creationism vs evolution vs intelligent design?
here are some facts you have to know before sounding stupid in a debate with a creationist/evolutionist
1. creationism is NOT laid down on naturalistic means. saying it is "scientifically impossible" to prove creationism meaning nothing to a faith based theory.
2. evolution IS laid on a naturalistic plate. meaning no supernatural or magical/religious cause can be a part of it based off of its strict naturalistic foundations.
3. when debating a creationist never tell them "it is stupid to believe in a sky daddy" because according to the creationist "it is stupid to believe you came from a fish"
4. intelligent design does have some god followers... it also has atheist, wiccans and many other people from many other denominations of culture and religion. intelligent design is made to explain the severely complex systems that cannot be explained away by the process of Darwinian evolution. this creator can even be as simple as aliens seeding life on earth.
5. intelligent design deals with the science of complexity and mysterious abnormalities that cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution and is not faith based. and certainly does not disprove the evolutionary theory. and can actually go hand in hand.
6. Darwinian evolution is a theory, not a fact, this does not make it any more or less true or false. it is just a mere fact. evolution, or at least evolution in the distant past, is a theory. evolution seen in today's time is a fact (breeding, speciation, cell adaptation).
what do you think?
- imrodLv 79 years agoBest Answer
I think you are correct to separate ID from religious based creationism. One need not be a member of any religious belief system to believe in ID. I would agree that religious based creationism does use ID arguments. However, ID arguments do not prove that the Christian God is God, only that there was intelligent design.
- 9 years ago
"1. creationism is NOT laid down on naturalistic means."
But God created nature, and can use naturalistic processes for at least some of creation.
"2. evolution IS laid on a naturalistic plate."
Yes - evolution is strictly naturalistic, which is based more on philosophy than science. But creation can be naturalistic and allow for supernatural forces.
"3. when debating a creationist never tell them "it is stupid to believe in a sky daddy" because according to the creationist "it is stupid to believe you came from a fish" "
Both are only assertions and bring nothing substantial to the debate.
"4. intelligent design does have some god followers"
Intelligent Design is a movement that says there is a designer, without specifying who/what that designer is. Many in the ID movement believe in evolution.
"5. intelligent design deals with the science of complexity and mysterious abnormalities that cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution and is not faith based."
Intelligent design deals with systems that are *best* explained as being designed. It does NOT say it must be design because naturalistic processes can't explain it.
"6. Darwinian evolution is a theory, not a fact, this does not make it any more or less true or false. it is just a mere fact. evolution, or at least evolution in the distant past, is a theory. evolution seen in today's time is a fact (breeding, speciation, cell adaptation)."
Micro-evolution is observed and is a fact. Macro-evolution is just an extrapolation of micro-evolution, and is not proven. Many state macro- is just a lot of micro-evolution. It sounds reasonable but overlooks possible limitations, and is completely unproven.
- JenniferLv 44 years ago
Wow, yet another straw man. The Creation Model holds that the universe was created before day one in Genesis, and there was a period of time between that event and the earth being finished which began on the first day. There is a fringe group called "young earth" creationists how talk about 6000 years old but that is not really supported by the actual texts. Each species did not spontaneously appear, but was the product of intelligent design. Part of that design was the genetic code which included extra alleles that would allow creatures to adapt to changes in the environment. But within that code there is also a hard limit to how much a creature can adapt. That limit is after it's own kind. Kind in modern scientific nomenclature would denote genus. You have breeds appearing due to both natural selection and selective breeding, and even occasionally a sub-species will pop up. But so far the formation of a novel phenotype or genus has yet to be observed in nature due to natural selection or produced in the lab. In 1953, Watson and Crick discovered DNA and as result Darwin's theory of evolution, which included the notion of an infinite number of possible adaptations and variation was disproved. The response to this was the formation of Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism recognized that DNA creates a had limit on the possible variation (refuting Darwin) and seeks to find an explanation for how the additional information necessary for the formation of novel phenotypes could come from. As early as 1955 there was a consensus it must have been mutations. So far, the hypothesis remains unproven because to date there has not been a single instance where formation of a novel allele that is both useful and available for selection has been observed in nature, or in the lab. The notion of the accumulation of mutations to form new alleles for selection remains an unproven hypothesis. At this point, the science of genetics affirms the predictions of the creation model. That each creature reproduces after it's own kind and there is a hard limit on the possible variations available for selection. The fossil record consistently shows fully formed kinds with only a few arguable 'transitional forms' that arguably could be mutations and not transitional at all. Intelligent design is an off shoot of creationism in that it argues that things that are the product of design have certain unique characteristics that have only been observed in things that were the product of design, and have never been observed to spontaneously come into existence absent a designer. It further asserts, that these same characteristics have been observed by certain natural processes and systems and that is an indication that they were more likely the product of design than some spontaneous and coincidental convergence of events.
