Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism

Adriana · 08-16-2008, 07:52 AM

Believers in Darwinism oppose Intelligent Design because for evolutionary change to occur, a supernatural designer is referred to. Evolution is a fact but the rate of revolution that the scientists are studying now varies greatly from the Cambrian explosion, the period when from simple one-celled organisms, the earth was suddenly filled with extremely complex creatures. There's no doubt in my mind that we were designed for a purpose.

A recent federal case explored the legitimacy of Intelligent Design as a science. The proponents of Darwinism argue that teaching it is religiously motivated and should therefore be removed from the lesson books. The judge in that case favored the scientists. I have hope that in due time, this ruling will be overthrown..sooner than later.

Musiclover · 08-17-2008, 08:21 PM

Darwinism supporters argue that Intelligent Design is not a science. ID is in fact a science in that it observes the complexity that can be produced by the intelligent designer. ID doesn't identify the designers hence, I assert that there's no religious motivation. There's a limit to products of natural processes; life simply can't have appeared randomly.

stagefright · 08-17-2008, 08:31 PM

There's no harm from teaching both evolution and intelligent design in schools. Let the students decide on their own and if they want to, they can look for proof of either theory. Intelligent design doesn't have as much science to back it up, I'd have to admit...not yet. It is facing much undeserved hostility from the established scientists. I say give them time to prove their case. Just because one theory opposes yours doesn't give you the right to trash it.
________
ZOLOFT PRILOSEC NEXIUM

SmokingMan · 08-19-2008, 07:03 AM

We have proof for what we call microevolution, that is, adaptations in species that better help them to survive in a changing environment which can be passed on to offspring. However we don't have solid and conclusive evidence of macroevolution or an actual jump from one species to another. The law of nature states that only members of the same species can produce fertile offspring. For example if a coyote mates with a dog, they can have pups, but those pups will not be able to have offspring of there own. However, if a wolf mates with a dog, their offspring will be able to reproduce. This is because domestic dogs are originally wolves. In reality they are the same species. Man has genetically altered the wolf for different lines of work and different looks, so man gave dogs a new genus-species name. But as you can see, there was intelligent design here. Man did this. If not for man, wolves would still just be wolves and there would be no dogs. The actual species jumps that we can observe are the result of man altering the DNA of species, not spontaneous evolution. Since science has not been around long enough to observe evolution for itself, we can conclude that even if evolution does happen on a macro level, it does require intelligent design. Remember that Darwin was never an atheist, and furthermore, he had an intollerant attitude against atheists. It was never his intention to prove that intelligent design was false. I will quote the last sentence in his book, "The Origin of Species";
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved."
Darwin apparently gives credit to a "Creator" for making evolution possible. Some have said after Darwin died that his "Creator" was simply chance. However, I must assume that, having been the brilliant biologist he was, he knew the fundamental scientific laws of things that come about by chance. Let's look at this for a while...
The characteristics of things that come about by chance are:
disharmony, chaos, irregularity, inconsistency, insignificance, purposelessness. All chance events are loose, random, disorganized, aimless, formless, disorderly, unpredictable, and not directed towards any meaningful purpose. For example, If I were to take this chair and throw it across the room, it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I throw a second one, it may land perfectly beside the first, though I'd be pretty suprised. But this will not happen with the third, the forth and so on. If I become very well practiced at this game, then I could increase the consistency of the chair landing how I want it to, but at that point it is no longer chance that decides the outcome, it is my skill.
Now let's take a look at the universe and the earth we live on. The universe is so predictable that we can make next years calender before this year is over. We can predict the seasons, the phases of the moon, the days and nights, etc. The planet, tilted at a perfect 23 degrees is just the right distance from the sun so that we neither burn nor freeze. We can predict the return of comets and chart the stars in the night sky. Looking at the earth we can see a wonderful cycle of nature that is perfect. Each species, while striving to survive, inadvertenyly helps the ecosystem as a whole to function. For example, a wolf kills a deer for food, keeping the deer populations in check which prevents the overgrazing of the forests. Meanwhile, the leftover carcass feeds ravens and vultures who are nature's cleanup crew, consuming any leftover meat to prevent the spread of disease from decaying flesh. Bees who think that they are just collecting pollen to make honey, and hummingbirds who think they are just drinking nectar are actually carrying pollen from flower to flower, aiding in the reproduction of plant species. There is no such thing as a free meal in nature. Though they don't realize it, every species, while struggling to survive, helps another, or many other species to survive. In this we have a perfectly cycling system which insures the sustainability of the ecosystem and largely, the planet. Let's look at the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood, put it under a microscope and observe its grain structure; all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and a flower pedal are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Furthermore, microscopic, single celled organisms have the same kinds of "niches" that large animals and plants do, only on a smaller scale.
Everything about the world and universe we live in is consistent, organized, predictable, orderly, and purposeful. Scientifically speaking, and keeping in consideration the characteristics of chance events, could it have all happened by chance?
The point of all this is:
If you walk into a house and you find it organized and swept clean, the one conclusion you can come to is that...
someone lives there.
You decide.

