I've heard several people say that ID and/or creationism is a 'known lie' or a 'proven lie'.I've yet to see anyone prove it's a lie.They also say that evolution and/or 'accidental existence' is a proven fact.I have yet to see anyone prove that either.

JEsus Christ, didn't I JUST finish doing this?
Copy/Paste from earlier post:
Post #129

1. Creationism, Intelligent Design and Young Earth Hypothesis are not inexorably linked. They are three separate ideas.

1. Creationism, Intelligent Design and Young Earth Hypothesis are not inexorably linked. They are three separate ideas.
2. Evolution and Creationism are not equal. Maybe if we had the backing of the scientific community as evolution does we would have some well-developed theories as well. Point to the flaws....have you ever read any of my threads? How about this one - complex systems!
3. Your question is loaded, biased, and rhetorical. Do you really expect an answer? You are the scientific evidence of creationism. Go to the mirror and look at your eye!

Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternative theory as to the creation of human life because hundreds of millions of people, many of them intelligent; like myself - believe in it and can offer some good arguments in favor of it.

"How about this one - complex systems!"
How about this one - debunked!

Offer one, just one good (i.e. one that hasn't already been soundly trashed) argument. On another thread.

1. Creationism, Intelligent Design and Young Earth Hypothesis are not inexorably linked. They are three separate ideas.

2. Evolution and Creationism are not equal. Maybe if we had the backing of the scientific community as evolution does we would have some well-developed theories as well. Point to the flaws....have you ever read any of my threads? How about this one - complex systems!

3. Your question is loaded, biased, and rhetorical. Do you really expect an answer? You are the scientific evidence of creationism. Go to the mirror and look at your eye!

Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternative theory as to the creation of human life because hundreds of millions of people, many of them intelligent; like myself - believe in it and can offer some good arguments in favor of it.

Parts of what you said I agree with and parts I don't. I'm getting tired of arguing the point - it never gets anywhere. You would have to qualify almost all of your statements and say..

some creationits believe in the young earth hypothesis - I'm not one so it doesn't include all

no - intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing. They're close. Creationists firmly believe that God made all things and they're not afraid to say it.

ID argues that life as we see it (and therefore can apply the scientific method to our observations and hypothesis) is too complex to have arisen by chance or unknown forces and implies the existence of a supreme designer. The last part of it is left open to interpretation. It's all about interpretation of data.

Lastly, for some people on this board - for people who believe you are open systems you sure demonstrate some closed minded opinions.

I'm out on this regards.

Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as an alternative theory as to the creation of human life because hundreds of millions of people, many of them intelligent; like myself - believe in it and can offer some good arguments in favor of it.

Ohh I am with you LOL but I thought it was fair to let the kids deside..even if the kids got to vote..after all its THEIR education...their rights

LOL argueing in here over this makes me feel all creationy lol I need a shower

no - intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing. They're close. Creationists firmly believe that God made all things and they're not afraid to say it.

ID argues that life as we see it (and therefore can apply the scientific method to our observations and hypothesis) is too complex to have arisen by chance or unknown forces and implies the existence of a supreme designer.

The last part of it is left open to interpretation. It's all about interpretation of data.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Carl Woese proposed a radical rearrangement of the evolutionary tree of life, splitting bacteria into two groups and dividing life into three “domains,” rather than the traditional five kingdoms. As he produced new evidence for this approach, his colleagues began to apply his ideas in their own papers. When it became accepted within the scientific community, textbook authors rewrote the chapters on the classification of life, and college professors and high school teachers were glad to modify their lesson plans.

You are the scientific evidence of creationism. Go to the mirror and look at your eye!

Parts of what you said I agree with and parts I don't. I'm getting tired of arguing the point - it never gets anywhere. You would have to qualify almost all of your statements and say..

some creationits believe in the young earth hypothesis - I'm not one so it doesn't include all

no - intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing. They're close. Creationists firmly believe that God made all things and they're not afraid to say it.

