The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

One answer that springs to mind is a chemical method of heredity that is unique amongst living creatures. What is actually the case, however, is a chemical method of heredity unique (as far we currently know) to planet Earth: DNA.

 

Then I guess I disagree with the conclusions in regards to human evolution.

Yes, I know it goes both ways. I openly admit that mine requires faith. Some continue to tout their science, which requires faith in certain conclusions...

Where it pertains to this topic, this is one chapter in the book of Genesis. I don't remember the total number of chapters in the Bible, but I believe the number to be over 1000, likely more than that (now that I think about it, 6609 rings a bell for some reason). The arguements about Human evolution versus Man created in God's own image apply to one chapter. If it was simplified, it is done so that we have that question answered and can get on to more important things, like how to live...

I never once claimed to be perfect. It must be nice to have nothing more pressing to do than to pick other people apart with personal potshots...

That is the biggest sticking point, and why I've asked people to consider Biblical Creation to be a start point, where God specifically made humans in his own image, and evolution to be what has occured since then...

That is the deception that I was so worried about. It's a theory, not hard cold fact. Like I always thought that Gravity was a cold hard fact until Aldeth explained the difference. Mind you I am not in any hurry to try to disprove it.

But classification is one thing, to say that a primitive homonid gave birth to a human (as we know them) is a stretch that I'm not prepared to make. This was a creature like a human, but was not a human, and no longer exists, but it was not human. How do we know it wasn't another variety of primate that did not adapt to changes in the environment. If I remember correctly, Darwin himself said that it wasn't the fittest, but the most adaptive to change that survives. If humans, made in the image of a perfect being, then it is logical that humans would adapt best to change?

I doubt that these questions will be answered in our life time...

That's part of what I'm asking.

It's when bringing humans into this where some of us are having problems accepting the theory as a whole.

Wouldn't ID claim that the Intelligent designer was still directing Evolution? It is that intelligence that increases the rates of survival and adaptation of species in regards to their new environments...

 

Gnarff - I said it was just an observation. You seem so devout in every other area of mormonism, it seems strange to me that you would cast aside the most basic one. There were a lot of pot shots I could have taken based on some of the (imo downright wacky) claims you've made since you've been here, but restrained myself. Believe me, you ain't seen nothin' from me if you think THAT was a pot shot.

I'd be happy to, as long as some evidence is presented that isn't derived from biblical sources. Up to now it's been "mountains of evolutinary evidence" vs. "the bible and my pastor said so."

As for the "deception" of teaching kids how humans came about: I learned about Adam & Eve LONG before the theory of evolution was ever presented to me. What's more - I believed it. But later, when I grew older and became more curious about the world, I changed my tune about human origin. Evolution simply made the better case. Bottom line: kids believe what they're taught by adults. Either evolution or creation can be considered deception depending on your point of view, though I don't consider either to be. They are both a means to explain to children where we came from. One just happens to make sense to more adults than the other, because free-thinking adults tend to rely much more heavily on evidence than they do faith (whereas children are usually the opposite).

[ December 15, 2005, 09:55: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I can't think of anythinig. But you're asking me to prove a negative, which is very difficult to do. The only way that science would change to say we didn't evolve from hominid A is if we found evidence that supported our descent from hominid B. That kind of thing happened with the neanderthal example I gave earlier. However, how do you prove something didn't happen?

Let's use an example. There are many things living at the bottom of our world's oceans that we know nothing about. Nearly every time we use a submersable and take a deep sea dive, we find a new species that has never been seen before. Suppose I postulate that there is a new species of bird, called Moby Duck, that lives at the bottom of the ocean. It weighs 50 tons, is yellow, it quacks, and looks like a duck in every other way. Prove to me that Moby Duck does not exist.

See what I mean? How does one prove a negative?

Well, if you really want to get technical, of course the egg came first. Things like fish, reptiles, and amphibians all laid eggs, and they have been around a lot longer than birds.

I'm glad you brought this point up, because it is another fallacy of evolution. An individual in a population does not adapt or evolve. Only populations evolve. Evolution only works if you get more of your genes into subsequent generations than other individuals within your population. If, through mutation, an individual acquires a new characteristic, the only way that the species evolves is if that charactistic is spread throughout the population at a faster rate than the other charactertistics. If, for whatever reason, the individual does not reproduce (either it got eaten by something else, could not find a mate, whatever) its genes do not get spread and the population does not evolve.

To put it another way, you or I can't evolve. Our DNA is fixed. Yes, transcription errors can occur, but there's no way we can inherit, after we're born, a "new" characteristic. My brown eyes won't be blue when I wake up tomorrow, I won't grow a third arm, etc.

The problem with taking that as a starting point is it doesn't work. We've tried that. Throughout the history of mankind, up until about 160 years ago, we did take that approach, and the evidence collected in the field does not bear that approach out. So scientists looked for alternative explanations for what they observed and came up with evolution. While I cannot completely rule out the remote possibility that evolution will one day be viewed as complete bupkis, the approach ID is taking has already been proved false.

The problem with ID is not so much that it is isn't a scientific theory, but rather that it is the exact antithesis of what science is. It's extremely ego-centric, and basically takes the view that if there is some phenomenon out there that we can't explain with our current knowledge, then it must be divinely inspired. If we can't figure it out, it must be because it was inspired by an all-powerful being. No futher questions need to be asked, no further investigations need to be carried out. If that isn't an ego-centric, human-centered view that doesn't look for other possibilities, I don't know what is. That's why I wish IDist would spare us from the "take the premise that humans were created as they now exist by God" statement. Been there, done that, doesn't work.

