I was talking with a friend about the two and I want to hear why people believe/consider/hold in high esteem intelligent design, because I don't see how the two can even be compared: evolution is a scientific theory that, the evidence for it aside, is something that has utility: it offers an increased understanding of the world or provides guidance for useful research or whatever. As far as I know, intelligent design states that god created everything which is all well and good but I fail to see how it's any different to me saying that the gravitational force is the result of microscopic gnomes stretching out to infinity pulling on everything: it doesn't have any utility. For this reason I don't know why people see intelligent design as an 'alternative' to evolution when it isn't on the same footing.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2024 Smog Awards!
Evolution vs Intelligent Design
- Thread starter cookie
- Start date
Even when people don't understand evolution (and are aware of the fact they don't understand), all of them tend to treat it like other science they don't understand, like power generation, electronics, astrophysics. They just assume the scientists know how it works and that's all that matters.
I haven't met any nonreligious person who says "I don't understand [scientific theory], so I'll choose one I do understand and say that's real."
The people who come up with their own theories usually don't understand the theories they're trying to replace, but they think they do, so it's not the same as admitting you don't understand and putting ID in it's place.
This is a really good point. Intelligent design should not be an alternative to evolution, since belief in either one does not contradict belief in the other. I am pretty religious but I believe evolution in evolution.
And I think you're right that saying "God created everything" does not have a specific utility, but it's more that the utility in everyday life comes from other parts of religion (like moral values), while the whole intelligent design idea is just a particular speculation on humankind's origins (with no more utility in our lives than the big bang theory).
A lot of ID proponents are just stubborn individuals who don't care to look at the big picture and wider possibilities. I personally, am an evolutionist and a creationist at the same time. I believe (very similarly to Darwin himself) that God (read: Higher/Powerful being) created some sort of life, be it a tiny amoeba or some other simple prokaryote, and then facilitated the transformation of that organism into something else, possibly even letting chance play a factor in the evolution of that organism.
People who actually believe everything today existed exactly as it is at the beginning of the world are just...stubborn.
People who actually believe everything today existed exactly as it is at the beginning of the world are just...stubborn.
I think the underlying point that you're missing is that the belief in Intelligent Design is not intended to have any utility. Think about the nature of religion, and the concept that you must have faith in something that you cannot see with your own eyes or prove incontrovertibly. If Intelligent Design had a utility, it would be tangible to the human mind, and you wouldn't need Faith to execute it. Intelligent Design is part of religion, and the whole point of it is for you to have faith in it DESPITE not being able to outright prove it.
That's how I feel about it, at least.
That's how I feel about it, at least.
I hate to interject, but I somewhat agree with Ira. I don't believe that "God" created the first single-celled organism, but I really DO NOT understand the current theories about how it happened. Right now, the only thing that sounds slightly plausible to me is that other intelligent creatures contaminated Earth or something similar. So, would someone please explain to me in a way that I will understand how the first single-celled organism came to be? Because, I simply don't get how lightning + organic material in water = single-celled organism.
First of all, though unlikely, a single-celled organism is nothing more than a collection of molecules. Therefore there is no reason to suppose that it couldn't have been created by a lightning strike on a liquid containing the correct elements. Although this is unlikely, when you take into account the size and age of the universe, it begins to seem far more likely. Now, some of you may be thinking: "why here and not anywhere else?" Well, we have to be here to be talking about it, so it happened. Simple. Also, this is why I believe in aliens. (not that we will ever meet any.)
The idea that life was spread to earth by other life does not come close to solving the problem of why life existed in the first place. This may also mean that there would have to be evidence of areas with suitability for life nearby.
There is no reason to suppose that Intelligent Design is not compatible with evolution. All that evolution did was rob theologians of their main examples. It seems entirely plausible that God "created" evolution, or even simply created the universe such that it would map out in a predetermined way. This can still be classified as intelligent design, and does not require you not to understand evolution. There are in fact practically no arguments against this. However, what these theories do show is that Intelligent Design is not entirely necessary for us to exist, and that, in fact, many things can be attributed to chance that previously sounded too unlikely.
By the way, I personally do not believe God exists. There is in my opinion no evidence for his existence, and certainly that there is no reason to suppose that he is like any Christian says he is (particularly as the christian god is self-contradictory). This is what Richard Dawkins would descibe as "Vanity."
Anyone obstructing the process here by rejecting evolution is doing so because of direct statements from the Bible obviously. Intelligent design in their case is justification of this as well as the existence of God. These are the people who fall into the groups suggested above.
The idea that life was spread to earth by other life does not come close to solving the problem of why life existed in the first place. This may also mean that there would have to be evidence of areas with suitability for life nearby.
There is no reason to suppose that Intelligent Design is not compatible with evolution. All that evolution did was rob theologians of their main examples. It seems entirely plausible that God "created" evolution, or even simply created the universe such that it would map out in a predetermined way. This can still be classified as intelligent design, and does not require you not to understand evolution. There are in fact practically no arguments against this. However, what these theories do show is that Intelligent Design is not entirely necessary for us to exist, and that, in fact, many things can be attributed to chance that previously sounded too unlikely.
By the way, I personally do not believe God exists. There is in my opinion no evidence for his existence, and certainly that there is no reason to suppose that he is like any Christian says he is (particularly as the christian god is self-contradictory). This is what Richard Dawkins would descibe as "Vanity."
Anyone obstructing the process here by rejecting evolution is doing so because of direct statements from the Bible obviously. Intelligent design in their case is justification of this as well as the existence of God. These are the people who fall into the groups suggested above.
