Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[moog]

Evolution is an impressive creation. Too bad you can't appreciate it's glory. Umm....You've got me wrong there and obviously haven't read my other posts. Geezzz.. why are there so many people looking for some kind of argument from me???? I DO appreciate evolution and science as I've said many times here. I regard science as our way of explaining God's processes. Those who like to ridicule science forget that because of it, we have the things that we do.

I think that you made a good point too. There are THOUSANDS of creation theories out there. To present all of them would be "interesting" to say the least. I said earlier, that even in my Sunday school class there were 10 different versions of the creation by 10 different people. Which one should we teach?

Man, I never knew that in trying not to get into arguments that people would want to argue with me so much.

[moog]

I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.

Religious concepts go deep with a lot of people. However, that does not mean that a lot of people have completely rejected science either. I've been able to find a balance as have many others.

[moog]

I hate to inform you like this, but the Easter Bunny is dead. Yes, dead! It was beheaded by a group of Christian Fundamentalists who accused the rabbit as being a form of idolatry and paganism. The video of the tortuous decapitation of the Easter Bunny was shown on the 700 Club.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I can't even imagine what happened to the tooth fairy!!! Maybe he got destroyed in the Dover hurricane.

Nice to see someone else with a sense of humor:O)

[Liberty Wins]

Evolution serves well as a temporary framework to categorize plants and animals in nature. However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion. The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.

[moog]

Ooops, forgot the wordwrap.

[edsheppa]

OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution.

That is wrong in two ways. First, the theory is based on much more than fossil record interpretation. Second, evolutionary does make predictions.

I think it would be fair to say that we do not yet have the means to make detailed predictions in even moderately complex ecologies.

[TAdams8591]

"And in fact,” Meyer said, “it's a science-based argument that may have implications that are favorable to a theistic worldview, but the argument is based on scientific evidence."

Exactly! Both theories are based in science. Students have a right to learn both theories and decide for themselves.

People are overreacting to ID as if it is proposing a return to the belief the world is flat.

[King Prout]

don't mistake me - on grounds other than science I believe that the Universe (multiverse?) has a master and designer.

in terms of the Grand Scheme Of Things I would be considered some form of creationist/IDer.

on the smaller scale, however, the naturalistic mechanisms are undeniable, and introducing mysicism into the natural sciences is folly.

[edsheppa]

...intelligent design is ... only a hypothesis.

I don't think it even rises to the level of a scientific hypothesis. For it to be such, there would need to be a pretty clear path for developing it into a theory. I have yet to hear any such thing from the ID crowd.

[moog]

Evolution serves well as a temporary framework to categorize plants and animals in nature. However, the speculation and guesswork used in figuring out what went on eons ago should not be accepted as final proof, in my opinion. The work of some paleontologists has holes you could drive a truck through.

Would our SUV fit through them? :) I've always maintained that NOBODY knows everything that happened for sure. We can attempt to explain some of it, but we can't say everything. That includes us creationists too. Evolution works well to explain a lot of things--especially from a scientific point of view. Creationism works to explain things from a personal faith-based view.

[moog]

don't mistake me - on grounds other than science I believe that the Universe (multiverse?) has a master and designer. in terms of the Grand Scheme Of Things I would be considered some form of creationist/IDer. on the smaller scale, however, the naturalistic mechanisms are undeniable, and introducing mysicism into the natural sciences is folly.

I think you make some good points. And my flagellate says that too:).

[moog]

For it to be such, there would need to be a pretty clear path for developing it into a theory.

True, because it is faith-based, it is hard to develop it into such a path.

[elbucko]

Nice to see someone else with a sense of humor:O)

Same here..................;^)

[Liberty Wins]

" . . . a lot of people have completely rejected science"

Not wholeheartedly embracing evolutionary theories isn't the same thing as "rejecting science."

Some of us might be lukewarm about a very small part of the scientific community, but we'd be fools to throw out our computers, wouldn't we?.

[moog]

Same here..................;^)

I actually used to go out and see the red airplane lights and think that it was Rudolph. One time I threw a Christmas party into an uproar when I burst inside and screamed that I had seen Rudolph. But I "evolved" later and forgot my "creation.":)

[King Prout]

by the same token, physicists do not yet have the means to make "detailed" predictions concerning so simple a physical event as the detonation of a simple single-stage fission bomb.

just as biologists cannot predict where and when specific genes will change, but can statistically predict quantity of change in a given timeframe under known conditions... so are physicists incapable of predicting which atoms will split into what decay product, in what sequence, which neutrons will be shed, etc - but CAN predict total fissile yield quite accurately.

[Zechariah11]

Video’s are

Say what?

[Ichneumon]

Then what are you going to permit to be taught in biology class, that the stork brings babies?

Ovulation versus cretinism

Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.

In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.

Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:

1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.

2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.

3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.

4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.

5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.

6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.

(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki --- English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)

[moog]

Some of us might be lukewarm about a very small part of the scientific community, but we'd be fools to throw out our computers, wouldn't we?. Yep. Actually, I should modify it a bit. While I don't see some completely rejecting all science much, I do see some rejecting science generally (so to speak) because of issues like ID/evolution. We should be grateful to those dedicated scientists out there who have made it possible for our lives to be easier. We should be thankful for those who have fought/fight for our freedoms too. We should also be thankful for the things that God has given us.

It's my personal belief that God inspires certain scientists in making new discoveries. I'm not going to say which--because that is another thing entirely.

[Liberty Wins]

Behe, Demski, Meyer and others have all stated unequivocably that their work is not faith-based. They have never made claims that God was the "designer."

Please do not represent ID as being "faith-based," and we can all get along in a calmer atmosphere.