|
Author
|
Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 81 of 303 (249008)
10-05-2005 5:22 AM
|
|
|
noob question
Hi guys, I'm kinda new here and this could be a stupid question, but what exactly is the difference between and an IDer and a CREATIONIST (YEC/OEC)? I always thought they were the same thing. I hope this isn't going off topic, if it is then I apologize in advance.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 82 by nwr, posted 10-05-2005 8:07 AM | | flipflop has not replied | | | Message 83 by Parasomnium, posted 10-05-2005 8:15 AM | | flipflop has not replied |
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 87 of 303 (249349)
10-06-2005 2:25 AM
|
|
|
More questions
Thanks for the welcome, and the answers. A few more questions if I may... 1) If ID and evolution aren't necessarily contradicting each other, then why all these debates and conflict about who's right and what should be thaught and what not? 2) As I understand it, ID proponents simply want it to be thaught in school so that students are exposed to a different alternative to evolution, I don't see anything wrong with that. 3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the theory of evolution NOT been proven/tested yet? 4) Regarding ID, who exactly is the creator you are referring to? Is it the christian god? or are you just saying that there is a creator but don't know who it is yet? You guys will have to excuse my lack of knowledge regarding these topics, I don't live in north america and we don't really pay much attention to these things over here, I have only recently started to take interest in the EvC controversy so I hope you guys don't mind me asking all these little questions. Thanks.
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
Re: More questions
Parasomnium writes: ID and evolution are contradicting each other on a number of crucial points, hence the debates etc. What are some of these crucial points?
Parasomnium writes: The problem is that they want it to be taught in science class, where it doesn't belong because it isn't science. If they teach it in religious studies, history of science, world views, etc, that would be no problem. Oh, I see, but I thought ID is science, isn't that why they wanted it to be taught? Even you're own president supports it.
Parasomnium writes: Nothing in science can be proven to be 100% correct, but the theory of evolution has such an enormous amount of evidence in favour of it, from very different fields of science, that to deny that it is most probably true is tantamount to calling water poison. But if there is such overwhelming evidence for it, howcome ID scientists don't support it? They are, still scientists afterall. Also, why the controversy if evolution is, infact, a sound theory?
Parasomnium writes: I'll leave this one to the ID-ers themselves. Ok, I'll wait for them to reply till I comment on ID.
Parasomnium writes: Of course not, asking questions is how science progresses. Where do you live? Thanks, I live in Taiwan
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 91 of 303 (249356)
10-06-2005 4:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
10-06-2005 3:07 AM
|
|
Re: More questions
PaulK writes: 1) Cosmological ID doesn't necessarily contradict evolution. However despite some public backpedalling the mainstream of ID was founded on the notion that we could scientifically prove that God had intervened in the decelopment of life. ID is based on denying evolution and most ID work consists of attacks on evolution. ID is based on denying evolution and most ID work consists of attacks on evolution I could be wrong but this almost sounds like you're implying that ID's goal is simply to discredit evolution.
PaulK writes: 2) Even if ID were a scientiifc alternative to evolution it would not be appropriate to teach it in science classes until it had progressed to the point of being a serious challenger in scientific circles. Since ID proponents are not willing to do the work needed to make that happen ID can't even be considered a fringe scientific view. I agree, but like I said in the above post, I thought ID is science, isn't that why so many people in the US is supporting it, not to mention your president?
PaulK writes: 3) The theory of evoution has been heavily tested. Same question as my above post, if evolution has been tested and accepted in the scientific community, why are there so many people against it?
PaulK writes: 4) Do you mean the public pronouncements of ID or the real beliefs of ID supporters ? In private the majority of the ID leadership appears to consist of Christian Old-Earth creationists. And at least on Christian Young Earth creationist. The affiliation of supporters of ID is harder to work out but it would be surprising if they were not mainly Christians and Creationists - whether Old Earth or Young Earth creationists is harder to tell - ID has certainly tried to recruit YECs but has been denounced by YEC organisations for not taking an explicit YEC line. Hmmm, would it be correct for me to say that YECs and OECs are all IDs, but not all IDs are YECs or OECs?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2005 3:07 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 95 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2005 4:28 AM | | flipflop has replied | | | Message 102 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2005 5:41 AM | | flipflop has not replied |
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 96 of 303 (249363)
10-06-2005 4:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Nuggin
10-06-2005 4:06 AM
|
|
Re: More questions
Ok, I get what you're trying to say... I think What I don't get though, is why there's even a controversy, if ID isn't science, shouldn't people (i.e. US government) be able to easily figure it out via the scientific method and dismiss it just as easily instead of having all these trials and debates etc... ? Unless you're telling me that the government is in on it? In any case, I'll hold judgement until I hear the other side of the story.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2005 4:06 AM | | Nuggin has not replied |
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 303 (249364)
10-06-2005 4:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Nuggin
10-06-2005 4:18 AM
|
|
Re: More questions
Thanks, that definitely clears some stuff for me. But are you saying that there are absolutely no biologist who supports ID? not one?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2005 4:18 AM | | Nuggin has not replied |
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
Re: More questions
Ok, I think I'm getting it now, although I've only been hearing from you guys, who seem to support evolution, I'll have to wait and see what the IDers say about this before I make up my mind.
Parasomnium writes: Most proponents of ID are not scientists at all, but religuous zealotes. So you're saying that since they aren't scientists then they shouldn't have the authority to be dictating what is and what isn't science correct? But if that is so, then why is ID getting so much attention? It seems like (or atleast seems to have been presented) as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. If there is no solid science behind ID, why is the US government supporting it?
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 99 of 303 (249368)
10-06-2005 5:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by Nuggin
10-06-2005 4:28 AM
|
|
Re: More questions
Nuggin writes: YECs believe in the LITERAL creation. That is, everything in the Bible is absolutely word for word correct. There was a great Flood. The world is roughly 6000 years old. All humans alive are descended from Noah 4000 years ago. OECs believe in creation, but they concede that the world is much older than 6000 years. They see the early books of the Bible as metaphorical. A day in Genesis could be a billion years. However, it's still God in charge, he's still selectively creating everyone. IDers claim to take God out of the picture and replace him with an unnamed supernatural being of immense power and the ability to create the world. They suggest that life has happened much as Evolutionists claim, however every mutation which has taken place has been specifically planned and guided by the hands of the Great Designer. So, the one thing they have in common is that they all believe that the "random pointless existance" which is suggested by ToE is no good. Except for the YEC claims, I dont see any reason for these to conflict with evolution, couldn't the "random" element infact be the "hand of god" at work but since we have no means of determining god's existence, we simply attribute it to "randomness"? I could be wrong but couldn't that be a workable concept for both evolution and ID ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2005 4:28 AM | | Nuggin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by Nuggin, posted 10-06-2005 11:13 AM | | flipflop has not replied |
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
Re: More questions
Ok, fair enough. Thanks again for the replies, I suppose this would be the hundredth time you guys have had to answer those exact same questions. lol
|
flipflop
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 112 of 303 (249680)
10-07-2005 12:09 AM
|
|
|
Thanks to all who replied, I think I'll be sticking around for a while.
|
™ Version 4.2