I don't care whether people believe in evolution, creationism, both, or neither. My only problem with the whole Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate is people trying to present Intelligent Design as a scientific theory equivalent to evolution which it simply isn't.
Yay Platypus! (I'm still waiting for an evolutionary explination for this animal. ^_^ Creationist expliantion: God has a sense of humor. ^_^)
My only problem with the way evolution being taught is the whole "theory" versus "fact" issue. Evolution is a likely explination of what happened, not a known fact. I realize that creationism isn't a known fact either, nor is intellegent design. I just depends on where you go as to which is the preferred answer to the question.
All in all, I think that science is a toybox that God gives to us. The further we dig down, the more interesting the toys get. Of course, we're fighting over some of them, but that's just natural, isn't it? ^_^
Frankly, it has always seemed perfectly logical to me that the Genesis account is a simplification of what actually happened. After all, if it had gone on and on about genetic codes and biochemistry and mitochondria and bilateral symmetry, nobody would have known what they were talking about. So when it is said that Adam was made from "clay", that doesn't necessarily have to imply that he was just some big lump of actual literal clay that God waved a magic wand over.
I wonder sometimes if the way to reconcile the garden of Eden, etc, with evolution is to say that God nudged the evolutionary process along until it had produced man-like creatures, and then God chose two of them, Adam and Eve, in which to implant His divine spark. After all, when the Bible says man is made in God's image, it doesn't mean God is sitting up there in heaven with ten fingers and ten toes. It means that our MINDS and our SOULS are like His, in that we are greater than the sum of our base instincts, and we desire relationships with one another.
That explanation, by the way, also could solve a number of other tricky questions, like, "Where did Mrs. Cain come from?" The answer, Adam and Eve were not the ONLY homo sapiens in existence, just the ones that God had, well, enhanced. *shrug* Just a thought.
People who argue in favor of "Intelligent Design" invariably already believe in some sort of god. So it's really religious people trying to reconcile religion and science. That's fine but it doesn't make intelligent design into valid science. To propose that random mutations are not truly random but a sign of the hand of god is not scientific. It's not a reasonable conlusion based on observation and experimentation. Now it may make a lot of sense if you start from the position that god exists, but again, that's not science. The standard for what is taught in public schools has to be non-religious, which leaves even a mention of intelligent design out of the question. The question of how evolution is actually taught is a different one. But the fact that evolution happens is not under debate, scientifically, only what the precise mechanism is.
To propose that random mutations are not truly random but a sign of the hand of god is not scientific
Exactly. Just because we can't explain something competely, doesn't mean any explanation that is advanced is automatically valid.
Also, I have a big problem with a "science" that proposes that the universe is too complicated to have happened randomly, but sees no problem with a being that is powerful enough to have created that complicated universe apparently happening randomly. So who designed the designer?
That's fine but it doesn't make intelligent design into valid science. To propose that random mutations are not truly random but a sign of the hand of god is not scientific.
You sure didn't hear me claim otherwise. On the contrary, it is the evolutionists (some of them anyway) who are saying that the random mutations disprove God! They are saying that any evidence that supports evolution is simultaneously evidence that God does not exist. That's not scientific either.
Furthermore, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I DO NOT advocate teaching intelligent design in science class. I think I was pretty clear on that. It's not science, and I've never said it was.
Also, I have a big problem with a "science" that proposes that the universe is too complicated to have happened randomly, but sees no problem with a being that is powerful enough to have created that complicated universe apparently happening randomly. So who designed the designer?
Well, clearly, you haven't actually read much of the ID argument. You've only read the rebuttals, which is not very open-minded. To answer your questions, the assertion is not that the "universe" is too complex, it's that "life" is too complicated to have happened randomly "here." It makes no statement as to the identity of the creator, (though I'll admit that's a bit of a wink-wink sort of cover.)
But the "Who created God?" question is hardly a new one. But demanding a scientific answer isn't fair, because nobody is proposing a scientific origin of God. The whole argument is that God created the universe and all its physical laws, and as a result, transcends them. Sure, it's not scientific, but you're the only one insisting that it should be.
Please don't respond by saying that the ID folks are insisting it is scientific, because 1) It's not really what they are saying, and 2) I don't agree that ID is science anyway.
I've read as much of the ID argument as I could stomach. As for making no statement as to the identity of the creator, I agree that's a pretty lame cover. And if it's too complicated to have happened randomly here, where exactly is it supposed to have happened? Are we inventing new universes to explain that?
I don't think the who created God question is a new one, and I don't demand any kind of answer to it, since I don't believe in God, but suggesting a scientific argument with such big holes in it is pretty weak. I'm glad that you don't think that ID is science, since it is pretty clear that it isn't. But from what I can tell, the propontents of it are claiming that it is science, and trying to get it taught in science classes. Maybe we're talking about two different groups of ID people, I guess. But there are definitely those that claim it is real science (although I don't think many of them even believe that) and are trying to get it taught as science.
