Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Evolution vs Intelligent Design

  1. Mar 7, 2004 #1
    [SOLVED] Evolution vs Intelligent Design

    Something to consider:

    Can Darwin's evolutionary concepts of small changes be consistent with an intelligent design that uses adaptic changes within a species but not the random chance of life from inanimate matter to create all life forms and specie change from primitive cells to humanity as we know it?

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 7, 2004 #2
    *yawn*

    You might want to watch the copyright violation there.

    Signs that someone is lying or misinformed about evolution and/or creationism:

    #1: Someone who claims that "Darwinism" is in trouble.


    First off, "Darwinism", when describing modern evolution, is a term used mostly by people who are uninformed, because the science has moved far beyond Darwin. Secondly, evolution is a vibrant and healthy part of modern biology, and AFAIK, is in no danger of being supplanted anytime soon.

    Mohler, in fact, has no idea about science in general, or evolution specifically. He claims that evolutionary theory has changed with "shifts in the scientific worldview". In reality(a place ID proponents seem to avoid), the theory adapts as new evidence is discovered, a sure sign of healthy science at work. He also seems to believe that conflicting views by scientists is a weakness of evolution, once again showing his lack of understanding of the principles of science. First off, no credible biologist doubts that evolution takes place, and furthermore, the lack of agreement about specifics is a wonderful thing, because it means multiple avenues of study are taking place.

    Of course, evolution is being threatened , by a PR effort by ID proponents, because they are willing to lie to misrepresent themselves and evolution to convince laypeople. As a scientific theory, however, evolution is stronger than ever.
     
  4. Mar 7, 2004 #3
    Originally posted by Zero

    *yawn* *squat*

    You might want to watch the copyright violation there.


    You'll note that my post was properly quoted and credited as required. I did not use someone elses work as my own.

    Your obvious lack of knowledge from the now closed site basically because of your use of religion when the post had nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

    All the argument I made was that Dr. Behe said that the macro world does evolve in each specie from time to time but that on the micro level, there was never any evolution as documented in the fossil record and now with scientific experimentation.

    Forget about the intellengent direction of organisms on earth having anything to do with a diety.
     
  5. Mar 7, 2004 #4
    Do you have permission to post the entire article? If not, even if you give credit, it is copyright violation. If you have permission, you are fine.


    Signs that someone is lying or misinformed about evolution and/or creationism:

    #2: They pretend their view isn't based on specific religious views, but if you dig deeper, you invariably find out that they believe their personal holy book is infalible. What they are really talking about is political, religious, and social, not scientific.


    Here's a few short quotes from the article:
    No link to religion? The facts speak for themselves.
     
  6. Mar 7, 2004 #5
    Originally posted by Zero

    Do you have permission to post the entire article? If not, even if you give credit, it is copyright violation. If you have permission, you are fine.

    You apparently do not understand the rules dealing with intellectual property or the concept of plagiarizm.

    [/b]Signs that someone is lying or misinformed about evolution and/or creationism:[/b]

    Forget about religious aspects of intellectual design. As I orignally posted that there might be other reasons than a diety who is responsible for intelligent design (panspermia).

    #2: They pretend their view isn't (AREN'T) based on specific religious views, but if you dig deeper, you invariably find out that they believe their personal holy book is infalible. What they are really talking about is political, religious, and social, not scientific.


    Is that your very own opinion created in your own brain?

    Here's a few short quotes from the article: No link to religion? The facts speak for themselves.

    What are you trying to say?
     
  7. Mar 7, 2004 #6
    Your "correction" of #2 is grammatically incorrect. Do you have anything of substance to post in your own thread?

    BTW, I am accusing Albert Mohler of either lying or being misinformed, not you, in case there was some confusion. However, I do find it interesting that you claim that ID has nothing to do with "God", but the article you pasted disagrees with you.
    Anyways, on with some on-topic posting:

    Signs that someone is lying or misinformed about evolution and/or creationism:

    #3: They make claims to popular opinion as though science is something that can be voted on.


     
  8. Mar 8, 2004 #7
    Originally posted by Zero

    I must appologize for I am between patients and have little time to reply today.

    You state that ID can only have to do with a God but I have stated that there are alternatives which eliminates evolution as a possibility.

    As I stated in my earlier post on the now closed thread, the 'unseen hand' you find so offensive could be that (1) all earth species were planted here from elsewhere in the universe. This would account for the sudden appearance of life on earth (after water appeared 3.5 billion years ago) and as seen in the fossil records that are now documented in museums and research institutions around the world.

    I will hopefully be able to post more information refuting evolution as an impossiblity not based on faith in a diety.
     
  9. Mar 8, 2004 #8
    Check you PMs. Then edit your first post., please.
     
  10. Mar 8, 2004 #9
    If that is your position, then can you explain why you (illegally, it seems)pasted an essay that specifically references a deity and political and social issues, and presents no evidence of intelligent design? There was a bunch of whining about how no one takes them seriously, but there was also no reason given as to WHY anyone should take ID seriously.

