Intelligent Design : Evolution : Creationalism

Here's a nice one for a Friday afternoon :

Which do you subscribe to as an explantion for the development of life on this planet.

Intelligent design contends that life is too complex to have emerged without divine intervention in the form of an "intelligent designer".

Evolutionism contends that Darwins theory of evolution is the only basis to explain how life derived.

Creationalist contends that only God creates life and that evolution and intelligent design are an abomination.

 

hand the man a can of worms and a tin opener...

okay, i am catholic but my brain tell me to believe in creationism.

at school we had religious education that taught us about the book of genesis. while later on that day we had darwins theories in science class...talk about confused?..

erm...

i am a big believer in evolution though.

 

God created life that had the capacity to evolve.

 

Friday afternoon? When my brain is fried and looking forward to the weekend? Not a chance - Tuesday morning at best.

I'm not particularly religious so I'm gonna go with statistics and evolution.

Statistically there are so many stars/planets/solar systems out there that the right conditions for "life" have to exist (inevitable as Agent Smith would have said it!). Evolution then took over and BAM! we have life as we know it.

Disclaimer: BAM! is a relative term and could mean a few millions years....

 

It seems far fetched that the universe sprang up on it's own however natural selection does seem to hold to hard line tangible evidence.
Could it be possible that existance is far too complex for our feeble minds to encompass in either of these theories.
Possibly we do not have the developed syntax to come close to explaining the universe.
We humans need conventional reference in a yet unexplored unconventional universe.
That is my theory as to why we cannot agree, we do not understand.
I don't even understand the opposite sex as yet and you want me to comtemplate existance.
It could be easier at that.

 

For the record, I go for intelligent design.

I don't go with the creationists who suggest that the Bible and Genesis is the literal truth (in that case the world would only be 6,000 years old).

I don't go with the evolutionists because it all seems to be too random.
(the bits I have read about it).

Therefore intelligent design seems to me to be the most likely of the three.
but like JH, no matter how intelligent the design is, women still leave me confused (at times).

 

You used the term "intelligent design" and women in the same sentence.
Interesting?

 

I've got to be charitable, haven't I ?


(crawling away).
yes dear, oh light of my life.....................................

 

Before I met my wife, I had hair on the top of my head. I'm 29.

 

Creating the universe is as simple as flicking a switch when compared to understanding women.....

 

Man: " My wife made me a millionaire"

Other Man: Q. What were you before?

Man: A. A billionaire.

 

in the usa there is a situation right now where states and school districts within states have resorted to, in the course of science classes, directing kids towards studying non pertinent, fictitious, theological books to supposedly offer counterpoint the study of evolution, if not contest it. in some cases, there have been court decisions to remove these non-scientific references.

it is interesting to note, this practice is most prevalent in states with the poorest of acedemic scores.

as for my view, when it comes to schooling, in science class, evolution must be taught, and theological based inferences must be excluded, as they provide no scientific basis of study, and they exclude the beliefs of other than judeo-christian theology and myth, which is discriminatory in regards to those whose faith-based beliefs are excluded, thus not represented in this manner.

now, in a religious history course, study of this nature would be apropos.

i am far from denying spirituality, yet cannot approve of public schools having a curriculum denying seperation of church and state. the lobbying for teaching "intelligent design" is heavily funded and supported by groups with inherently discriminatory and closed minded belief systems in some cases, and this is the trojan horse into the schools.

einstein, in his later years, was known to lie upon his back and contemplate the night sky for hours, during his gravitating from an atheistic belief mode to a sense of wonder beyond his learning.

the bottom line is, each must have his freedom. in my personal belief, there is something beyond our understanding, and to claim otherwise is a state of befuddlement, but this is based on my personal intuition and experiences, and does not mean to infer i "know jack s#it" in defining the grand scheme of things.

 

Lyotard, I agree with your view - I do believe that there is "something" beyond our understanding in all of this.
My limited reading of what creationists thesis is that literally life and the earth etc commenced 6,000 years ago.
That has been proven to be incorrect.

On the other hand we have the evolutionists who claim that life on this planet started from a cell that came from the sea.
I find this theory too random.

So I go for something between these two reference points - which I assumed to be intelligent design.
Although if this term invokes certain connotations harking by to the literal creationist interpretation, then I need to find another definition.

 

Evolution. If a higher power did have a hand, you'd think he/she/it would have done a better job with us humans!

 

Looks like I am in line with Don Shipp.
I think Darwin was correct, but I think that God allows evolution to happen and continue.
As for him doing a better job with us humans, I totally agree. But I do feel that everything that happens, happens for a reason and there is always something positive to come out of it. Just that we are not intelligent enough to always see the positive side or only look at things from a very narrow perspective.