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
Oops, didn't mean to post that yet. Anyway, most of what I've read about ID is about getting it accepted as valid science. And that's really the only problem that I have with it. If people want to believe it, and not try to force it to be accepted as science, then I don't really mind at all. But I just haven't seen that view anywhere until reading it here.
No, you didn't suggest that ID should be taught in public schools. You said - So I'm not going to insist that creationism or ID be taught alongside evolution in schools, (though I don't see how anybody is hurt by a disclaimer like: "Some people think that life is too complicated to have arisen just through random changes, but we don't have any way to test that.")
I felt like you were leaving the door open a little, and I wanted to state my position that I'm not even comfortable with that. I think the disclaimer you mention addresses more of a sociological issue than a scientific one.
I do agree with you that evolution says nothing one way or the other about the existence of god. How can evolution prove that there's no god? Evolution is concerned with is the development of life on Earth. If evolution disproves anything, I would say it's only literal creationism.
My only problem with the way evolution being taught is the whole "theory" versus "fact" issue. Evolution is a likely explination of what happened, not a known fact. I realize that creationism isn't a known fact either, nor is intellegent design. I just depends on where you go as to which is the preferred answer to the question.
All in all, I think that science is a toybox that God gives to us. The further we dig down, the more interesting the toys get. Of course, we're fighting over some of them, but that's just natural, isn't it? ^_^
(Eventually, I'll get back to posting again - gotta finish a big chapter first...)
I wonder sometimes if the way to reconcile the garden of Eden, etc, with evolution is to say that God nudged the evolutionary process along until it had produced man-like creatures, and then God chose two of them, Adam and Eve, in which to implant His divine spark. After all, when the Bible says man is made in God's image, it doesn't mean God is sitting up there in heaven with ten fingers and ten toes. It means that our MINDS and our SOULS are like His, in that we are greater than the sum of our base instincts, and we desire relationships with one another.
That explanation, by the way, also could solve a number of other tricky questions, like, "Where did Mrs. Cain come from?" The answer, Adam and Eve were not the ONLY homo sapiens in existence, just the ones that God had, well, enhanced. *shrug* Just a thought.
Exactly. Just because we can't explain something competely, doesn't mean any explanation that is advanced is automatically valid.
Also, I have a big problem with a "science" that proposes that the universe is too complicated to have happened randomly, but sees no problem with a being that is powerful enough to have created that complicated universe apparently happening randomly. So who designed the designer?
You sure didn't hear me claim otherwise. On the contrary, it is the evolutionists (some of them anyway) who are saying that the random mutations disprove God! They are saying that any evidence that supports evolution is simultaneously evidence that God does not exist. That's not scientific either.
Furthermore, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I DO NOT advocate teaching intelligent design in science class. I think I was pretty clear on that. It's not science, and I've never said it was.
Also, I have a big problem with a "science" that proposes that the universe is too complicated to have happened randomly, but sees no problem with a being that is powerful enough to have created that complicated universe apparently happening randomly. So who designed the designer?
Well, clearly, you haven't actually read much of the ID argument. You've only read the rebuttals, which is not very open-minded. To answer your questions, the assertion is not that the "universe" is too complex, it's that "life" is too complicated to have happened randomly "here." It makes no statement as to the identity of the creator, (though I'll admit that's a bit of a wink-wink sort of cover.)
But the "Who created God?" question is hardly a new one. But demanding a scientific answer isn't fair, because nobody is proposing a scientific origin of God. The whole argument is that God created the universe and all its physical laws, and as a result, transcends them. Sure, it's not scientific, but you're the only one insisting that it should be.
Please don't respond by saying that the ID folks are insisting it is scientific, because 1) It's not really what they are saying, and 2) I don't agree that ID is science anyway.
I don't think the who created God question is a new one, and I don't demand any kind of answer to it, since I don't believe in God, but suggesting a scientific argument with such big holes in it is pretty weak. I'm glad that you don't think that ID is science, since it is pretty clear that it isn't. But from what I can tell, the propontents of it are claiming that it is science, and trying to get it taught in science classes. Maybe we're talking about two different groups of ID people, I guess. But there are definitely those that claim it is real science (although I don't think many of them even believe that) and are trying to get it taught as science.
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of intelligent design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
I felt like you were leaving the door open a little, and I wanted to state my position that I'm not even comfortable with that. I think the disclaimer you mention addresses more of a sociological issue than a scientific one.
I do agree with you that evolution says nothing one way or the other about the existence of god. How can evolution prove that there's no god? Evolution is concerned with is the development of life on Earth. If evolution disproves anything, I would say it's only literal creationism.