Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[Wahooti Fandango]

He's a young bloke who faltered or umm'ed and ah'ed when given some tricky, completely bogus, statements and questions by the stupid old creationist who has more practice at bamboozling an opponent with bullshit.

I am not having a go at him, or questioning his credentials, but he should have done some research on the tactics of creationists before confronting Mckay (who is a complete knob). He could learn a lot from Plimer (although he has much more experience).

 

[trystn]

How is this even a debate anymore in the 21st century

 

[Hollow Knight]

Why is this even a debate.

Science > Superstition

Astronomy > Astrology

Tested medication > homeopathy

Penicillin > blood letting

Evolution > Creation

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Why is this even a debate.

Science > Superstition

Astronomy > Astrology

Tested medication > homeopathy

Penicillin > blood letting

Evolution > Creation

Although I agree, it is never this simple.

 

[JavaBlue]

Although I agree, it is never this simple.

The battleground is creation vs evolution; the war is between the top-down world view (god) and the bottom-up world view (nature).

 

[The rabbi]

The battleground is creation vs evolution; the war is between the top-down world view (god) and the bottom-up world view (nature).

I think that that is too simplistic JB. Many who you would describe as being in the bottom up veiw (nature) and are in dispute with creationists and ID adherents (top-down) are also theists.

The battlelines are drawn on a number of levels. For instance, some of the debates that I have seen are between very astute scientists who have very different world views. They do not disagree on the science but on the metaphysical conclusions. This is what I would suggest is a case of an atheistic world view V a theistic worldview. The science is not in dispute.

Very often the battles are within the faith. Christians who are trying to defend Evolution and a Critical Historical interpretation of the scriptures against Politico-Religious organisations that they percieve are a threat to both Scientific learning and critical theological thinking.

Many Christians are completely clueless on the issues involved but side with creationism because people like Ken Ham have mad a lot of noise that it is a battle between Christ and Creation and all that is good Versus Satan and Evolution and all that is evil. As a believer you need to decide who side you are on.

Many Christian thinkers be they Philosophers, Historians or Scientists decry the anti-intellectualism of the rigid conservative wing of Christianity. See the American Evangelical Historian's book on the subject: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark A.Knoll,( Eerdmans, 1994)

You will find if you read a lot of literature on the disputes, that many of the most critical opponents of ID and Creationism also come from people within the Christian faith. The debate is far more complex than the simplistic polarizations of Science V Religion or Rational Thought V Superstition.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

For anyone who doubts that ID is a post-Aguillard manifestation of creationism.

[YOUTUBE]dqNH-Hnsfgg[/YOUTUBE]

I should have posted this video much earlier, but I forgot about it.

 

[The rabbi]

One of my heroes, kenneth Miller makes much the same comment on this comedy show. The problem is that he has trouble getting his point across with the Colbert's comedy interrupting all the time.
see here .

I dont know how to paste the video into the page. I am a bit of a computer moron.

 

[Chief]

The debate is far more complex than the simplistic polarizations of Science V Religion or Rational Thought V Superstition.

No, I'd say Rational Thought vs Superstition is an accurate generalisation.

 

[The rabbi]

No, I'd say Rational Thought vs Superstition is an accurate generalisation.

If your reading is restricted to the popular stuff the gets the media attention or the internet, then I have no doubt that you would.

 

[Hollow Knight]

If your reading is restricted to the popular stuff the gets the media attention or the internet, then I have no doubt that you would.

Condescension is all well and good, but its no substitution for a real argument.

Got anything better to offer?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

One of my heroes, kenneth Miller makes much the same comment on this comedy show. The problem is that he has trouble getting his point across with the Colbert's comedy interrupting all the time.
see here .

I dont know how to paste the video into the page. I am a bit of a computer moron.

Funny and informative. I liked the line about the bible being "1200 pages of data."

This is one of my favourite creationist videos. This is John Mckay who is the head of Creation Research in Australia (he was also an important member of the now defunct CSF). His understanding of evolution is unbelievable (that is it is unbelievably wrong). The supposed evidence is nothing more than ignorance.

[YOUTUBE]EPg3Ud05cf0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[The rabbi]

Condescension is all well and good, but its no substitution for a real argument.

Got anything better to offer?

I stand corrected on that TBD. I just do not think that theistic scientists such as Miller or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne, Alexander, Sandage et.al are a bunch of superstitious twits. Some of these blokes are leaders in thier fields. Collins directed the Human Genome Project in the USA. Sandage took over Hubbles seat and has won numerous prizes for his contributions to Astronomy and Cosmology. It seems to me that the religious view of origins, be they cosmic or biological are constantly portrayed as the fundamentalist Scientific Creationist view on popular media and boards like this. We cannot pretend that religious people who are professors of Physics, mathematics, Biology & Paleobiology ect at prestigeous Institutions of learning do not exist.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I stand corrected on that TBD. I just do not think that theistic scientists such as Miller or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne, Alexander, Sandage et.al are a bunch of superstitious twits. Some of these blokes are leaders in thier fields. Collins directed the Human Genome Project in the USA. Sandage took over Hubbles seat and has won numerous prizes for his contributions to Astronomy and Cosmology. It seems to me that the religious view of origins, be they cosmic or biological are constantly portrayed as the fundamentalist Scientific Creationist view on popular media and boards like this. We cannot pretend that religious people who are professors of Physics, mathematics, Biology & Paleobiology ect at prestigeous Institutions of learning do not exist.

