Getting over our love for Darwin

[Revmitchell]

..Intelligent Design supporters like me view Darwin's theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life's development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.....


..........Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loathe to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, Christian Darwinists hope that Darwinism is true. But is it really? In this year of Darwinian bacchanalias, let us soberly reassess whether Darwin's theory is indeed true. And if the evidence goes against it, as the Intelligent Design community is successfully demonstrating, then let's be done with it. In that case, reconciling Christianity with Darwinism becomes a vain exercise, solving a problem that no longer exists.

More Here

 

[Johnv]

The theory of evolution via natural selection doesn't proport to explain where life came from. It only proports to explain how life forms developed/develop over time.

Intelligent design doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

 

[Aaron]

The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument.

The difference?

 

[donnA]

no actually it's a matter faith

 

[Revmitchell]

For those who mindlessly claim ID is not science. Really! You need to watch something other than CNN


Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)


Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories

Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science (2004), 13

 

[Johnv]

For those who mindlessly claim ID is not science. Really! You need to watch something other than CNN

Typical revmitchellism. Insult what one does not understand. Nope, ID isn't science. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. It's a solid theological model, but it's not science. I'm an adherent of ID, btw.

 

[Aaron]

Would you say Darwinism is science?

 

[Johnv]

Would you say Darwinism is science?

"Darwinism" is a term used by laypersons to refer to several different concepts of special development or evolution, many of which have nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his work. The term's meaning frequently changes, depending on who uses it. So, no, it's not science.

 

[Aaron]

*sigh* Would you call Darwin's theory as described in "The Origin of Species" science?

 

[Johnv]

If you're referring to natural selection, yes, it's science. It adheres to and passes the scientific method. Whether laypersons agree with it or not is not a prerequisite for something being science.

 

[just-want-peace]

Seems I see two different concepts being debated here:

1 Evolution means that life began in the "primordial soup" as one celled creatures, and over millions of eons evolved into what is HUMAN today.

2 Evolution is the adaptation of species to changing environmental factors and/or genetic manipulation, resulting in different characteristics in that species today vs "yesterday".

I have always been under the impression ( supported by such entities as Nat. Geo., TLC, History Channel etc etc) that definition # one (1) was non-debatable FACT.

Any attempts to get IC into the educational system have been rebuffed vehemently by "the power structure" as "religious", non-scientific, pseudo-science etc.

Now if this IS science (#1), then why all the fear of ID being looked at?????? If the #1 crowd is so certain of their FACTS, why not just contrast the two ideas and let supposedly intelligent kids decide for themselves??

Simply because they (#1 crowd) KNOW they don't have PROOF - it's just faith that it happened like they say.

Only difference is that the IC crowd (IE believers of the Word) admit that there is no proof for their belief, just a simple trust in His word.

So the real difference is who do you trust - man or God???

Now #2 - well no problem as we've seen this kind of "evolution" in the breeding of horses, dogs, cats, etc etc.

Christians buying into the #1 idea is nothing more than either laziness, and/or an attempt to live like the world but "be(?)" a Christian

 

[Revmitchell]

Only difference is that the IC crowd (IE believers of the Word) admit that there is no proof for their belief, just a simple trust in His word.

Then you do not understand ID for there is much proof of Intelligent Design found through means of science.

 

[Johnv]

Only difference is that the IC crowd (IE believers of the Word) admit that there is no proof for their belief, just a simple trust in His word.

That's not true. Being an adherent of ID does not equate to being a believer of the Word, as you put it. Although ID is supported mostly by Christians, it doesn't claim to disprove or even be at ood with evolution via natural selection. Intelligent design doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms at all. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all.

 

[Aaron]

If you're referring to natural selection, yes, it's science. It adheres to and passes the scientific method. Whether laypersons agree with it or not is not a prerequisite for something being science.

You're avoiding the question. Are Darwin's predictions and assumptions as outlined in Origin of Species science?

 

[OldRegular]

The theory of evolution via natural selection doesn't proport to explain where life came from. It only proports to explain how life forms developed/develop over time.

Intelligent design doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

The theory of evolution starts??????

Many people assume that the theory of evolution deals only with natural selection. Not so! It must deal with the existence of the universe. It is an atheist philosophy and that is a fact.

Furthermore, I do not believe in intelligent design, I believe in Divine Creation.

 

[OldRegular]

You're avoiding the question. Are Darwin's predictions and assumptions as outlined in Origin of Species science?

NO! They are:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:!

 

[Gold Dragon]

1 Evolution means that life began in the "primordial soup" as one celled creatures, and over millions of eons evolved into what is HUMAN today.

This is a misconception of evolution. Darwinian evolution does not propose to explain how life began. The concept you are referring to is abiogenesis which is often associated with evolution but is not the same as evolution.

2 Evolution is the adaptation of species to changing environmental factors and/or genetic manipulation, resulting in different characteristics in that species today vs "yesterday".

This is a better oversimplification of what evolution is.

I have always been under the impression ( supported by such entities as Nat. Geo., TLC, History Channel etc etc) that definition # one (1) was non-debatable FACT.

I think honest scientists will tell you that evolution is a non-debatable fact because we have observed species undergoing natural selection but abiogenesis theory is a model that has significantly less evidence behind it and should be debated more than evolution.

Now if this IS science (#1), then why all the fear of ID being looked at?????? If the #1 crowd is so certain of their FACTS, why not just contrast the two ideas and let supposedly intelligent kids decide for themselves??

I think ID is an interesting philosophical concept. While I agree that we have an intelligent designer and in my case his name is Yahweh, I disagree that irreducible complexity (this is like natural selection in evolution, the mechanism behind the theory) is actually something that we can actually detect or that it is some sort of proof of an intelligent designer.

I think ID could be taught in schools along with Creationism as philosophical or religious concepts. They can be mentioned in science class because of their association with evolution.

 

[Gold Dragon]

..Intelligent Design supporters like me view Darwin's theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life's development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.....


..........Little did I realize how infatuated many Christians are with Darwin. Having convinced themselves that design is an outdated religious dogma, they embraced Darwinism as a form of enlightenment. And having accommodated their faith to Darwin, they became loathe to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, Christian Darwinists hope that Darwinism is true. But is it really? In this year of Darwinian bacchanalias, let us soberly reassess whether Darwin's theory is indeed true. And if the evidence goes against it, as the Intelligent Design community is successfully demonstrating, then let's be done with it. In that case, reconciling Christianity with Darwinism becomes a vain exercise, solving a problem that no longer exists.

More Here

It is interesting and a little telling that William Dembski, one of the founders of ID, would confuse Darwin with abiogenesis.

Dembski is a mathematician and mathematics play a big part of ID theory. It might be appropriate for teaching ID as a math topic, although it might be difficult for high school math students. Maybe at the graduate level.

 

[Aaron]

Math is science.

 

[just-want-peace]

Well, it's obvious that the definitions of the terms I've been accustomed to for "evolution" have "evolved" over time -- (pun intended)!!!:smilewinkgrin:

All I know is that EVOLUTION used to mean that, as stated in my earlier post:

1 Evolution means that life began in the "primordial soup" as one celled creatures, and over millions of eons evolved into what is HUMAN today.

And, as noted by another poster, ID does not necessarily equate to "BELIEVERS"; that was a term picked so that creation could be taught sans the religious aspect. So obviously that has "evolved" to some extent also.

SO, until and if, I get involved enough in this topic to separate the various terms from what they USED to mean, I'm through. (Can't help but think of the definition of "GAY" as it was in 1950 vs the "EVOLVED" meaning today.:tear

But, just for the record, I believe in the story strictly as told by God in Genesis - no more, no less.