Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.
Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?
If there is any ID at all, it came when God said, "Let there be light" and created the physical universe and its laws. Everything thereafter has been the evolution of the universe, utilizing the rules in place.
No, it is evolutionists that are arguing that ID cannot be observed yet not one bit of their theory can be observed.
The argument from evolution is that a supernatural force can not be observed, tested, or reproduced.
Evolution is readily observable in the lab and in the fossil record. You can reject that if you want, the field of biological sciences could care less about your opinion on the matter.
If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.
Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?
If there is any ID at all, it came when God said, "Let there be light" and created the physical universe and its laws. Everything thereafter has been the evolution of the universe, utilizing the rules in place.
Sorry buddy, can't take one verse in the Bible and then edit out the rest with evolution. Well, I suppose you can for your purposes, however, the truth that "God created" has not and will not change. Further, Everything that has been created is created by God. (John 1)
ID, evolution? Just take the Bible up and read it with the Creator in mind, and it can create wonderful change in your life.
No.. micro or intraspecies evolution has been deduced and partially observed... evolution of life from nothing or interspecies evolution has not been observed.. it is just as much a leap of faith as belief in a higher power
As opposed to Big Bang + Miracle + unobserved evolutionism + adaptation evolution.
Can we observe things changing and adapting? Yes. Simple as that.
Great! And I could point out a bunch of problems with an automobile. Therefore, it wasn't designed.
They are entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
If there is any ID at all, it came when God said, "Let there be light" and created the physical universe and its laws. Everything thereafter has been the evolution of the universe, utilizing the rules in place.
Sorry buddy, can't take one verse in the Bible and then edit out the rest with evolution. Well, I suppose you can for your purposes, however, the truth that "God created" has not and will not change. Further, Everything that has been created is created by God. (John 1)
ID, evolution? Just take the Bible up and read it with the Creator in mind, and it can create wonderful change in your life.
I'll take the observable and provable, thank you. To do otherwise would be to say that God lies to us. If evolution didn't occur, what of all the fossils that show changes over time? Who put them there? Why are trilobite and dolphin fossils not found in the same strata. To say evolution hasn't happened is to deny reality, IMO, and that God plays games with us.
I feel God gave us rules to follow, but does not directly influence events. That's what "free will" is all about. I cringe when I here "everything happens for a reason" and "God has a plan for my life". That sounds very paganish to me, as if God were one of the Olympians manipulating the mortals!!! For all the bad press the RCC has gotten lately, at least they don't screw up people's minds with that kind of false doctrine. Things OFTEN happen for no reason and I'M the one responsible for the plan of my life. To say otherwise is to deny free will and makes life nothing more than a rigged game, IMO.
As opposed to Big Bang + Miracle + unobserved evolutionism + adaptation evolution.
Quit co-mingling different theories with evolution. Again, I am left to wonder if you really know what evolution says and what it doesn't say.
You are still not grasping the ID uses the same mechanism of speciation as evolution. The "how" and "what" is entirely the same. It's the "why" that is different.
It was designed by men who are flawed. It was not designed by an all powerful/intelligent creator.
Well, tell the schools to quit co-mingling the different theories then.
No, the "how" is different and so is the "what." The how and what are observable in ID but only partially in evolutionism. The "why" in both ID and evolutionism is left to speculations and distant observations.
As Ernst Mayr stated:
...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
-Darwins Influence on Modern Thought, p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American)
They aren't. You appear to be the only person who is confused on the difference between abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
You are completely obvious of what ID is. Once again, ID uses the exact same mechanisms of evolution to describe speciation. The only difference is that ID proponents claim God (or some other supernatural entity) is behind the process.
So for you to claim that evolution is not observable but ID is is just laughable.
As Ernst Mayr stated:
“...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science – the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
-Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American)
And?
The difference between creation theory and ID is that CT defines who the creator is while ID separates the two.
No.. micro or intraspecies evolution has been deduced and partially observed... evolution of life from nothing or interspecies evolution has not been observed.. it is just as much a leap of faith as belief in a higher power
Evolution makes no distinctions between macro and micro evolution. Only the anti-evolutionists get wrapped up in that.
To everyone else, it's like saying "I believe in a penny, but not a quarter".
to deny that, one would have to theorize why the gene/phenotype relationship which is observable today, did not exist at the time fossilized creatures were alive. one would have to demonstrate that a barrier exists between these 'small ways' and those theorized to have played out over millennia in isolated populations. is ID theory based on these types of observations or is it argumentum ad ignoratum and not scientific theory for that reason?You can follow evolution, it does happen in small ways. We cannot deny that. One species to another, not provable or observable.
because of the secular nature of science, this choice to attribute scientific discovery with God is welcomed in response. attribution is furthermore very different from design. whatever the attribution, science investigates the nature of the subject. the concept of design goes beyond attribution by supposing a mechanism which has not been observed. what the vast majority of scientists who believe in God have embraced is the method which nature has come about, as observed through scientific observation, while ID aims to superimpose a crude concept of design which answers no questions whatsoever. it is the faithful equivalent to answering 'because that's the way it is' to a scientific exploration of why or how, and initself design is not an acceptable scientific answer because of that. because it runs against the grain of exploration in this manner, it is not welcomed; it is not science.Don't throw out evolution, but no fool can deny that there is awesome evidence of design in what we see by the use of scientific knowledge. What is the fear of seeing that and admitting it. Many scientists do, some of whom are not even Christians.
No.. micro or intraspecies evolution has been deduced and partially observed... evolution of life from nothing or interspecies evolution has not been observed.. it is just as much a leap of faith as belief in a higher power
Evolution makes no distinctions between macro and micro evolution. Only the anti-evolutionists get wrapped up in that.
To everyone else, it's like saying "I believe in a penny, but not a quarter".
No.. micro or intraspecies evolution has been deduced and partially observed... evolution of life from nothing or interspecies evolution has not been observed.. it is just as much a leap of faith as belief in a higher power
Evolution makes no distinctions between macro and micro evolution. Only the anti-evolutionists get wrapped up in that.
To everyone else, it's like saying "I believe in a penny, but not a quarter".
If there is no difference, we would have evidence, fossil record, or observable results... we don't
You have faith that it does in absence of these... sound familiar?
They aren't. You appear to be the only person who is confused on the difference between abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
No, I'm not confused. Perhaps you are either confused or acting like it. Do they not teach BOTH the Big Bang and Evolutionism in schools? (BTW, I know the answer, I'm just wanting to see if you will be honest on it)
You are completely obvious of what ID is. Once again, ID uses the exact same mechanisms of evolution to describe speciation. The only difference is that ID proponents claim God (or some other supernatural entity) is behind the process.
The difference between creation theory and ID is that CT defines who the creator is while ID separates the two.
People laugh at reality all the time. You are welcome to join them.
As Ernst Mayr stated:
...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
-Darwins Influence on Modern Thought, p. 80, (July 2000, Scientific American)
And?
In other words, if you are going to enter history as science then that opens wide the door to all history being used as science.
The difference between creation theory and ID is that CT defines who the creator is while ID separates the two.
In other words, if you are going to enter history as science then that opens wide the door to all history being used as science.
No.. micro or intraspecies evolution has been deduced and partially observed... evolution of life from nothing or interspecies evolution has not been observed.. it is just as much a leap of faith as belief in a higher power
Evolution makes no distinctions between macro and micro evolution. Only the anti-evolutionists get wrapped up in that.
To everyone else, it's like saying "I believe in a penny, but not a quarter".
If there is no difference, we would have evidence, fossil record, or observable results... we don't
You have faith that it does in absence of these... sound familiar?