I suspect those people need to somehow compartmentalise their faith in their psyche in an area where it is not subjected to the scientific method they use in their every day careers. I've heart people refer to this part of the 'brain' as the "god box".

This is why the "Newton was a believer" assertion for me does not stand up as saying that science and faith can complement each other.

"Rationality vs Superstition" sounds somewhat inflammatory I'll agree, but the essence of the comparison is implicitly correct IMO.

 

[The rabbi]

Funny and informative. I liked the line about the bible being "1200 pages of data."

This is one of my favourite creationist videos. This is John Mckay who is the head of Creation Research in Australia (he was also an important member of the now defunct CSF). His understanding of evolution is unbelievable (that is it is unbelievably wrong). The supposed evidence is nothing more than ignorance.

I love his trinket business.
I am suprised that he did not offer to sell some peices of the original cross that Jesus was crucified on, or some replicas of the nails that were driven into the cross.

 

[The rabbi]

I suspect those people need to somehow compartmentalise their faith in their psyche in an area where it is not subjected to the scientific method they use in their every day careers. I've heart people refer to this part of the 'brain' as the "god box".

This is why the "Newton was a believer" assertion for me does not stand up as saying that science and faith can complement each other.

"Rationality vs Superstition" sounds somewhat inflammatory I'll agree, but the essence of the comparison is implicitly correct IMO.

I think that the fact that scientists who have a faith do exist and will not go away is testimony to the fact that science and faith can co-exist. Obviously people will have different views as to how they relate. Some see them conflicting, others as Independant, and others as integrated and I am sure that there are other views.
I tend to see them as dealing with different questions so I don't find the idea of compartmentalising terribly offensive.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I love his trinket business.
I am suprised that he did not offer to sell some peices of the original cross that Jesus was crucified on, or some replicas of the nails that were driven into the cross.

His team of workers around the globe is most intimidating. The Romanian experts are particularly intimidating.

http://www.creationresearch.net/team/worldteam.htm

 

[Hollow Knight]

His team of workers around the globe is most intimidating. The Romanian experts are particularly intimidating.

http://www.creationresearch.net/team/worldteam.htm

Creepy.


"Ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?" - Bill Hicks.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

I stand corrected on that TBD. I just do not think that theistic scientists such as Miller or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne, Alexander, Sandage et.al are a bunch of superstitious twits. Some of these blokes are leaders in thier fields. Collins directed the Human Genome Project in the USA. Sandage took over Hubbles seat and has won numerous prizes for his contributions to Astronomy and Cosmology. It seems to me that the religious view of origins, be they cosmic or biological are constantly portrayed as the fundamentalist Scientific Creationist view on popular media and boards like this. We cannot pretend that religious people who are professors of Physics, mathematics, Biology & Paleobiology ect at prestigeous Institutions of learning do not exist.

One word; Wishful Thinking (okay, two words).

 

[Chief]

I think that the fact that scientists who have a faith do exist and will not go away is testimony to the fact that science and faith can co-exist.

In a limited way inside people's minds. Ask any of these scientists if they'd ever put "God" in a scientific model intended for publication and see what answer you get.

They believe in something as major as a divine story on the origin of the universe without evidence. This makes them flawed as scientists no matter how important-sounding their position in the industry.

 

[DockersMad]

Something that certainly is evolving is the story from the creationists. They've even evolved a new, more marketable, name for their delusion.

It wasn't that long ago that they were denying dinosaurs ever existed and that fossils were just a scientific scam.

 

[FIGJAM]

Something that certainly is evolving is the story from the creationists. They've even evolved a new, more marketable, name for their delusion.

Evolutionary theory definitely evolves! Gradualists have done it relatively recently with the term "punctuated equilibrium" in order to explain clear evidence of stasis in the fossil record, and this is far newer than the term "intelligent design".

A term such as "downward causation" should, and will, be utilised more in the future in this debate, once more is known about it.

 

[DockersMad]

Evolutionary theory definitely evolves! Gradualists have done it relatively recently with the term "punctuated equilibrium" in order to explain clear evidence of stasis in the fossil record, and this is far newer than the term "intelligent design".

A term such as "downward causation" should, and will, be utilised more in the future in this debate, once more is known about it.

Those are not indications of an evolution in the theory, merely expansion of ideas and clarification of basic premises. I can't think of an occasion where evolutionists have backpedalled to the extent creationists have in their beliefs. If you can think of an example, bring it forward.

 

[Richo83]

Evolutionary theory definitely evolves! Gradualists have done it relatively recently with the term "punctuated equilibrium" in order to explain clear evidence of stasis in the fossil record, and this is far newer than the term "intelligent design".

A term such as "downward causation" should, and will, be utilised more in the future in this debate, once more is known about it.

So effectively, you're saying that evolutionary scientists have analyzed their theory to see if it contains any faults, modified their theory to kink out these faults and provided a better model to respond to new understanding of evolutionary theory? Well duh figgy, that's what science is, a constant analysis and changing of ideas to fit facts. What dockermad is touching on is that there isn't such introspection in the ID/theistic creation/design from beyond crowd. Which is true.

 

[FIGJAM]

Those are not indications of an evolution in the theory, merely expansion of ideas and clarification of basic premises. I can't think of an occasion where evolutionists have backpedalled to the extent creationists have in their beliefs.

Some creationists!

There appears to be a tremendous misconception that 'creationists' are all 'Young Earth' creationists.

This is not true for all people who consider that there is a creative force to manifestation.