ID argues that life as we see it (and therefore can apply the scientific method to our observations and hypothesis) is too complex to have arisen by chance or unknown forces and implies the existence of a supreme designer. The last part of it is left open to interpretation. It's all about interpretation of data.

Lastly, for some people on this board - for people who believe you are open systems you sure demonstrate some closed minded opinions.

I'm out on this regards.

ID argues that life as we see it (and therefore can apply the scientific method to our observations and hypothesis) is too complex to have arisen by chance or unknown forces and implies the existence of a supreme designer.

think that all proponents of ID also support the wedge strategy or believe in a young earth when that is not the case at all.

Wise move since some simply cannot differentiate between concepts and only want to paint with a broad brush what they think ID is. That is what happens when a rabid bunch opposes something (the original debaters of this issue on both sides of the aisle can be considered the rabid bunch I refer too). In this case they think that all proponents of ID also support the wedge strategy or believe in a young earth when that is not the case at all. Fortunately progress will continue to move at its own pace in this regard regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. They nylon bacteria question was interesting when first introduced but seemingly it was dismissed without receiving the proper examination and research it could have been afforded. Most people who engage this debate on a political level can only repeat what others already have originally stated until they resemble classic chess openings but without the actual logic, beauty, or enjoyment that a chess game offers at least for me.

Surely the kids can decide after being taught one in religion and/or philosophy class while the other has been taught to them in science class. There is no need to teach them simultaneously. The very concept is mind boggling.

(referring to my post about evolution having no proof)
I never said that Creationism had proof.I never said that.At all.And I never have or ever will claim that it does(unless of course i find some proof ).What i said is that evolutionists constantly try to disprove ID and/or creationsim by saying that evolution has proof,when infact it doesn't.There is evidence,but not proof.I never said the evolution wasn't scientific,or smart,or un-educated,i simply said it cannot be proven.I read what you guys posted,the papers and stuff you wrote,and though they were interesting they failed to provide proof.That was the point of my argument,that evolution isn't 'a proven fact'.

Wise move since some simply cannot differentiate between concepts and only want to paint with a broad brush what they think ID is. That is what happens when a rabid bunch opposes something (the original debaters of this issue on both sides of the aisle can be considered the rabid bunch I refer too). In this case they think that all proponents of ID also support the wedge strategy or believe in a young earth when that is not the case at all. Fortunately progress will continue to move at its own pace in this regard regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. They nylon bacteria question was interesting when first introduced but seemingly it was dismissed without receiving the proper examination and research it could have been afforded. Most people who engage this debate on a political level can only repeat what others already have originally stated until they resemble classic chess openings but without the actual logic, beauty, or enjoyment that a chess game offers at least for me.

I'll repeat this, one more time. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design. Nada. Zip. Nil. Zilch. An integer between -1 and 1. Absolutely zero.

There is evidence,but not proof. That was the point of my argument,that evolution isn't 'a proven fact'.

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. Living creatures must come from other living creatures.

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have.

Expelled contends that these (mostly atheist) scientists are muzzling freedom of inquiry much as Nazis burned books.

"We think the discussion around the origin and development of life needs a lot fuller play than being locked down into a Darwinian orthodoxy," says Mr. Craft, who formerly hosted a regional New Mexico TV program called Church & State With Logan Craft.

But, Mr. Craft says, he's not a disciple of ID.

"You can't look at the three producers of this film and say, 'They're advocates of intelligent design.' We're advocates for freedom of inquiry. I want to know more about ID."

The following article also has some of the initial polling stats regarding the movie as far as how it was graded by those who saw it and what regions of the nation bought the most tickets.



Dallas News

Bringing up the imagery of Chess suggests that ID has an equal chance of being scientifically correct. If this is a game of chess - ID has no pieces and no place at the chess board.

We're advocates for freedom of inquiry. I want to know more about ID."

Dallas News

It's rather difficult to do that when you have no opening position.

