Purity said:
Give me ONE proof of one specie becoming another! Being rude is not proof.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot! You do not even have one foot left to stand on!
intelligent design vs creationism
- Thread starter snr5557
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Give me ONE proof of one specie becoming another! Being rude is not proof.
Keep shooting yourself in the foot! You do not even have one foot left to stand on!
You're way, way, way out of touch.
There is currently not one working scientific theory on the 'origin of life'.
"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)
Not only do they not have a clue, they don't even have a clue of where to look.
Advancement in science sank all the old theories.
.
I wouldn't use that as a reason not to believe in evolution, since scientists don't agree on everything. There are even well respected scientists who question gravity.IBeMe said:
"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)
That's not one scientist, that's all scientist!
Currently, there isn't a single workable theory of how life could exist without God.
No scientist anywhere on planet Earth has a workable theory of how life could have started without God.
Zero, none, not even any; nobody!
The more research they do ... they learn new depths of complexity of life ... they get further and further away from their goal.
.
IBeMe said:
"The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem ..."( NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, 06/20/12)
That's not one scientist, that's all scientist!
It was just an example, not all scientists agree on the same things. I remember in a biology class how when scientists get together to hear another discuss their new findings that they can be pretty harsh with criticism. That's kind of how science progresses, with so many different opinions, and everyone trying to find it their way, someone will find the most right answer. Which of course, more people will debateIt's a wonderful, never ending cycle.
Currently, there isn't a single workable theory of how life could exist without God.
Well you have the big bang, chemical evolution, biological evolution, etc. But, I do believe that God is the one who started it all.
The more research they do ... they learn new depths of complexity of life ... they get further and further away from their goal.
I can agree in a sense. Once they find one answer, ten more questions come up! The more we know, the more we realize how much we don't know, which leads us to want to know more and you get the idea
.
"Creationism" is a broad category that includes a number of sub-categories. For example, there is young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, Hindu creationism, progressive creationism and many others. Intelligent design is one of those sub-categories, which is why I usually refer to it as "intelligent design creationism".
If you look into the history of intelligent design creationism (IDC), you find that it was specifically crafted as a religious/political strategy to get creationist teachings into public schools, following a series of federal court rulings banning the teaching of Biblical creationism. After the courts' rulings, creationist organizations tried to strip their material of all overt Biblical and Christian references and themes, and relabel them as "intelligent design". So rather that creation by God, you had "design" by some unspecified "intelligence". They also dropped claims about the age of the earth, advocacy of Noah's Flood, and advocacy of special creation of human beings.
The problem was, they didn't do a very good job of covering their tracks. When the inclusion of IDC in public schools was put on trial in Dover, PA, it was very, very easy for the pro-science side to convincingly demonstrate that IDC was merely Christian creationism in a new dress. The most infamous example was when the creationists did a find and replace for the words "creationists" (find) and "design proponents" (replace) in their textbook "Of Pandas and People". It didn't quite work as well as it should, and they ended up with "cdesign proponentists". IOW, they kept all the same arguments and material from creationism, and slapped a new label on it. So it was pretty easy for the judge to rule that IDC is merely a deliberate rebranding of Christian creationism.
Since that Dover ruling IDC is essentially dead. Because it was a political/religious strategy, it never really generated its own science, and after the court ruling no one is really trying to mandate its inclusion into public schools. Creationists have since moved on to "academic freedom" and "criticisms of evolution" (which are still the same arguments as before).
If you look into the history of intelligent design creationism (IDC), you find that it was specifically crafted as a religious/political strategy to get creationist teachings into public schools, following a series of federal court rulings banning the teaching of Biblical creationism. After the courts' rulings, creationist organizations tried to strip their material of all overt Biblical and Christian references and themes, and relabel them as "intelligent design". So rather that creation by God, you had "design" by some unspecified "intelligence". They also dropped claims about the age of the earth, advocacy of Noah's Flood, and advocacy of special creation of human beings.
The problem was, they didn't do a very good job of covering their tracks. When the inclusion of IDC in public schools was put on trial in Dover, PA, it was very, very easy for the pro-science side to convincingly demonstrate that IDC was merely Christian creationism in a new dress. The most infamous example was when the creationists did a find and replace for the words "creationists" (find) and "design proponents" (replace) in their textbook "Of Pandas and People". It didn't quite work as well as it should, and they ended up with "cdesign proponentists". IOW, they kept all the same arguments and material from creationism, and slapped a new label on it. So it was pretty easy for the judge to rule that IDC is merely a deliberate rebranding of Christian creationism.
