Forum Naming Suggestion

I find that some of the forum names seem to be very biased against intelligent design and/or creationism. Furthermore, there seems to be a generalization that all ID/creation supporters believe in the bible or "god".For example the subtitle of the Biological evolution forum is "Are today's species the products of descent with modification? Or are they the divine creation of God?" I happen to believe that evidence from observation and experimentation supports a theory where biological life was created. However, I joined the forum to read about and discuss science, not religion, God, or the divinity of creation.To me thats like saying in a debate about the noise in my closet: "Was it all in your head, or was it the boogeyman?" It's a loaded question that tilts the scales in favor of one argument by presenting an absurd alternative. I'm being offered evolution or religion, not evolution or creation.I don't mean to rant, just something for you to consider when naming forums.

Hi Kevin123, welcome to EvC.Sorry to sound like a git, but the site is called Evolution vs Creation. The whole point is that some people believe in a supernatural first cause and some people believe there was no guiding hand.The point of this site is to debate with evidence one of these two positions. There is a hell of a lot of science being discussed and you stand to learn a great deal but you will always have the spectre of rational vs irrational thinking rearing its ugly head.The key phrase on this site is: "what evidence do you have to support your assertion?"

Thats exaclty my point why does creation have to involve the supernatural. I don't think a "guiding hand" as you put it need imply supernatural. Creation is observed every day as a completely normal process. Why would a creation act resulting in the origin of biological life on earth be any different?

If creation doesn't involve the supernatural, what natural force creates?

Here's the thing: creation is an act performed by some agency. If things occur naturally they have not been created. If creation is down to a non supernatural agency (say human or alien designers) you run into the problem of infinite regression. So to think about a non supernatural agency creating is a nonsense.You say that creation is observed every day: just as I write this message an act of creation occurs. However, how is this observation useful?

LArni says:
"You say that creation is observed every day: just as I write this message an act of creation occurs. However, how is this observation useful?"That observation is an example of a complex arrangement of letter into paterns recognized as words, sentences and arguments as a result of intelligence. Based on that observations writting is the result of intelligence. So when we see words and sentences somewhere else our observation leads us to conclude that an intelligent being was behind it.Regarding the question of where did the intelligent agent come from, evolution faces a similar dilemma. Where did energy, matter and the spec of infinite density come from? Ultimately we have to admit we can not completely understand the origin of the universe. That is why we form theories based on what we know and observe. I am not saying that intelligence design is true. I just claim that based on observations of complex systems we need to consider intelligent design as an acceptable theory.

ID is a religious belief, not a theory. It lacks evidence and can't be falsified by the scientific method.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Fine when one comes up with some viable evidence as to such. As of now there is none.

If you saw japanes writing, and you hadn't seen it before in your life, would you recognize it as a sentence? As soon as you bring forth evidence supporting the theory, poke me and I'll see if I'll join your cause.

---

I hunt for the truth

I'm not sure where you are going with this: do you want to talk about potentially biased language used on this site or do you want to provide evidence for ID? Here I'm afraid you make two mistakes:1) You conflate evolution (the change of allele frequency over time) with Abiogenesis (the study of how life emerged). The two are very separate. Think of the study of a growing plant: you are not interested in who planted the seed, are you? Your interest is in it's process of growth. If you spent your time writing up reports on the nature of the seed planter you would not get much done, would you.2) You are moving off topic (Forum Naming Suggestions).

The description for the [forum=-5] forum attempts to very briefly describe the positions of both sides in the debate, which at the time this board started was evolution and traditional creationism. There's a separate forum for [forum=-10].The forum descriptions are intended to provoke interest, so we don't want descriptions that are too clinical, but any serious suggestions for improvements will receive consideration.--Percy