When one wishes to dominate a debate, that is simply close their ears and not truly discuss, one of the first things they will do is attempt to define the terms of debate. It is funny when the people who most oppose ID are the ones telling everyone else even those who support ID what ID actually is. This is like Hitler defining socialism even though many socialist would have disagreed with that definition.

Discovery Institute maybe defines ID in a certain manner but they do not represent every proponent of ID. Consider Cicero (from the 1st century BCE) used the watchmaker analogy long before the Discovery Institute even came onto the scene.

Clovis... did you read, at all, what I wrote about the Wedge Strategy? Do you realize that the people pushing ID into our schools admitted that ID was just a cover for Creationism? Go back and read my post and check my link. I know what the difference between creationism and ID is, but the ID that is being proposed by some "scientists" is a lot different from the philosophical concept I've heard of. ID is a direct affront to Occam's Razor. It makes things too complicated. We do not need an ID, evolution shows us that. That conjecture aside, please read my post concerning the Wedge Strategy.

When one wishes to dominate a debate, that is simply close their ears and not truly discuss, one of the first things they will do is attempt to define the terms of debate. It is funny when the people who most oppose ID are the ones telling everyone else even those who support ID what ID actually is. This is like Hitler defining socialism even though many socialist would have disagreed with that definition.

Discovery Institute maybe defines ID in a certain manner but they do not represent every proponent of ID. Consider Cicero (from the 1st century BCE) used the watchmaker analogy long before the Discovery Institute even came onto the scene.

. Creation Science would not be an oxymoron if more resources were devoted to it's study.

It is not a debate, ID offers nothing. What part of that do you not get?????

Wedge strategy smedge strategy. One person's opinion or comments do not automatically make an entire conspiracy. And so what? Secular humanists, atheists, and other people with labels have completely distorted both the intended meaning and application of Thomas Jefferson's quote on separation of church and state. Even the very compulsory nature of education is contrary to federal and state constitutions. This world is getting whack! What the heck is wrong with giving people the choice. You believe that the theory of evolution is fairly complete and you're willing to base a significant portion of your personal life on that opinion. I disagree with that opinion completely. Creation Science would not be an oxymoron if more resources were devoted to it's study. There is such bias from the scientific community and people like yourselves that it's not even funny.

No self-respecting scientist who's a closet Christian would dare touch that subject with a ten foot pole and you know it. Just like sasquatch research, they would be laughed out of their profession. And even if it were true (which I think it is not since you dismiss every piece of evidence or opinion that we develop) that there is no physical evidence of Creationism, it can still be taught as a developing theory and alternative life view.

You evolutionists think you can label or describe a thing and then it's a slam dunk like you own the topic. Well guess what, you don't own. There is no way in h-e-double that the eye diagram provided on this thread proves that the evolution of the human eye and it's interworking optical nerve system occurred, could occur, or ever will occur. You reach, stretch and attempt to explain all the while hiding behind your ivory tower of "scientific method."

Have you ever stopped to consider that you've been indoctrinated? Just like the religious people whom you so non-chalantly mock about raising their children in religious belief systems, you've been indoctrinated by the theory of evolution since childhood while simultaneously been removed from the concept of the Supreme Designer. Your biased to your core and you don't even know it. At this point science could tell you that you are an advanced walking arthropod with massively developed frontal lobes and you'd swallow it whole! Oh wait, that already happend!

When one has lost a debate, the first thing one does is to pretend that the debate is unfair.

We are talking about the publically agreed version of the definition of Intelligent Design, as espoused by the movie Expelled. The clue is in the title of the thread.

Evolutionary theory—that acts of random mutation and natural selection over millions of years gave rise to us humans and all other life—is the best answer scientists can give to the question of life's origins. But the answer is hardly satisfying to many Americans. A recent CBS News poll found that 55 percent of respondents did not believe in the theory of evolution at all—and even most scientists agree that the theory leaves some questions about biological origins unanswered.

