The problem I have with most creationism/ID advocates is that they're unwilling to hold themselves to the same standard that they demand the evolutionists adhere to. Or, to put it another way, they refuse to allow evolutionists to say "well, we just have faith that evolution is how it happened." I WISH I had the faith necessary to believe in creation or ID - last weekend I was watching The Ten Commandments and couldn't help but be amazed at a people who still had faith in God after 400 years of bondage. But I don't, so I have to believe in what science shows me is the way things happened.

I don't have a problem with classifying the "missing link" as a primate, because after all both evolutionary branches that descended from it are primates.

I guess I'm perfectly content with believing that everything on this planet, including ourselves, is the cosmological equivalent of Rube Goldberg contraption - one where everything has to happen perfectly and at just the right time.

Vid that does a pretty good job of explaining the scientific use of the word "theory"

Yes. This is the problem with "evolution". The term means too many things to too many people.



Again, yes. The issue many intelligent design people have, and again, I will only speak here for myself, is that there is yet to be submitted an example of higher complexity that has resulted from "evolution" resulting from mutation. There are many excellent examples of variation and even significant change in protein activity, but proving the development of new/unique pathways such as by the ac/ds system in conjunction with mutation within a replicated gene or gene cluster has yet to be done. Or at least I'm not aware of such a report, though I admit I'm not in the right circle of the academic community to see it first. That said, should such evidence be found, it is still not good science to extrapolate in reverse that humans evolved from lesser forms. It makes for a reasonable theory in such a case one could argue, but it stops there, as its not provable. Which is the same position creationists are in: I cannot prove creation happened; I simply look at the evidence and see how it fits with my theory.


just saw your post:


A fair criticism. I try not to do this, but there are certainly members of the ID camp that do this. Goes both ways though.

The term survival of the fittest is not used much anymore. Again not all mutations are beneficial and fittest is too relative. We probably won't change back into bacteria.

Phew!

Though on the other hand, perhaps that's a pity: as bacteria we could:
1: clean up the environment that the evil humans have made a mess of,
2: have sexual and asexual relations with a high degree of regularity,
3: see 2
4: rule the earth. Some bacteria are TOUGH to kill.
5: see 2

lol. Never thought I post this on SimHQ

Is Intelligent Design just a scientific version of Creationism? Not necessarily. An orchestrated or guided evolution does not necessarily entail a single omnipotent or omniscient being nor the belief in one. It could be a "universe within universes" scenario, hierarchical planes of existence. We simply do not know alot about the Universe. To say its just religious dogma is jumping to conclusions. It could just as well be science fiction.

I'm amazed it is still a civilized discussion and am pleased to see it. Best to respect all beliefs in my opinion. Many times have I been told by some little old lady that there was no way that artifact was 12,000 years old cause the earths not that old. You simply smile and move the discussion elsewhere. Tearing down peoples beliefs should not be taken lightly. It is who we are and Culture is as much a part of the evolutionary process as sexual prowess bacteria style if you prefer .

The US court system has ruled as much, and that argument involved various aspects of the scientific community versus the Discovery Institute, which couldn't make the argument for ID.

You might want to read Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Seriously, it doesn't take much discussion of the topic to uncover that 99.8% of the ID advocates, when pressed, believe that the creator was one "God" who created the universe as recounted in a document known as "Genesis" (the other 0.2% are usually some kind of UFO nuts).

That's not true at all. Your "god" is Time. My god is God. I have no problem you saying you have faith in Time. Given enough time, in this case billions and billions of years, your Time will create life from inorganic materials, carbon, oxygen, water, etcc...

My God simply created it. I've never hidden the fact that I believe in a God and intelligent design.

Life as we know it is similar in many respects. Apes are like dogs and dogs are like humans and humans are like snakes, etcc... we all move and breath in similar fashion, we breath oxygen, we need to eat, and we need to poop. This is a design that I believe God created.

I'm not a literal believer however. I don't believe Adam and Eve are representative of two human beings. In fact, if you read Genesis when God sent Cain (Adam and Eve's son) on his way, the Bible says that "Cain knew his wife". What??? Where did his wife come from? It makes no mention of God creating anyone other than Adam and Eve and they having two sons, Cain and Abel.

My belief being that Genesis is God telling us in the simplest way possible for the people of that time period to understand the beginnings of time. I'm not so sure they could comprehend eons and eons of time, so to make it simpler, 7 days.