Since that Dover ruling IDC is essentially dead. Because it was a political/religious strategy, it never really generated its own science, and after the court ruling no one is really trying to mandate its inclusion into public schools. Creationists have since moved on to "academic freedom" and "criticisms of evolution" (which are still the same arguments as before).
I remember watching a film about "Of Pandas and People" in school and how it failed. I'm glad those people lost, but I felt bad for the science teachers whose faith was put into question. I just want to see how other people view the two, since to me they're almost identical.River Jordan said:
No SNR they are not the same. I can, although understand why you need them to be. I must say you are keeping it in the book. The problem is your book is called "On the Origins of Species."
Shall we change the terms to intelligent design and biblical creationism? If, so the comparison will make more sense.
No designer creates a machine that evolves. He creates the machine fully and then begins the function.
Shall we change the terms to intelligent design and biblical creationism? If, so the comparison will make more sense.
No designer creates a machine that evolves. He creates the machine fully and then begins the function.
So please go into detail about the differences.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
On a random note, why are people capitalizing my username?
No difference as far as I am concernedsnr5557 said:
"Intelligent Design" is a phrase adopted by scientists who preferred not to use the word "Creator" or "God"
That way a science publication (for example) can say the human cell has all the indications of intelligent design
That way people can feel free to say "intelligent design" without sounding religious.
Do you have some examples of this? I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.Arnie Manitoba said:
I already gave textbook definitions of both terms. However, if your deductive reasoning skills are still rudimentary due to your age I will give more details.
All biblical creationists are proponents of intelligent design. Not all proponents of intelligent design are biblical creationists. Nut, meet shell. Now there are a thousands different ways to go further. More on that soon.
All biblical creationists are proponents of intelligent design. Not all proponents of intelligent design are biblical creationists. Nut, meet shell. Now there are a thousands different ways to go further. More on that soon.
First off, I said they seemed almost identical. Read almost. Second, all I wanted are details, since you had only given me the basic definitions. I'm on this site to understand other people's view points on their beliefs in detail, I can easily look up a definition on Google. I do plan on going more indepth about the differences on Google as well, but I was hoping someone on this site would know more about it because I want to hear what others think straight from them. When I go on Google, although it does provide a large amount of information, I sometimes don't get the exact answer to my question, if that makes sense.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
After researching the Discovery Institute, which was started by a former professor of mine - Stephen Meyer, I have 'discovered' it is a plea for religious ideas to be seen as legitimate science. If it was the reverse, Christians would declare it to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I believe Meyer just argued before a Delaware court just the opposite of what you are saying Aspen.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I have no doubt about that CJ, Meyer is a true believer in his own mythos. He appears to have convinced himself that the material world points to a designer, without pointing directly to the Trinity - unfortunately, this idea is not supported by science and he is not being intellectually honest about his religious beliefs, which fuel his work.
'No Intelligence Required' speaks for Stephen Meyer just like the Swift Boat Veterans spoke for the 2004 Bush campaign......
'No Intelligence Required' speaks for Stephen Meyer just like the Swift Boat Veterans spoke for the 2004 Bush campaign......
The creation stories of Genesis (there are two of them) were never intended to be a scientific statement. Instead, their purpose was as a rebuttal in order to demythologize a much earler creation story the Hebrews were familiar with, namely, the egyptian creation epic:
www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml
In this earlier creation story, which the Hebrews would have been taught as fact during their sojourn in Egypt, there were numerous gods and goddesses. The surface of the planet was a deity, the sun, moon and stars were deities, and even the atmosphere was a deity. There were well over 40 different deities in the egyptian pantheon of gods and goddesses, with every one of them having a physical form that could be painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.
Moses, whom I accept as having written Genesis, needed to 'cancel out' this teaching. So beginning with Genesis 1:1 and continuing to Genesis 2:3, he methodically 'stripped' every deity that the Hebrews knew of its divinity. The sun, moon and stars were merely objects in the sky which gave them light, and nothing more. The surface of the planet and its atmosphere were merely two parts of this planet, and nothing more. And the other species of animals that the Hebrews saw around them were merely other species of animals, and nothing more. At the end of that passage they were to see only one Being as truly divine, and he was both invisible and over-and-above all that he had created, so he could never have his image painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.
The second creation story separated man (the true translation of the Hebrew word 'adam') from the other species of animals. The egyptian creation epic had described mankind as having been created along with the other species on the last day of creation, and then 'dumped' onto this planet along with them. This was reinforced at the time of the Hebrews' sojourn in Egypt by the belief held there that only royalty could attain an afterlife, and they could only attain it due to their being direct descendants of the gods.