 

Unless this is the experiment before the final 'creation' to come.

 

What version of the Matrix are we living in now?

 

All I know is that I hate this place, . . this . . zoo, this prison. This . . reality, whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. . . . . . .It's the smell! . . . .If there IS such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste everyone's stink and everytime I do I fear I've been somehow infected by it!

 

Ok Cypher.

 

first, my shift key isn't working. so, this post won't have any capital letters or correct punctuation, or smiley faces. sorry.


i'm a research scientist, so guess what my answer's going to be--smiley. but, some info is needed.



first, evolution doesn't postulate how life started. evolution says 'life started somehow--then it evolved.' evolution explains how that happened, not how life started. there are scientists who are working on the origin-of-life question, and they 'use' evolutionary theory, but evolution itself doesn't say anything about how life got started.


life could have been delivered by a comet, by aliens, been created by god, have sprung up by itself, anything. evolution is consistent with all those theories of origins.


so, believe whatever you want to about the origin of life. you can still believe in evolution if you go for the outer-space-delivery theory, the intelligent design theory, the sprung-up-randomly theory, or the god-created-it theory.


as long as you don't postulate that god 'started' creation with the full-blown humans/animals/plants that we see around us today, you can believe in evolution. the only theory of origins that is ruled by belief in evolution is the genesis story of creation.





ok, now, the really important point is, that what you believe is the best 'scientific explanation' for the origin or the development of life, doesn't have to coincide 'at all' with what you believe is the 'true' explanation.

many people don't undertand this, but science is a 'deliberately limited' form of knowledge. it's like you're playing charades--you must communicate, but you artificially and deliberately limit yourself to non-vocal signals.



so here are the rules of the science game--

1.we will study 'the material world only'. nothing else. we won't say or even try to learn a single thing about anything spiritual or supernatural.


2. we will use 'material explanations only' for everything. no spiritual or supernatural explanations, not even a single 'mention' of the spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal realms. no spiritual or supernatural explanantions 'even if they are true.'



that's the important part. even if you think that spiritual/supernatural explanations are true, if you use them to explain the material world, that is not science, it is not 'scientific truth'. like in charades. if you talk, you may be communicating the truth, but you're not playing charades.


so, we in science deliberately limit what we can study and how we can explain it. for a purpose, of course, i could discuss the purpose later. but the right 'scientific explanation' cannot claim to be the whole entire truth unless you happen to believe that the material world is the whole, entire world.


that's because science only tells us about the material world, it's not allowed to study anything else. and, it's not allowed to consider supernatural causes, only material ones. so, all science is ever going to tell you is the material ways of how the material world works. that's it, that's all you can learn from science.




if the material world is all that exists, then scientific truth is the whole and complete truth. but, the majority of scientists--not to mention the majority of everyone else--believe that there are spiritual, supernatural, and/or paranormal realms in the universe. so, they don't believe that 'scientific truth' is always identical to the 'complete, entire truth'.

like, if you catch a cold, and ask why, the real truth, if you're religious, is 'god caused or allowed it to happen.' but the scientific truth is that you picked up a thing called a virus, it's replicating inside your body, etc....



so, believe whatever you wish is the real truth about the universe. but, if you have 'any' religious or spiritual or supernatural beliefs, 'do not call them science.' you're not playing by the rules of the game if you do.

your beliefs may, in fact, be the 'actual truth'. but, they are not science, by definition.



so, pay no attention if the scientific explanation for something contradicts your spiritual beliefs. the scientific explanation is just the one that is the best explanation when we limit ourselves to material explanations only. when we expand our horizons and allow ourselves to consider the spiritual and supernatural realms of existence, we may come to a more true explanation. but it won't be the scientific one.



anyway, that's why scientists are quite justly disapproving of calling intelligent design a scientific theory. it postulates that there is something other to and greater than the material world, aka something supernatural. it doesn't matter if that entity is god or what, it's supernatural and therefore it isn't science. finis.



so, yes, i believe that evolution is by far the best, in fact the only, 'scientific explanation' of life as we see it around us today. the 'true' explanation, the one that uses knowledge drawn from 'all' the realms of existence---the material, spiritual and supernatural---well, i haven't made up my mind yet.


the true explanation could be creation, intelliigent design, alien interference, karma, or a lot of stuff---as i say, i haven't made up my mind. or, maybe there are no realms other than the material one, and so evolution is not only the best scientific explanation, but is also the true one. haven't made up my mind about that, either.


if you want to believe in creationism or intelligent design, go right ahead. i sure won't call you wrong or disrespect your beliefs.

but, if you want to call those beliefs science---no. you want to be called science, you've got to play by the rules. and, those are the rules.