Intelligent Design Grounded in Science

CBN ^ | November 2005 | By Gailon Totheroh

[King Prout]

unless there is a competitive SCIENTIFIC theory out there, such a "single sentence" would be a lie.

ID is neither competitive nor scientific.

[King Prout]

there is nothing "new" about ID: it is a recapitulation of the old watchmaker argument - at least 200 years old, and STILL lacking any positive evidence, definition of mechanism, predictive value, or falsification criteria after all that time.

[moog]

I am an IDer too, but I have liked seeing your comments and appreciate them. Thank you. Though I am an IDer, I really don't like one of the guys promoting it in my state. He literally puts his foot in his mouth every time he speaks (e.g.--with a dog and a cat....there's no such thing as a dat....). He's using the issue to get his name in the papers and to push his personal political agendas (something he does every year--just a different thing each year). He denounces all oppose him and promises to "deal with them." Not to mention that this is just part of his attacks against education.

[moog]

The hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin was replaced by lamarckism, which was replaced by Darwinism, which was replaced by neo-darwinism, which undoubtedly will be replaced by something else, and maybe not in our lifetime. I am not emotionally involved in the outcome because it doesn't affect my Christian faith. However, I think that resorting to censorship to control the advent of new ideas is a little extreme.

Careful on the big words...they hurt my eyes:). I'm not affected at all because like you, it doesn't affect my Christian faith. You're right, something will come along again to replace other things. The things about dinosaurs that I learned as a kid have completely changed, that's for sure.

[King Prout]

you call yourself an IDer.
very well.
what brand of IDer are you? and do you consider your brand of ID to be science?

[moog]

"at least 200 years old, and STILL lacking any positive evidence" Hey don't insult watchmakers.:) To me there is plenty of evidence, but most of that can't be "proven" in a scientific sense or in a way that would be received by the scientific community.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution too. It's why I believe that at least some of it applies in formulating my beliefs about the creation.

[VadeRetro]

Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.

Fine, get back to us when he has more than "hints".

What Prigogine really did was demolish creationist "Second Law of Thermodynamics" arguments. I'm always stunned to see someone from the creation/ID side trying to spin him as good news for them.

[narby]

I have no problems with briefly mentioning that some people believe in ID. However, I don't think it should be more than briefly. I don't think there should be a whole class built around it.

Then I'm sure you won't mind more than just Christian "ID/creationism". Maybe Coyteman's got some more creation myths for us today that should also receive honorable mention in science class. To be fair, once we open up science class to what anyone might believe, then we'll be awfully busy just mentioning all those ideas. It might be pretty hard to get real science presented.

Even though I'm strongly in the creationist camp, I can respect and learn from the opinions of evolutionists.

The real failure of some Christian denominations here is they've convinced themselves that it must be either ID/creationism or evolution, but not both. Many Christians believe that evolution was one of Gods most elegant creations.

Just think of it. Evolution operates a system that is self-correcting, self-improving even. It acquires it's own energy for operation from its surroundings. And it's operated non-stop for 3 billion years or so, with the potential to operate for eternity (provided someone can carry life out of the solar system before the sun explodes).

Evolution is an impressive creation. Too bad you can't appreciate it's glory.

[edsheppa]

The only thing that "Darwinism" tells us is that the frequency with which genetic traits are expressed is constantly in flux.

Actually it says quite a bit more, common descent and natural selection for example.

[King Prout]

what POSITIVE evidence can you cite?

[js1138]

Not quite the "theory in crisis"

The author of the "theory in crisis" book, Michael Denton, now says that abiogenesis and evolution are inevitable.

[PatrickHenry]

Updated:

Announcing The All-New, Improved Evolution Troll's Kit! Are you inadequate online? Are you feeling inferior because you have no education? Are you so stupid that no one will respond to you? When they do respond, is it only point out your errors in grammar and logic? Would you like to become the life of the thread? Then be a troll! Yes, now, you too can be a real internet troll!

