Getting over our love for Darwin

The theory of evolution via natural selection doesn't proport to explain where life came from. It only proports to explain how life forms developed/develop over time.

Intelligent design doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

 

The difference?

 

no actually it's a matter faith

 

Typical revmitchellism. Insult what one does not understand. Nope, ID isn't science. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. It's a solid theological model, but it's not science. I'm an adherent of ID, btw.

 

Would you say Darwinism is science?

 

"Darwinism" is a term used by laypersons to refer to several different concepts of special development or evolution, many of which have nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his work. The term's meaning frequently changes, depending on who uses it. So, no, it's not science.

 

*sigh* Would you call Darwin's theory as described in "The Origin of Species" science?

 

If you're referring to natural selection, yes, it's science. It adheres to and passes the scientific method. Whether laypersons agree with it or not is not a prerequisite for something being science.

 

Seems I see two different concepts being debated here:

1 Evolution means that life began in the "primordial soup" as one celled creatures, and over millions of eons evolved into what is HUMAN today.

2 Evolution is the adaptation of species to changing environmental factors and/or genetic manipulation, resulting in different characteristics in that species today vs "yesterday".

I have always been under the impression ( supported by such entities as Nat. Geo., TLC, History Channel etc etc) that definition # one (1) was non-debatable FACT.

Any attempts to get IC into the educational system have been rebuffed vehemently by "the power structure" as "religious", non-scientific, pseudo-science etc.

Now if this IS science (#1), then why all the fear of ID being looked at?????? If the #1 crowd is so certain of their FACTS, why not just contrast the two ideas and let supposedly intelligent kids decide for themselves??

Simply because they (#1 crowd) KNOW they don't have PROOF - it's just faith that it happened like they say.

Only difference is that the IC crowd (IE believers of the Word) admit that there is no proof for their belief, just a simple trust in His word.

So the real difference is who do you trust - man or God???

Now #2 - well no problem as we've seen this kind of "evolution" in the breeding of horses, dogs, cats, etc etc.

Christians buying into the #1 idea is nothing more than either laziness, and/or an attempt to live like the world but "be(?)" a Christian

 

That's not true. Being an adherent of ID does not equate to being a believer of the Word, as you put it. Although ID is supported mostly by Christians, it doesn't claim to disprove or even be at ood with evolution via natural selection. Intelligent design doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms at all. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all.

 

You're avoiding the question. Are Darwin's predictions and assumptions as outlined in Origin of Species science?

 

The theory of evolution starts??????

Many people assume that the theory of evolution deals only with natural selection. Not so! It must deal with the existence of the universe. It is an atheist philosophy and that is a fact.

Furthermore, I do not believe in intelligent design, I believe in Divine Creation.

 

NO! They are:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:!

 

This is a misconception of evolution. Darwinian evolution does not propose to explain how life began. The concept you are referring to is abiogenesis which is often associated with evolution but is not the same as evolution.

This is a better oversimplification of what evolution is.

I think honest scientists will tell you that evolution is a non-debatable fact because we have observed species undergoing natural selection but abiogenesis theory is a model that has significantly less evidence behind it and should be debated more than evolution.

I think ID is an interesting philosophical concept. While I agree that we have an intelligent designer and in my case his name is Yahweh, I disagree that irreducible complexity (this is like natural selection in evolution, the mechanism behind the theory) is actually something that we can actually detect or that it is some sort of proof of an intelligent designer.

I think ID could be taught in schools along with Creationism as philosophical or religious concepts. They can be mentioned in science class because of their association with evolution.

 

It is interesting and a little telling that William Dembski, one of the founders of ID, would confuse Darwin with abiogenesis.

Dembski is a mathematician and mathematics play a big part of ID theory. It might be appropriate for teaching ID as a math topic, although it might be difficult for high school math students. Maybe at the graduate level.

 

Math is science.

 

Well, it's obvious that the definitions of the terms I've been accustomed to for "evolution" have "evolved" over time -- (pun intended)!!!:smilewinkgrin:

All I know is that EVOLUTION used to mean that, as stated in my earlier post:

And, as noted by another poster, ID does not necessarily equate to "BELIEVERS"; that was a term picked so that creation could be taught sans the religious aspect. So obviously that has "evolved" to some extent also.

SO, until and if, I get involved enough in this topic to separate the various terms from what they USED to mean, I'm through. (Can't help but think of the definition of "GAY" as it was in 1950 vs the "EVOLVED" meaning today.:tear

But, just for the record, I believe in the story strictly as told by God in Genesis - no more, no less.