education of evolution vs. creationism

Originally posted by Conrau K
I thought the issue was over Intelligent Design, not creationism. Most people who support ID do reject creationism.

There was a time when these two terms were not interchangeable.

They should be interchangable. ID is merely poorly disguised creationism. It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples. Typically, once the examples are suitably explained by evolution IDists move on to another one. Also ID followers seem to have a poor grasp of the basic theory of evolution they claim to follow. The eye is still used by some as an example, when really it is one of those abandoned outposts now fully explained by evolution. To be quite honest, the eye should never have been used, and would never have been if IDists had any idea about evoultion.
ID works of artificial selection and small acts of creation. It clearly has far more in common with creationism then evolution. It is equally irrational and unnecessary. It is however an important cop out for christians as it allows them to pretend they follow evolution, while taking it as read that the existance of humans was a certainty before they existed, and not a chance, and prehaps improbable, result of the any number of factors that drive evolution in a particular direction. Evolution does not fit with being made in 'God's image', because it is non directional.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
They should be interchangable. ID is merely poorly disguised creationism. It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples. Typically, once the examples are suitably explained by evolution IDists move on to another one. Also ID followers seem to have a poor grasp of the ba ...[text shortened]... tion. Evolution does not fit with being made in 'God's image', because it is non directional.

I agree that both creationism and ID are bad science. But they still are not the same thing. Creationism (which most often refers to young-earth creationism) posits that God created all life at around the same time approxiametly 6000 years ago.

ID is a significant improvement on this brand of creationism. Proponents of ID assent to the legitimacy of evolution as a scientific theory, and acknowledge that given genetic mutation, natural selection will occur. However, they point to some examples in nature where evolutionary theory fails and a designer is presupposed. The eye, for example, is advanced as evidence because of the (supposed) low probability of such a biological structure evolving into existence. More sophisticated ID theories use the term "irreducible complexity". The crux of this argument is that part A requires part B to come into existence; but part B requires part A to come into existence. It is an absurdity, then, that either part A or B could come into existence naturally. Ergo, there must be a designer-God. ID supporters often cite the flagellum as evidence of this phenomenon.

As the consensus of most scientists is that no such irreducible complexity exists, then the whole ID movement deserves no place in the science classroom. But ID is different to creationism. The ID movement has never pretended to be an alternative to evolution, as creationism had.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
They should be interchangable. ID is merely poorly disguised creationism. It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples. Typically, once the examples are suitably explained by evolution IDists move on to another one. Also ID followers seem to have a poor grasp of the ba ...[text shortened]... tion. Evolution does not fit with being made in 'God's image', because it is non directional.

It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples."

So most people who subscribe to evolution do so with the forgone
conclusions that there was no design involved, and therefore no
designer? You wish to your cake and eat it too?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples."

So most people to describe to evolution do so with the forgone
conclusions that there was no design involved, and therefore no
designer? You wish to your cake and eat it too?
Kelly[/b]

Your use of English is so pathetic as to make your sentences almost unintelligible. What are you trying to say?

Evolution has no design? Of course - evolution does not work on any principle of design. (Although there are some interesting modifications to this principle suggested by some, like Simon Conway Morris.)

Therefore no designer?
That's not a logical step that many scientists - also being religious people - would subscribe to, and come to think of it, I'm not even sure it's a logical step.

Next time, work out what you want to say. Write it down. Check that it makes sense. Type it out. Then check again.
And only then, post it.

Originally posted by amannion
Your use of English is so pathetic as to make your sentences almost unintelligible. What are you trying to say?

Evolution has no design? Of course - evolution does not work on any principle of design. (Although there are some interesting modifications to this principle suggested by some, like Simon Conway Morris.)

Therefore no designer?
That's not a ...[text shortened]... e it down. Check that it makes sense. Type it out. Then check again.
And only then, post it.

Yep, corrected it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yep, corrected it.
Kelly

Is it possible to describe to something?

EDIT: I guess it is. But not in the context you wrote. Did you mean to subscribe?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Is it possible to describe to something?

EDIT: I guess it is. But not in the context you wrote. Did you mean to subscribe?

oops
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
Is it possible to describe to something?

EDIT: I guess it is. But not in the context you wrote. Did you mean to subscribe?

I've had chess games like that post...I make a bad move and no
matter what I do its one bad move after another. 🙁
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've had chess games like that post...I make a bad move and no
matter what I do its one bad move after another. 🙁
Kelly

No worries. I do it every second post...and game for that matter.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I thought the issue was over Intelligent Design, not creationism. Most people who support ID do reject creationism.

There was a time when these two terms were not interchangeable.

The original text on ID still had the word "creationism" in it where they'd forgotten to change it, after the banning of creationism in schools.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples."

So most people who subscribe to evolution do so with the forgone
conclusions that there was no design involved, and therefore no
designer? You wish to your cake and eat it too?
Kelly[/b]

Science looks at the evidence and puts forwards theories to explain that evidence. No where is there evidence for design and thus there is no reason to reach the conclusion that a designer was involved. It was not forgone. However, for your average IDist it is very important to assume God, or 'an unamed designer' was involved. Therefore they look for evidence to support their theory, as supposed to scientifically putting forward theories to explain evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I agree that both creationism and ID are bad science. But they still are not the same thing. Creationism (which most often refers to young-earth creationism) posits that God created all life at around the same time approxiametly 6000 years ago.

ID is a significant improvement on this brand of creationism. Proponents of ID assent to the legitimacy of evo ...[text shortened]... sm. The ID movement has never pretended to be an alternative to evolution, as creationism had.

OK, I'll accept that ID and creationism are different, and ID is an improvement. However it still relies on creation, and the elements of creation within ID (taken by themselves) are no more or less reasonable then the total creation put forward by creationism.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Science looks at the evidence and puts forwards theories to explain that evidence. No where is there evidence for design and thus there is no reason to reach the conclusion that a designer was involved. It was not forgone. However, for your average IDist it is very important to assume God, or 'an unamed designer' was involved. Therefore they look for ev ...[text shortened]... port their theory, as supposed to scientifically putting forward theories to explain evidence.

Really, exactly what are you looking for when you look for design?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, exactly what are you looking for when you look for design?
Kelly

I assume you mean 'what does one look for' as I personally have never searched for design. IDists look for 'irreducable complexity'. Hasn't been found yet.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I assume you mean 'what does one look for' as I personally have never searched for design. IDists look for 'irreducable complexity'. Hasn't been found yet.

I would have thought you knew what to look for if you could tell me
there isn't any evidence for design.
Kelly