- skepsisLv 79 years ago
1) Nevertheless, it IS scientifically impossible to prove creationism, and the scientific method is the only way we can produce reliable information.
2) Since any supernatural realm is inaccessible to science, people are free to believe (or not) that such imperceptible forces underlay the development of the universe, a demonstration that "God" follows his own natural laws. And many Christians do accept evolution as fact.
3) It is rude to call an opponent "stupid". One should use respectful terms such as "ignorant" or "irrational".
4) Virtually all promoters of ID ARE religious, and virtually NONE of them believe the "Designer" was a space alien.
5) ID borrows the terminology and methodology of scientific evolution, but it differs in that it hollows out parts of the theory that are theologically inconvenient and declares them "unknowably complex". The essential difference between the scientific theory of evolution and "Intelligent Design" is that ID is far more eager to give up and declare its scientific incompetence. You might be able to superimpose ID over evolution, but the only correspondence is due to the evolution showing through the deliberately hacked holes in ID.
6) This is desperate wordplay. Either you use "theory" in its scientific sense or its lay sense, not both. What makes a scientific idea a "theory" is that the supporting evidence has not been refutable by the opposing evidence. There is absolutely no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, no matter how many times a creationi-- excuse me, "intelligent designist" says so. And "mere facts" may be inconvenient for you, but that makes them no less facts. All you are doing is trying to evade the truth while avoiding the appearance of lying. ID is nothing more than science-less creationism dressed up in science clothing.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- john mLv 69 years ago
Everything outside our own experience is theory.If I described to you how a meal tastes unless you go and taste it you'll only have my word to go on.
These questions about who, what, where, why, and how cannot be answered.None of us alive where there.What is the big issue about it all?Can't you look at your experience of reality and see for yourself.
Is it possible that there are mysteries in the universe that will never be answered by humanity.Didn't Charles Darwin regret the problems his theories would create?
You'll find out for yourself one day...WE ALL WILL...on that day or night we will expire and no one can say what will happen to our consciousness.
Anyone who has had an operation and gone under will come back from that experience thinking....I was aware..then I wasn't...so death must be like that.That's a fair assumption..yet it wasn't reality because a drug was introduced.Ok being knocked unconscious..that too can be an answer...here one minute gone the next ..then coming round and remembering nothing.
Actual death is different and like your question is more complex.
The ancients believed that when we are born..our first breath that we inhale after we leave the womb is the point that our soul/spirit enters the form of the baby we are... growing into the person we can be and when we exhale our last breath the soul/spirit returns to the mystery of whence it came.Science can't determine that.It's illogical..it can't be proved or measured or captured.So other explanations ,theories, hypotheses and ideas such as religion are then used to explain the unexplainable.
The answer will come for all of us.
- Anonymous9 years ago
I think you don't know the meaning of the word "fact."
1. who cares?
2. Not strictly correct -- if there were *evidence* of something supernatural, THAT thing could be part of evolutionary theory. It's only because there is no evidence of anything supernatural that supernatural things are excluded.
3. OK. But that's a straw-man.
4. False. First, there are no complex systems that cannot be explained by natural selection. Second, "intelligent design" is nothing but an assumption from ignorance/incredulity, and as such has no merit (not matter who "accepts" it or not). Until there's *evidence* of intelligent design and a designer, claims about intelligent design or a designer are worthless.
5. False. Intelligent design does not deal with the "science" of anything -- that has been demonstrated repeatedly, and proven factual in a court of law. Again, there are no "mysterious abnormalities" that cannot be explained by natural selection. There are things we don't *know* the natural selection explanation for yet, but replacing "we don't know yet" with "it was intelligently designed" is not valid.
6. Evolution (that living organisms change over time) is an observed fact. The theory of natural selection explains how the observed fact works. While theories are never considered "absolute facts," natural selection has so much evidence showing it correct that it is accepted as factual within what we know. I suggest you go learn the meaning of "scientific theory."
- Anonymous9 years ago
"Darwinian evolution is a theory, not a fact.."
You misunderstand what a theory means in science. When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
- 9 years ago
2) Evolution does NOT preclude a creator. Darwin was a Christian, remember.