Trolls always have a good time, and their posts always get responses. Other trolls will praise your posts. As a troll, you can ruin any thread just by showing up and trolling. Oh, the fun!

Trolling is easy. It's simple. You don't have to know anything! Here's a complete catalog of an evolution troll's intellectual inventory. Just print out this toolkit, and use one or two items at random every time you post. They'll go crazy! Guaranteed!

Evolution Troll's Toolkit

	A	B	C	D
1	no evidence	Stalin	materialist	I never said that!
2	Hillary	homosexual	Piltdown Man	you're no Christian!
3	liberal	God-hater	government grants	what are you afraid of?
4	Hitler	no proof	communist	2nd Law of Thermodynamics
5	atheist	nazi	Pol Pot	gaps in fossil record
6	origin of life	Christian-bashing	Darwin worship	I'm not [.....], you are!
7	arrogant jerk	take your meds	[any scripture passage]	you're foaming at the mouth
8	only a theory!	were you there?	Noah's Ark	macro-evolution is impossible

[moog]

what brand of IDer are you? and do you consider your brand of ID to be science? what brand--um... Haines. Actually, while I am a pretty strict IDer, I'm one of those (stating this for the 5th time or so on this thread) who has NO PROBLEM with evolution which is scientifically based. I went to a private religious college--but guess what they taught--evolution, not ID. And there was no problem with that either.

ID canNOT be said to be strict science since it is faith-based and relies on something that can't be scientifically proven--that being the existence of God.

While it may be "science" so to speak to me, I can't go out thee and "prove" it nor do I insist that I know everything. I DON'T. I have no problem learning from the ideas and thoughts of others like yourself. I actually respect posters like Incheumon immensely because he does make many good arguments.

I guess you could say that I'm an ID'er who loves and appreciates science. I don't reject all of it just because I may not agree completely with things in evolution. That's dumb, to put it in a little kid sense. As a kid, I loved dinosaurs and fossils as did my mom before that and my Grandpa before that. We had no problem with their existence nor did it conflict with our Christian beliefs.

[narby]

The author of the "theory in crisis" book, Michael Denton, now says that abiogenesis and evolution are inevitable.

Behe is also now accepting common descent. I read somewhere that a couple of scientists accepted money from a creationist source in the 50's to try and prove a young earth. They failed, and eventually accepted and old earth and pressed on with their careers.

So how many scientists have briefly been in the limelight selling religious creationism, only to eventually accept that they were wrong? There might be quite a few. It might make a good list somewhere.

[narby]

Well, laptop battery is 15% and dropping fast. I'm outa here.

[js1138]

"impossible" is a term I do not like to see used inadvisably, but I'll concede that that is a tenable position.

The problem with evolution critics is that they don't understand what they are rejecting. The actual population of biologists is full of infighting, full of self-criticism. This is different from rejecting evolution from a position of ignorance.

[moog]

what POSITIVE evidence can you cite? Please don't try to draw me into some big argument. Remember that I have agreed with you on several things. To me the evidence is actually found in looking at evolution such as some flowers that have evolved to imitate the female of certain species of certain bugs that pollinate it in order that the male will attempt to "mate" with it.

But I'm not here to get into some big scientific debate or argument. I'm not a scientist and won't claim to be as such. I'm here to learn and do respect the beliefs and points that others make.

[elbucko]

Wait until I tell the Easter Bunny about this.

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.

[Liberty Wins]

A 2001 Gallup Poll showed that 82% of the public believed that life developed from God-directed causes.

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

[edsheppa]

I am pretty sure that Kurt Godel proved that any self-referencing logical system (including scientific theories about the universe) is either incomplete or inaccurate.

Strictly speaking, he showed incompleteness or inconsistency for any theory that includes arithmetic and that only when you are limited to certain methods of proof. IIRC arithmetic was later proven correct using transfinite induction.