Intelligent Design and evolution by definition CANNOT coexist.
Design implies that things were created in a/to be in a specific state, therefore cannot have evolved. Design implies the absence of a natural process.
God, I can't keep up with this thread, especially when both sides are spreading disinformation at 2 pages every 12 hours.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You appear to have ignored the watch analogy, first law of thermodynamics, etc.High level order and high level information content and design are two totally different things relative to the snowflake.
Blah Blah Blah. You can do the research on the watch analogy. Its been disproved hundreds of times. Likewise the man who created the watch did not sit down and create it. It was perfected through a process of trial and error with hundreds of continuing permutations and variations. There is no "perfect" watch today and the one I'm wearing is just as valid as yours, though assuredly very different.
As to thermodynamics, the 1st law can be violated on certain timescales. Energy is conserved OVER TIME. Humans exist just as stable intermediates in a chemical reaction.
AS to the last comment, please be more specific.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Genesis is obviously symbolic...
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Actually it is very literal.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
And how is one supposed to know, I've seen it being used to be literal and symbolic as to the argument of creation and if you two can agree I'm pretty sure it will not be solved. Just my thought. I've seen the argument that since the Bible says that God didn't say "dry" land that it came out of the sea, so if you take it literal that God didn't say that Adam wasn't 5' 10" he must have been a midget. 😉
The holy ghost is supposed to guide you. That means it is up to each person, but not you. You have to be a Christian. Do you see how that works? They get to have their cake and eat it too. It is what ever they want it to be, and outsiders are not listened to.
Originally posted by Ordo
Intelligent Design and evolution by definition CANNOT coexist.Design implies that things were created in a/to be in a specific state, therefore cannot have evolved. Design implies the absence of a natural process.
God, I can't keep up with this thread, especially when both sides are spreading disinformation at 2 pages every 12 hours.
You are incorrect. Intelligent Design just implies that there is someone that created the universe, he might very well have used Evolution to do what he wanted. Evolution in turn does not state anything about a creator or lack thereof. So they are compatible. The Intelligent Design parts are not proven or observed though.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
My beliefs? From what I have posted it would appear I fall more on the side of evolution than intelligent design...I think the most revealing thing I said about my beliefs concerning the origins of man was that I didn't know enough about evolution to fall onside with it as anything but a matter of faith. I do believe in an intelligent designer though yes...not quite in the way Behe uses that term perhaps, again I am unsure.
I think you believe that God created the universe in the way he desired, do you not?
Originally posted by Ordo
Intelligent Design and evolution by definition CANNOT coexist.Design implies that things were created in a/to be in a specific state, therefore cannot have evolved. Design implies the absence of a natural process.
God, I can't keep up with this thread, especially when both sides are spreading disinformation at 2 pages every 12 hours.
No, go look up Deism.
At it's heart ID just posits that everything is part of a creator's plan. Evolution could certainly fall within that plan. I know a number of well educated Christians who view evolution that way.
Bah. No, both Bardock and Symmetric are wrong. Go look up what Intelligent Design is instead of blathering the term around. You are missing a very large part of what Intelligent Design is and hence misusing the term.
Intelligent design is Creationism. It is a relatively defined collection of ideas and constructs. You cannot make up your own definitions and then claim compatibility with scientific theories. What both of you are talking about you have mislabeled.
It is correct to say that evolution does not deny the existence of a creator. It does deny the existence of a Creator, the kind that intelligent design demands. Design (just think of the word) implies active intervention in physical processes. This is scientifically unacceptable.
The reason being, any sort of intervention would go against biological principles, weather you subscribe to the "the world was designed as is" principles or the "guiding hand." Both conflict with evolution because supernatural selection occurs against natural pressures.
May I also point out Symmetric, that 17th century Deism also subscribes to many supernatural occurrences, right down to Newton thinking that gravity proved God's existence because there was a continuous supply of energy. Such a view is also false.
Scientifically, creation only seems possible at the point of conception. Any interaction thereafter is both unscientific and against the Theory of Natural Selection. Intelligent Design is yet the next in a long line of whackjob creationist theories and is in no way compatible with evolution. If you wish to imply arguments as I implied above, you should use these terms properly to avoid giving credence to a dogma that has none.