    I'm patient...
     
  11. Mar 8, 2004 #10
    On further reflection, we can see that evolution and some sort of "planting" of life on earth are not mutually exclusive at all, since evolution is not a theory of the origin of life.
     
  12. Mar 8, 2004 #11
    HAHAHAHA!!!!


    Well, I know who Albert Mohler is now. Is he a scientist, maybe a biologist or geneticist? No. Is he a doctor of some sort? No. Is he even a high school biology teacher? Of course not. This brilliant man, whose word we should take on matters of science, is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

    So, let me ask again: is there, or is there not, a religious component to ID?
     
  13. Mar 8, 2004 #12

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    provide a link of proof of this zero, and further action may be taken...the last thing i need here is a theory fueled by "religious science"...

    and zero, after all these months, what is your avatar suppossed to be? it looks like a man battered all bloody...
     
  14. Mar 8, 2004 #13
    The original article is posted here

    And here is the Albert Mohler website , with a link to the first website, just in case someone wanted to claim that they were two different people.
     
  15. Mar 8, 2004 #14
    Oh, and that guy in my avatar is Ash, from The Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn, and Army of Darkness...played by Bruce Campbell, who was also on Brisco County Jr., Hercules, and Zena.[​IMG]

    Hail to the king, baby!
     
  16. Mar 8, 2004 #15

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  17. Mar 8, 2004 #16
    You're a little slow on the draw, but you are catching on...with some training, someday you might be almost as good as I am...almost.
     
  18. Mar 8, 2004 #17

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hey, I only found the thread a few minutes after Kerrie's post; by the time I finished reading it, and was ready to write a reply, you'd already written two!

    This certainly isn't the first time I've taken the time to write a reply, only to find that the thread has moved on while I was reading and writing.

    Ah well, c'est la vie (at least you should be pleased that you aren't the only person - other than onycho and Kerrie - who's been reading the thread!)
     
  19. Mar 8, 2004 #18
    I have to agree with Zero here. That article is laughable on credibility. Unfortunately, it's people like this who try to disguise there political and creationists ideas behind a term like "ID" that make it hard for any one else to be taken seriously when they honestly want to consider other alternatives.

    I'm not talking about alternatives to evolution. That is obviously true. I'm referring more to abiogensis. Which is where the debate really is anyway. I can't figure out why the word "evolution" continues to be used. Do people actually doubt that natural selection works? As opposed to what? Creating it all in 7 days? I can't honestly take this story seriously even though I'm the first person to pause when asked if I think the universe is an accidental box full of rocks.

    I'm not sure the science in this area is taught as it should be either but I don't believe the reason is a political and moral conspiracy. That's insane. True progress will never happen as long as we have uneducated people involved.
     
  20. Mar 8, 2004 #19
    i]Originally posted by Zero [/i]

    If that is your position, then can you explain why you (illegally, it seems)pasted an essay that specifically references a deity and political and social issues, and presents no evidence of intelligent design? There was a bunch of whining about how no one takes them seriously, but there was also no reason given as to WHY anyone should take ID seriously. I'm patient...

    Since you have accused me of illegally posting a public internet site with both the name of the author being posted and his post placed within quotes, I have chosen to contact the people at Crosswalk.com about your allegations.

    I have given them your post threads concerning your vitriol in respect to Dr. Mohler and my thread using the legally quoted and referenced article taken from their site. I have asked them to review this post in light of their policy.

    As far as I am concerned, any further discourse with you is futile and will serve no useful purpose. Once I receive any reply from the staff of Crosswalk.com I will post their reply on this site.

    It is apparent that you have no understanding of reliable scientific discourse about this subject. I have no further interest in feeding your ego as you apparently have little respect for yourself or others. Your retorts are simply your opinion or opinions of others who have no credibility.

    I am placing your posts on my ignore list. If there are others who really want to discuss the issue of intelligent design vs. random chance within the context of civil discourse, I will be more than happy to spend time in discussion or posting observable reliable source evidence.

    Zero you may post on this thread, but expect no response from me as my time is much too valuable to indulge your feeling of impotence.
     
  21. Mar 8, 2004 #20

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    onycho,

    Based on my own disagreements with Zero, it seems he will readily accept good data and consistent logic which contradicts his own assertions, and graciously admit his case is either weak or flawed.

    If you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded (and she or he doesn't keep repeating things no longer in contention), it behoves you to respond - with well reasoned arguments or good data of your own - to his or her criticisms. Indeed, we should all welcome such critics, they can only make our own proposals better.

    Nereid
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Evolution vs Intelligent Design
  1. Intelligent Design! (Replies: 28)

  2. Intelligent Design (Replies: 1)

  3. Intelligent Design (Replies: 1)

Loading...