 

Hallelujah. Neither 'theory' is perfect, but DR has neatly summarised what I believe to be the main difference between the two.

 

I don't know if anyone has made this point, but one of the things I always disliked about creationism was the concept of God creating man and placing him at the top of the food chain, giving him dominion over all the other created things - animal, plant, whatever. This has often been used in a Judeo-Christian society to excuse any abuse of the natural world. "God said we could!"
Intelligent design furthers this idea, and in fact frees humans from any responsibility to care for their environment; whatever happens must be the plan of an intelligent designer, who will no doubt pull new species out of somewhere to replace the ones we've knocked off.

 

That's an excellent point, lasgalen, and one that I whole-heartedly agree with but have neglected to bring up thus far. Thank you.

 

As a philosophy, ID is not something to be completely debarred just because the majority of its proponents place it, as a cause, much too far down a line of effects. Actually (myself included), most people believe in ID; they just place the phenomenon much further back in time, like for example, at the moment of the universe's inception.

 

In response to lasgalen's point...

My understanding of the meaning of "man being given dominion over all the lesser creatures" by God is no way meant as mastery or ownership. It should never be used as an excuse to disregard or destroy something that God has made.

The best translations of that Genesis scripture seem to indicate man having a role of "steward"...a very transitive and temporary dominion with a definite degree of accountability to a higher power. All one has to do is look at the parable of the unworthy stewards in the New Testament to see what abuse or neglect can bring.

You also need to understand that according to the Genesis creation story...there may not have even been a "food chain" in the Garden of Eden. It wasn't until Adam and Eve were driven out that they had to "toil" for food. Some theologians have surmised that the fall was actually the begining of death, decay, disease and...the need to have a food chain.

I'm probably drifting off topic...

 

Aye, there's the rub. It all boils down to faith. Those that require proof will side with science on that, but I really don't think that Religion and faith ought be cast aside. For most of us, can't we just accept that God greated Adam and Eve and then get on with our lives?

But I was asking about them as a population, not as individuals. If that population doesn't see their offspring getting the traits to make things better able to survive the rigors of their new environment, then they will massively die out.

Hacken Slash was right. It's not the right to abuse and destroy nature, but an accountability before God for what we do with nature. We ought to seek some form of harmony, not to consume it up and destroy it for our own selfish purposes, but that is way off topic.

Actually, Hacken Slash put it better than I did...

 

So in your own words, all you have is faith. Then ID too is faith based? And since it has no basis in proof it is not a science. Then ID should not be tought as Science shouldn't it?
As long as ID is tought as being faith based, no one here has any problem with it being tought. Actually most here would welcome that. It is only the idea of Intelligent Design being tought as science that we think is wrong.

If you believe that God created Adam & Eve and the entire human race then followed and you preach that as your faith there is no problem. And if you maintain that your faith is true, that too is not a problem.
Just don't tell us that your faith should be my science.

 

Shrikant,

I agree with all of your points, but I would also like to add one more of my own:

If you do believe in ID, do not try to prevent evolution from being taught in schools, in its proper forum, i.e., science class. Discussing evolution in a theology class, religious studies class or Sunday school is just as out of place as discussing ID in science class.

While scientists can accept the fact that evolution runs counter to some people's faith, IDist cannot argue that the teaching of evolution in science class is in some way improper. It is, after all, part of biology, which certainly qualifies it as a science, and thus proper instruction in that class.

If your Christian faith is so frail that taking a high school science course that will cover evolution for maybe two weeks tops during the school year will shake your beliefs to their very core, then I question how devoted you were in the first place.

 

What I'm trying to do is reconcile science with faith. It is obvious that there has to be something to the theory of evolution, but the fact that Christianity is not dying out leads me to believe that there has to be something real there too. Honestly, I doubt that all hte answers will be known until after Christ returns, and we are all ressurected. Then all the Scientists of al the ages can get together to work on these problems with a few hints given (more details of Creation from someone who was there and remembers what took place and how it was done). Naturally those who reject Christianity will not buy into this idea that I have put forth here.

 

This appears to settle the Pennsylvania case.

 

...with even more detail here

 

In the other (now closed) thread, Rally brings up a good point that since the original defendants were the members of the School Board, and those members have been voted out of office except the one that wasn't up for re-election, there likely won't be an appeal to the case. The School Board in its present constitution consists of people against the teaching of ID.

The interesting point here is that, as one would expect, the jurisdictional authority of this ruling extends only to the state of Pennsylvania. So then comes the point that it is possible to see other states form similar or dis-similar rulings on this issue. There is still a potential for a Supreme Court review of this issue, but it won't stem directly from this case.

 

Pure crazy talk.

 

pssssst...just for the record...Judge John Jones is a Bush appointee .

I think this statement is probably true...

 

Ok, sorry Beren, I thought that too, but I thought that I would be out of topic.
So, 'Intelligent design' backers lose in Pennsylvania. Here's the news.
I was wondering if this kind of debate only happens in USA, because in Argentina and in Spain, we don't have this conflict. In schools we learn science, and we grow up with the 'Darwin' thing; if we wanted to learn the religious way, we go to catechism in a church.
The latest debate in Spain is that the Church wants that the educational system add Religion as a 'countable' subject (meaning you have to study or you'll fail the subject thus counting as another 'normal' subject), but nothing about ID or Darwin.