3) Why tell anyone they are stupid? Let debate be rational
4) An atheist cannot believe in intelligent design, which presupposes a Designer
5) Intelligent design simply means a belief that there is a Mind behind that which exists
But do not let the evidence get in your way
- Shea'GetLv 69 years ago
Oddly enough, most who aren't creationists know that intelligent design / creationism is NOT naturalistic in any way. However, it is the creationists/IDers who are the ones who insist it should be placed alongside evolutionary science in the classroom. They are the ones who dress up creationism as intelligent design in an attempt to pretend it is science.
To your number 4 - find me one atheist who believes in intelligent design. If one doesn't not believe in any god(s), who exactly is doing this intelligent designing? Martians? Vegans? Muppets?
To your number 5 - lololololol
To your number 6 - evolution is fact (there's no today's evolution or yesterday's evolution - evolution has one biological definition - and it is fact). The theory of evolution explains the process.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Is that some kind of 3-way? Evolution is the meat in the sanbitch?
3. So in other words, try not to hurt their feelings? You think it hurts my feelings that they think daddy was a fish? It just makes them look stupid.
4. Name one atheist who follows ID-iotic Hypothesis?
5. How can this 'science' as you describe it, deal with something it knows nothing about? It has no idea what complexity is and no idea what imagination is.
6. ID is not a theory, but a very poor hypothesis, with no evidence and way out in left field induction, which has never been documented. It is an attempt only to reconcile science with religion.
What do you think?
- SteveLv 46 years ago
No change of specie has ever been demonstrated, so there is not any evolution seen in today's time. Cell "adaptation" is another theory claiming, "Maybe this is our holy grail!" The cell adaptation is within the specie in the embryonic stage of life. Breeding can bring variations within a specie, but it will always remain the same specie. There simply is no fact to support evolution at any time nor of any sort.
One might ask, though, if a "scientist" is doing experiments with DNA manipulations, and he thinks he has changed it enough to produce another specie, what part does that scientist play? Isn't he trying to duplicate God's actions?
Intelligent design is simply another way of saying God, because you cannot have intelligence without the existence of a living being.
Aliens seeding the earth merely begs the question, because where did the aliens come from? Did they "evolve" from circumstances impossible on earth, and what would that be? f I say this in spite of the FACT that the Bible says that God came from the heavens and created life on earth. Hmm. Wasn't such an original idea that the aliens did it, huh?
When it comes to calling each other names about "what you believe in," why does everyone miss the FACT that Louise Pasteur disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (of life) a long time ago? The only thing that has been PROVED is that on earth, all life must come from life, and that life is from same life forms breeding (proCREATING) by systems put into order that we are only trying to understand (and of course duplicate, or play God) that we did not do.
I am sorry I don't know what you are talking about when you say "naturalistic means or plate." There is spiritistic, and you can find the word naturalistic in the dictionary, but is this a valid distinction or word to be used? Think about it. Nature is what is, the characteristics of existence.
My Webster's says naturalistic is 1.of natural history or naturalists 2. of or characterized by naturalism in art, literature, philosophy, or religion. Hmm. were getting some problems here already. Why did it have to get in to religion? Is that natural? Hmmmmm... maybe so... !
It says naturalist is one who studies nature, especially by direct observation of animals and plants. Very interesting.
It says supernatural is existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature. (Oh, I see! that means evolution!) 2. attributed to hypothetical forces beyond nature; miraculous; divine. That definition certainly fits evolution to a tee, except where it gets into the miraculous and divine. With all its pomp and ceremony, evolution emphatically denies that God could have anything to do with anything, and I believe, their motives, methods, and goals are shown by that simple thing. They only seek to find support for denying God, and it is VERY important to them to push their speculations on other people, and are very frantic when they deal with someone who believes in God.
Supernatural comes from the combination of super and nature, super means above. You will note that a lot of what we deal with in these definitions is observation. Need I point out that there are some things in nature that cannot be observed? Can you see what I am thinking? Spiritual. Is there something that says that the spirit is not part of nature? And think: the nature of the physical elements is one thing, and the nature of living organisms is another, but does this dichotomy mean or even imply that either one, living or non-living, is not a part of nature? Yet both have invisible characteristics. But when you think about it, our bodies are made of the elements, same as the dirt (dust) but our spirit makes us alive. Therefore, the spirit is supernatural.
That's why you say you can't consider anything supernatural, because you think, or wish to establish that there is no such thing as the supernatural. However, the supernatural is a part of nature, it is merely a part of nature that is above another part of nature. And there is certainly something above our nature, because we can't seem to figure out how we got here when we were told in the beginning!
And, if you really want to think, the laws of nature are supernatural, because they control all natural things.
Thus you may see the folly of the evolutionists and atheists.