belief in the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. In my view, why not believe that an all-powerful God can create everything? I have also never taken the time to look into evolution or what science says about the age of this or that, or the big bang or anything. My belief was basic and I was not entirely dogmatic about it, and never really argued with people about it. Well, now I am doing some reading and investigating for myself. I still have no problem with an all-powerful God being, well, all powerful. But I am now more interested in looking into things for myself.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

In my view, why not believe that an all-powerful God can create everything?

Because that doesn't actually explain anything. What created God?

 

[AchrisK]

Because that doesn't actually explain anything. What created God?

DON'T DO THAT!

The problem with that question is that the same thing can be asked of matter, time, life, etc. We don't know where these things came from, and apart from possibly a scientific explanation for the origin of life, the answer to those questions is going to sound to us like a surrealist poem!

 

[Matt]

What caused the big bang to occur? What existed before the big bang?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

DON'T DO THAT!

The problem with that question is that the same thing can be asked of matter, time, life, etc. We don't know where these things came from, and apart from possibly a scientific explanation for the origin of life, the answer to those questions is going to sound to us like a surrealist poem!

Well, that's why scientists don't use the word "god" in their theories. If you don't know the answer to a question, you're not supposed to make up some fairy tale just so you can pretend you have an answer, when you really don't.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What caused the big bang to occur? What existed before the big bang?

Who knows? We have no access to that knowledge. Labeling that lack of knowledge "God" does not get us any closer to actually knowing, though.

 

[AchrisK]

Well, that's why scientists don't use the word "god" in their theories. If you don't know the answer to a question, you're not supposed to make up some fairy tale just so you can pretend you have an answer, when you really don't.

Don't confuse the introduction of my beliefs as what I want to argue about or prove. I was merely introducing myself into the conversation, so to speak. I understand that science doesn't consider God in its study of things, and I can appreciate that to an extent. They want to know how stuff works. You can only study what you can physically interact with. That's cool.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Now lets not be mean here

I'm not trying to be mean. If you want me to use some term other than "fairy tale", fine - but I'd say that's a pretty accurate description of the concept of God.

 

[Matt]

I'm not trying to be mean. If you want me to use some term other than "fairy tale", fine - but I'd say that's a pretty accurate description of the concept of God.

I deleted that post btw.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Don't confuse the introduction of my beliefs as what I want to argue about or prove. I was merely introducing myself into the conversation, so to speak. I understand that science doesn't consider God in its study of things, and I can appreciate that to an extent. They want to know how stuff works. You can only study what you can physically interact with. That's cool.

Hey, someone has to start chucking the vollies at some point. That's the discussion part, right?