I certainly believe there are those, like me, who subscribe to ID because we understand the faults in the Evolutionary Hypothesis. I would be careful putting things into groups if i were you.
Then please, explain the faults.
edit: Also, if you're saying that you believe in ID because science has "faults" when describing the process of evolution, then how the hell do you subscribe to Christianity? Help, I can't figure out your post :(
We do not have a definite scientific explanation for the origin of life. There are lots of hypotheses around, but nothing's really been proven. However, the inability to account for the origin of life does not affect validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution explains how different species arise; it takes the existence of life as a given.
(Similarly, we don't have a theory that explains the masses of the fundamental particles, but that does not affect the validity of quantum mechanics, which takes those masses as numbers in the calculations.)
I just have a question. I read in an article that evolution's one flaw is that it cannot produce evidence that a single celled organism evolved into a complex group of organisms such as a dog or a horse or even a human. Can anyone refute this? I'm not saying it's true (I'm rather skeptical), but when I think of it again, scientists haven't really offered any information on this.
People are more accepting of the intelligent design viewpoint than they would be of other crackpot theories because ti has such a strong religious connections. People who believe in ID usually take it a an insult to their god when people tell them they are wrong, so most people will just let them believe whatever and not try to intervene. If ID did not have such a strong religious connection it would probably be laughed at whenever it was brought up and would probably be much less common of a belief
You fall into the second category you just don't know it, you probably also fall into the first category.
I want to start with The Bible for those Theistic Evolutionists out there-
The Hebrew word used in Genesis,"yom", ( i think that's how it's spelled) means a literal 24 Hour day.
Next: And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. We agree that there is an evening and morning, yes? try and fit that into a million years...
Next: And God spoke all these words: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Next, for local flooders- God Promised he would never destroy the earth in a flood, yet if you believe in a local flood, then you would have to believe God promised not to destroy with a local flood, which obviously hasn't been kept (too many comas and bad writing -_-)
Jesus was also a young earth creationist as well, as he quotes Genesis at many points in his ministry.
i have to get going... i'll talk later.
The evidence comes from two directions.
Firstly, the fossil record. Unfortunately, single-celled organisms don't tend to fossilize very well.
Secondly, present-day lifeforms that are intermediate between single-celled and multicellular. These are colonial organisms - groups of cells that act together (like a multi-cellular organism), yet cells are able to survive on their own (unlike a true multicellular organism). The Volvocalesare an example. The fact that in some types, colonies form where only some - not all - of the cells are capable of reproduction is very much an aspect of a multicellular lifeform. Of course, Volvocales are not evolutionary ancestors of mammals, but they demonstrate the principle.
In any case, lack of evidence for a specific prediction of a theory does not by itself invalidate the theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html
Firstly, the fossil record. Unfortunately, single-celled organisms don't tend to fossilize very well.
Secondly, present-day lifeforms that are intermediate between single-celled and multicellular. These are colonial organisms - groups of cells that act together (like a multi-cellular organism), yet cells are able to survive on their own (unlike a true multicellular organism). The Volvocalesare an example. The fact that in some types, colonies form where only some - not all - of the cells are capable of reproduction is very much an aspect of a multicellular lifeform. Of course, Volvocales are not evolutionary ancestors of mammals, but they demonstrate the principle.
In any case, lack of evidence for a specific prediction of a theory does not by itself invalidate the theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_5.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102_2_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH102.html
That's a bit strong. Much of the Bible is best interpreted metaphorically, but that doesn't mean it's "patently false", which suggests that it has no bearing on our lives whatsoever.
Also, Cantab knows what he's talking about. Listen to him.
I do not walk into the lions den without a sword. It would be foolish of me to drop my sword.
Therefore i wish to be attacked in this debate so i can defend myself
I wish that this debate does not turn into this:
Can't you see what i'm talking about?
No i can't, don't you see how wrong you are?
No, i'm not wrong. It's obvious that i am right.
No, it's not obvious
ect... ect.. ect..
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3205
http://www.recoveredscience.com/const303solomonpi.htm
I recomend reading these. And i perceive that this is legal to do, since Cantab did so with mine.
Ten cubits from rim to rim = ten cubit diameter = 5 cubit radius
Circumference = 2pir = 2 * 5 * pi = 31.416 cubit
sounds close enough to me
Halp I can't find the sense in these posts.
Instead of sticking to good old logic, you state that evolution has flaws because the Bible opposes it? That's not a "flaw" on evolutions part. Unless you can A) Prove the Bible is correct or B) Prove that evolution is incorrect, you really are not making an argument against the validity of evolution, but instead an argument for Christianity.
Basically man, you're saying that evolution is wrong because the Bible disagrees with it, instead of pointing out flaws in evolution. You should not aim at disproving us using the Bible, but instead logic. Here, I would like to think that is the prevailing force.
edit: damn you cantab, ruin my post :)
I really hate the commonly understood definition of "intelligent design." It makes it sound like the only arguement that a conscious, omniscient being creating the universe is creationism. As if God couldn't use evolution as a medium of change to allow growth as opposed to the world just being 6000 years old.
Anyways, the reason I don't think creationism is really valid is the same reason I left the church in the first place. Verses like Numbers 31:7-18 and Deuteronomy 20:10-14 just can't be explained away and they just ruin the rest of the Bible's credibility.
Anyways, the reason I don't think creationism is really valid is the same reason I left the church in the first place. Verses like Numbers 31:7-18 and Deuteronomy 20:10-14 just can't be explained away and they just ruin the rest of the Bible's credibility.