Most career evolutionary biologists delight in the unexplained (for one thing, it means they'll have jobs for at least a while longer as they search for answers). More and more people, though, are gravitating towards an alternative explanation: intelligent design.

Intelligent-design theory states that certain features of the natural world are of such complexity that the most plausible explanation is that they are products of an intelligent cause rather than random mutation and natural selection. Supporters of the theory say the nature of the intelligent cause is outside the scope of the theory.

Look it is very simple.
ID is conjecture, there is no supporting evidence so it has no place.
Evolution is scientific, follows scientific methods and is based upon proven facts and an overwhelming heap of evidence.

I never claimed the debate was unfair even if one side is attempting to stack the deck. The debate will continue and is far from over. It is obvious though that the defintion some are giving it here is not the 'publically agreed version'. If anyone wants to inform themselves on a more accurate definition of ID read the final paragraph in the quoted text below.

In the end some might forecast that it will ultimately fall on the indivdual school boards and states to decide what is taught to their own children. That might very well vary from region to region.




Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?

I never claimed the debate was unfair even if one side is attempting to stack the deck. The debate will continue and is far from over. It is obvious though that the defintion some are giving it here is not the 'publically agreed version'. If anyone wants to inform themselves on a more accurate definition of ID read the final paragraph in the quoted text below.

In the end some might forecast that it will ultimately fall on the indivdual school boards and states to decide what is taught to their own children. That might very well vary from region to region.




Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?

I never claimed the debate was unfair even if one side is attempting to stack the deck. The debate will continue and is far from over. It is obvious though that the defintion some are giving it here is not the 'publically agreed version'. If anyone wants to inform themselves on a more accurate definition of ID read the final paragraph in the quoted text below.

In the end some might forecast that it will ultimately fall on the indivdual school boards and states to decide what is taught to their own children. That might very well vary from region to region.

Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?

Most people who support ID as far as I know have no qualms against evolution. They simply believe a designer has a part to play in it. In some people's mind the question might be 'ID versus science' but in many others the question is 'what will science in the future have to say about ID?'. Of course many will say science will have nothing to say but to them I say let us just wait and see...

ID is non-scientific and the proponents of it are attacking evolution and using a pseudo-scientific idea to cloak themselves.

The debate is non-scientific and the participants of it (not the ones on this forum) will eventually decide what is socially (not scientific) acceptable and from there further decide what is exactly taught to our children. It is a socio-political issue in this sense.

I never claimed the debate was unfair even if one side is attempting to stack the deck. The debate will continue and is far from over. It is obvious though that the defintion some are giving it here is not the 'publically agreed version'. If anyone wants to inform themselves on a more accurate definition of ID read the final paragraph in the quoted text below.

In the end some might forecast that it will ultimately fall on the indivdual school boards and states to decide what is taught to their own children. That might very well vary from region to region.

I'm not trying to hide, cloak, conceal anything.... Truth is truth and it should be able to stand on it's own. You want to say Creationism is not science, fine. I happen to think it does alot better job of explaining our existence than science does. There are hundreds of millions or even billions of people who agree with this. What's wrong with introducing it to people? Call it Creation Science or PseudoScience if you must.....and sit in your little white coats and laugh at us if you want, but give people the choice to hear both viewpoints.

If you go to one million people around the world randomly on the street and asked them where we came from, how many would say "we evolved from apes or soup" and how many would say "I think God or some Supreme Being made us." Why not devote some of your tremendous scientific resources to that topic. You might be surprised to find out how many more modern humans believe in God as oppossed to your soup theory.

How about all Churches have an Evolutionary Biologist give the second half of the Sunday Sermon? That, too, would give people the choice to hear both viewpoints.

Forget the world. Let's talk about the United States - a so called educated country where only 79% of it's population believes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The lack of education in basic Science, worldwide, is truely stunning.

People go to church because they want to. They pick which church they wish to attend. Public education is compulsory and people don't get to "choose." There's a difference. As far as people being uneducated - word! Maybe that should tell us that compulsory education is not so hot after all.