Ricoh · 08-24-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingMan

Darwin apparently gives credit to a "Creator" for making evolution possible. Some have said after Darwin died that his "Creator" was simply chance. However, I must assume that, having been the brilliant biologist he was, he knew the fundamental scientific laws of things that come about by chance.

Darwin was raised as a Christian and in fact was a seminarian before he became a naturalist. Eventually, he convinced himself that the book of Genesis was a lie and that "chance" caused the origination of the species and he further believed in their gradual modification.

SmokingMan · 10-01-2008, 01:04 PM

Let's remember that Darwin was never an admitted atheist. In fact he wrote letters to some of his very own friends who thought that they were supporting his "atheism" and called them irrational, over-aggresive, and ignorant. We have access to these letters and if we have questions, we should read them. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic, which Darwin was, believes in some higher concious intelligence, but is unsure what or who it may be. Darwin was raised a Christian and was actually a theologian, but rejected the bible around age 40 because, firstly, back then, there was only the fundamental, literalist view of the bible being taught in theological seminary, which most chistians today don't even believe in. However, he never rejected the belief in a god. Naturally, the early christian theories did not jive with his theories. We need to make sure that we're not taking what we know of people out of context or getting our information from the websites and literature of angry young undereducated people or we ourselves become those who's credability becomes degraded several times over.

kidflash2008 · 10-02-2008, 09:14 AM

Darwin was of a time when science was questioning the earlier beliefs of the Bible. Geology was stating that the Earth was millions of years old, when the Bible claimed it was only 6000 years old. Evolution theory came out of the thinking the Earth was older.
I also like the ID theory, but the problem is which one to teach? Do we teach the Christian belief that the universe is only 6000 years old, or do we teach the Hindu and other beliefs that state it is billions of years old?
I say let local school boards deal with it.

Talisyn · 10-02-2008, 02:27 PM

Smokingman you post is my exact thoughts on the matter. Evolution is scientific fact, however it doesn't account for the whole process until someone shows me not just "the missing link" but all of them will i believe evolution as the sole reason for my existence. Though one thing always makes me wonder about ID and thats "why the hell are testicles on the outside" and i know about the heat regulation thing but all our organs have to be kept at the right temperature and they all manage to but protected by at least a layer of muscle.

Geri_Mars · 10-03-2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricoh

Darwin was raised as a Christian and in fact was a seminarian before he became a naturalist. Eventually, he convinced himself that the book of Genesis was a lie and that "chance" caused the origination of the species and he further believed in their gradual modification.

I would just like to add....