I am afraid I feel Ordo is right and you are very wrong, Bardock and SC.
Evolution as the way we use the term is fundamentally entwined with the concept of natural selection. Intelligent Design at its core rejects natural selection.
Therefore the two are mutually exclusive- they are entirely alternative explanations for a phenomenon (for which, of course, only evolution has any evidence behind).
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am afraid I feel Ordo is right and you are very wrong, Bardock and SC.Evolution as the way we use the term is fundamentally entwined with the concept of natural selection. Intelligent Design at its core rejects natural selection.
Therefore the two are mutually exclusive- they are entirely alternative explanations for a phenomenon (for which, of course, only evolution has any evidence behind).
I think that is not actually how the term is used though. Intelligent Design proponents don't necessarily reject natural selection, many believe it to be an integral or possibly even the only part in the development of species. Intelligent Design being such a broad term there are also those included that, like you state, do reject natural selection, the term itself is not exclusive though. Also, Intelligent Design is a term incorporating many, many theories (not scientific theories obviously), while Evolution is only one theory.
It is VERY much exclusive. Intelligent Design unquestionably rejects natural selection as I described above.
Any sort of intervention would go against biological principles, weather you subscribe to the "the world was designed as is" principles or the "guiding hand." Both conflict with evolution because supernatural selection occurs against natural pressures.
Intelligent Design is much more than believe in a creator. It is believing in a Creator that directly contradictions physical and biological pressures, rendering Natural Selection moot.
Believing in some sort of devine start is unscientific, but valid. It is not however, accurately termed Intelligent Design.
Again, that is just incorrect. People that describe themselves as proponents of Intelligent Design do not necessarily deny evolution at all. Many believe in it fully, others believe that it is the underlying concept that some all-mighty creator type messes with at certain points. Neither, of course, has evidence for that. But it is what the term means.
I have to disagree with yuor eidts as well barrock- ID is not really an umbrella term like you make out.
Indeed, the idea that God used evolution (i.e. natural selection) as a means of development... is not Intelligent Design at all. The important point being that the idea that God started evolution is entirely supposition, opinion, cannot be substantiated etc. and hence is not very consequential.
Whereas ID specifically implies the existence of God, which is exactly why it is around.
Saying 'God uses evolution as a tool' is a system where intelligence is not being shown in the design system at all- and hence is not intelligent design.
Sorry, I do feel you are on entirely the wrong grounds oin this one.
Originally posted by UshgarakI agree, that many of the major organisations reject it. That is because they use the term as a banner to disguise their creationist believes. But they don't define the term, they are one of the organisations collected under "Intelligent Design".
If you want to name a random 'ID' proponent in the street that does not think that then fine- but I am afraid you will find that the major organisations that promote and were responsble for ID actually specify their opposition to natural selection.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree, that many of the major organisations reject it. That is because they use the term as a banner to disguise their creationist believes. But they don't define the term, they are one of the organisations collected under "Intelligent Design".
Sorry- first of all, Intelligent Design as appears in the media, as is trying to get into classrooms, and is generally referred to by all people... is of the sort I mention.
Secondly, and as I explain above, I feel you are just out and out wrong to say it can be otherwise, for to be otherwise is not actually intelligent design, which would render the whole thing rather pointlss.
Intelligent Design is NOT the idea that God used evolution as a tool. It simply is not, and if you think it is or can be used that way you are very much mistaken.
Well, I don't really want to argue with you guys, you seem to take it differently, I am not sure what definition you use, but I use the one by Merriam Webster, which seems to agree with my experience of the term in my off- and online life
Main Entry:
intelligent design
Function:
noun
Date:
1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
Maybe you use it differently, but that's what I meant when I said that the term ID is not exclusive with Evolution, as it is not in this definition. While the idea of creationism is more specific, and very much contrary to what Evolution states.
Many people that do use ID to descibe themselves are against Evolution though, no doubt.
That IS incompatible with evolution actually, Bardock. Evolution specifically rejects a discernable designing intelligence.
Intelligent Design is an area that, fairly much, has set beliefs, a recent construction that has come together over the last 20 years, and part of that construction has always directly specified that it contradicts natural selection.
If you are trying to use a different definition... then you arenot talking about intelligent design, but something else entirely.