Moses wrote that man first came into existence as a specie set apart by God. He could converse with God. He has given the authority to name all of the other species of animals, a symbol of authority in that era. He was given a special place (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably. And he was even given a helpmate (Eve) in a special manner. Rather than see himself as just another animal, man was to see himself as in a special relationship with the Creator.
But man also had another ability which no other species have yet today. He could recognize good and evil, and choose which path he would follow. Somewhere in prehistory man had evolved to the point at which this recognition was part of his psyche, and so had lost the innocence which up to that point he had shared with all of the other species.
Moses described that point in time via his using another egyptian legend, namely, the story of the battle between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. At the end of this battle Ra had maimed and bound Sebau so as to force him to crawl on the ground on his belly. It can be found in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, about five paragraphs from the beginning of the book, and in the first paragraph under the heading 'A Hymn to Ra:
www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html
Would the people have known what Moses was doing? Yes, they would have. The egyptian creation epic was taught all over Egypt as fact. Also, Ra was one of the highest ranking of the egyptian gods, so the story of Ra versus Sebau would have been common knowledge. So the people would have been able to receive the message which Moses was sending them without their getting entangled in the arguments which we see today.
www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml
In this earlier creation story, which the Hebrews would have been taught as fact during their sojourn in Egypt, there were numerous gods and goddesses. The surface of the planet was a deity, the sun, moon and stars were deities, and even the atmosphere was a deity. There were well over 40 different deities in the egyptian pantheon of gods and goddesses, with every one of them having a physical form that could be painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.
Moses, whom I accept as having written Genesis, needed to 'cancel out' this teaching. So beginning with Genesis 1:1 and continuing to Genesis 2:3, he methodically 'stripped' every deity that the Hebrews knew of its divinity. The sun, moon and stars were merely objects in the sky which gave them light, and nothing more. The surface of the planet and its atmosphere were merely two parts of this planet, and nothing more. And the other species of animals that the Hebrews saw around them were merely other species of animals, and nothing more. At the end of that passage they were to see only one Being as truly divine, and he was both invisible and over-and-above all that he had created, so he could never have his image painted on a tomb wall or sculpted into a statue.
The second creation story separated man (the true translation of the Hebrew word 'adam') from the other species of animals. The egyptian creation epic had described mankind as having been created along with the other species on the last day of creation, and then 'dumped' onto this planet along with them. This was reinforced at the time of the Hebrews' sojourn in Egypt by the belief held there that only royalty could attain an afterlife, and they could only attain it due to their being direct descendants of the gods.
Moses wrote that man first came into existence as a specie set apart by God. He could converse with God. He has given the authority to name all of the other species of animals, a symbol of authority in that era. He was given a special place (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably. And he was even given a helpmate (Eve) in a special manner. Rather than see himself as just another animal, man was to see himself as in a special relationship with the Creator.
But man also had another ability which no other species have yet today. He could recognize good and evil, and choose which path he would follow. Somewhere in prehistory man had evolved to the point at which this recognition was part of his psyche, and so had lost the innocence which up to that point he had shared with all of the other species.
Moses described that point in time via his using another egyptian legend, namely, the story of the battle between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. At the end of this battle Ra had maimed and bound Sebau so as to force him to crawl on the ground on his belly. It can be found in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, about five paragraphs from the beginning of the book, and in the first paragraph under the heading 'A Hymn to Ra:
www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html
Would the people have known what Moses was doing? Yes, they would have. The egyptian creation epic was taught all over Egypt as fact. Also, Ra was one of the highest ranking of the egyptian gods, so the story of Ra versus Sebau would have been common knowledge. So the people would have been able to receive the message which Moses was sending them without their getting entangled in the arguments which we see today.
I am a firm creationist .... but I do not think creation should be seen (taught) as science. Not at all.aspen said:
Any such discussions (teachings) should be labeled under ... "Theory of origins" .... and so should evolution
That is where all the divisions begin because evolution is often taught as being science.
And it is not , never has been , it is a theory ,
A theory is just a "guess" dressed up in fancy language.....
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Arnie - you are my favorite person here who I do not always agree with - like I have said in the past, I would l love to have coffee with you some time - I love how your mind works. I also believe that God created the world - I am not certain about the mechanics, but I know He did it. I also agree with you that creationism and evolution are separate subjects - creationism is too sacred for the classroom.
Blessings
Blessings
You couldn't be more wrong on that. The theory of gravity, atomic theory of matter, germ theory of disease....all are well-tested, broad explanatory concepts that help to frame a large set of facts. The theory of evolution fits in that category.Arnie Manitoba said:
Not only that, but evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and a fact. That evolution happens is a fact. That gravity happens is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how evolution takes place (what mechanisms and pathways). The theory of gravitation seeks to explain how gravity happens (what causes it).
Similar threads