Darwin did still believe in God even during his evolutionary discoveries...I studied the life works of Darwin...yes he was christian...but he lost his faith after his 3rd child died of scarlet fever...incase you are wondering, scarlet fever is easy to cure more so now days than it was back in 1851...due to the fact that scarlet fever can now be treated so easy with antibiotics ...there were no such thing as antibiotics back in those days, due to the simple fact that penicillin was not discovered until – 1928 (by Sir A Flemming)

Amoxicillin is a semisynthetic (synthesized from naturally occurring substance) aminopenicillin antibiotic structurally related to ampicillin..and it wasn’t discovered until 1972

So Darwins children didn’t have a chance to survive the virus that did wipe out a lot of people back then....but that is when he truly lost his faith in God...it was nothing to do with his theories on Evolution....he was making those evolutionary discoveries LONG before he lost his faith...you have to remember he came from a family of free thinkers!

The 1851 death of Darwin’s daughter, Annie, marked the end of his dwindling faith in Christianity.

I may believe in evolution...but it does NOT prevent me from believing in God...just not the god from the bible...see my theory is this..God is responcible for evolution..and I seriously doubt anyone can prove me wrong...

Truthed · 10-05-2008, 02:30 PM

Wow Geri, news to me about Darwins faith, got a link?

08-16-2008, 07:52 AM	#1
Adriana Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 9	Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism Believers in Darwinism oppose Intelligent Design because for evolutionary change to occur, a supernatural designer is referred to. Evolution is a fact but the rate of revolution that the scientists are studying now varies greatly from the Cambrian explosion, the period when from simple one-celled organisms, the earth was suddenly filled with extremely complex creatures. There's no doubt in my mind that we were designed for a purpose. A recent federal case explored the legitimacy of Intelligent Design as a science. The proponents of Darwinism argue that teaching it is religiously motivated and should therefore be removed from the lesson books. The judge in that case favored the scientists. I have hope that in due time, this ruling will be overthrown..sooner than later.

08-17-2008, 08:31 PM	#3
stagefright Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 8	There's no harm from teaching both evolution and intelligent design in schools. Let the students decide on their own and if they want to, they can look for proof of either theory. Intelligent design doesn't have as much science to back it up, I'd have to admit...not yet. It is facing much undeserved hostility from the established scientists. I say give them time to prove their case. Just because one theory opposes yours doesn't give you the right to trash it. ________ ZOLOFT PRILOSEC NEXIUM Last edited by stagefright; 03-12-2011 at 01:43 AM.

10-05-2008, 02:30 PM	#10
Truthed Administrator Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,079	Wow Geri, news to me about Darwins faith, got a link? __________________ "You Want To Believe" http://www.truthed.com truthed@truthed.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-17-2008, 08:21 PM	#2
Musiclover Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7	Darwinism supporters argue that Intelligent Design is not a science. ID is in fact a science in that it observes the complexity that can be produced by the intelligent designer. ID doesn't identify the designers hence, I assert that there's no religious motivation. There's a limit to products of natural processes; life simply can't have appeared randomly.

08-19-2008, 07:03 AM	#4
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	We have proof for what we call microevolution, that is, adaptations in species that better help them to survive in a changing environment which can be passed on to offspring. However we don't have solid and conclusive evidence of macroevolution or an actual jump from one species to another. The law of nature states that only members of the same species can produce fertile offspring. For example if a coyote mates with a dog, they can have pups, but those pups will not be able to have offspring of there own. However, if a wolf mates with a dog, their offspring will be able to reproduce. This is because domestic dogs are originally wolves. In reality they are the same species. Man has genetically altered the wolf for different lines of work and different looks, so man gave dogs a new genus-species name. But as you can see, there was intelligent design here. Man did this. If not for man, wolves would still just be wolves and there would be no dogs. The actual species jumps that we can observe are the result of man altering the DNA of species, not spontaneous evolution. Since science has not been around long enough to observe evolution for itself, we can conclude that even if evolution does happen on a macro level, it does require intelligent design. Remember that Darwin was never an atheist, and furthermore, he had an intollerant attitude against atheists. It was never his intention to prove that intelligent design was false. I will quote the last sentence in his book, "The Origin of Species"; "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved." Darwin apparently gives credit to a "Creator" for making evolution possible. Some have said after Darwin died that his "Creator" was simply chance. However, I must assume that, having been the brilliant biologist he was, he knew the fundamental scientific laws of things that come about by chance. Let's look at this for a while... The characteristics of things that come about by chance are: disharmony, chaos, irregularity, inconsistency, insignificance, purposelessness. All chance events are loose, random, disorganized, aimless, formless, disorderly, unpredictable, and not directed towards any meaningful purpose. For example, If I were to take this chair and throw it across the room, it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I throw a second one, it may land perfectly beside the first, though I'd be pretty suprised. But this will not happen with the third, the forth and so on. If I become very well practiced at this game, then I could increase the consistency of the chair landing how I want it to, but at that point it is no longer chance that decides the outcome, it is my skill. Now let's take a look at the universe and the earth we live on. The universe is so predictable that we can make next years calender before this year is over. We can predict the seasons, the phases of the moon, the days and nights, etc. The planet, tilted at a perfect 23 degrees is just the right distance from the sun so that we neither burn nor freeze. We can predict the return of comets and chart the stars in the night sky. Looking at the earth we can see a wonderful cycle of nature that is perfect. Each species, while striving to survive, inadvertenyly helps the ecosystem as a whole to function. For example, a wolf kills a deer for food, keeping the deer populations in check which prevents the overgrazing of the forests. Meanwhile, the leftover carcass feeds ravens and vultures who are nature's cleanup crew, consuming any leftover meat to prevent the spread of disease from decaying flesh. Bees who think that they are just collecting pollen to make honey, and hummingbirds who think they are just drinking nectar are actually carrying pollen from flower to flower, aiding in the reproduction of plant species. There is no such thing as a free meal in nature. Though they don't realize it, every species, while struggling to survive, helps another, or many other species to survive. In this we have a perfectly cycling system which insures the sustainability of the ecosystem and largely, the planet. Let's look at the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood, put it under a microscope and observe its grain structure; all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and a flower pedal are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Furthermore, microscopic, single celled organisms have the same kinds of "niches" that large animals and plants do, only on a smaller scale. Everything about the world and universe we live in is consistent, organized, predictable, orderly, and purposeful. Scientifically speaking, and keeping in consideration the characteristics of chance events, could it have all happened by chance? The point of all this is: If you walk into a house and you find it organized and swept clean, the one conclusion you can come to is that... someone lives there. You decide.

10-01-2008, 01:04 PM	#6
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	Let's remember that Darwin was never an admitted atheist. In fact he wrote letters to some of his very own friends who thought that they were supporting his "atheism" and called them irrational, over-aggresive, and ignorant. We have access to these letters and if we have questions, we should read them. An atheist does not believe in a god. An agnostic, which Darwin was, believes in some higher concious intelligence, but is unsure what or who it may be. Darwin was raised a Christian and was actually a theologian, but rejected the bible around age 40 because, firstly, back then, there was only the fundamental, literalist view of the bible being taught in theological seminary, which most chistians today don't even believe in. However, he never rejected the belief in a god. Naturally, the early christian theories did not jive with his theories. We need to make sure that we're not taking what we know of people out of context or getting our information from the websites and literature of angry young undereducated people or we ourselves become those who's credability becomes degraded several times over.

10-02-2008, 09:14 AM	#7
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	Darwin was of a time when science was questioning the earlier beliefs of the Bible. Geology was stating that the Earth was millions of years old, when the Bible claimed it was only 6000 years old. Evolution theory came out of the thinking the Earth was older. I also like the ID theory, but the problem is which one to teach? Do we teach the Christian belief that the universe is only 6000 years old, or do we teach the Hindu and other beliefs that state it is billions of years old? I say let local school boards deal with it.

10-02-2008, 02:27 PM	#8
Talisyn Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 188	Smokingman you post is my exact thoughts on the matter. Evolution is scientific fact, however it doesn't account for the whole process until someone shows me not just "the missing link" but all of them will i believe evolution as the sole reason for my existence. Though one thing always makes me wonder about ID and thats "why the hell are testicles on the outside" and i know about the heat regulation thing but all our organs have to be kept at the right temperature and they all manage to but protected by at least a layer of muscle.