Skip to comments.Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design
Posted on 02/01/2007 7:37:58 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Whenever there arises a discussion on the origins issue (as in intelligent design versus evolution), Darwinian materialists invariably go to great lengths to frame the discussion as science versus religion, despite the scientific validity of opposing arguments and scientific credentials of those who propone them.
Any doubts raised about Darwinian evolution are automatically attributed to religious motivations that cannot possibly be rooted in fact. What is worse is that these doubts are dismissed without consideration and the scientist/teacher who raised them is blacklisted. You wont see this on the nightly news, and the ACLU surely will turn a blind eye, but high school science teachers have been fired for assigning students material from mainline scientific journals that questioned aspects mere aspects, not even the overarching theory of evolution.
Why this academic intolerance? Why this I cant help myself, its the hot buzzword hate of an opposing theory? If evolutionary theory was so patently established in true science and intelligent design theory was so patently established in pure religion, then why is it that treatment of this issue in the popular press betrays the deeply religious commitment that most evolutionists have to Darwins theory?
In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents credibility, belittling their opponents intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.
For instance, after writing an opinion piece about intelligent design pointing out common misconceptions I was rebuked in a subsequent response that I had a poor understanding of what science is. Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA cant get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origins views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist. Interesting, isnt it?
Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.
In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.
Yet what if some supreme intelligence is the cause behind everything we see? What if God is the creator? If this were the case, the truth is a supernatural event, not a natural mechanism.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of science be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also. I certainly dont advocate the position of Im right no matter what science says! but science says is not as black and white as it is made out to be.
We all live on the same earth; we all have the same raw data. The conclusions drawn from this data can be varied depending on the assumptions with which the data is viewed. We have all seen the detailed paintings of early man in National Geographic based on only the most rigorous science a few bone fragments, actually. Hopefully no one seriously believes that arriving at fully-formed missing links from some small fossils is actually predicated on sound science. To be sure, the end result is influenced by ideology despite being published in a prestigious periodical.
In conclusion, all Id like to see is a level playing field. It is slanderously misleading for materialistic evolutionists to claim that intelligent design is motivated purely by religion, but they themselves are unsullied by contemptuous philosophical leanings. Everyone is biased; everyones conclusions are influenced by his bias.
Is ID the same as Theistic Evolution?
Take the polar bear. How did evolution decide to make it white to blend in with its habitat? Only God through ID can make that kind of choice.
As far a s I can see theistic evolution is ID but many who describe themselves as theistic evolutionist get upset at the ID label, probably because one can also be a YEC creationist and IDist.
That makes no sense to me, because you can't be a Theistic Evolutionist and a YEC at the same time.
A great video called "incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution 1" can be found at http://www.explorationfilms.com/exploration-films-incredible-creatures-1.html
You may have accidentally asked one of those sticky questions that evos normally try to avoid. The close cousin of the polar bear, the grizzly, has overlapping territory, and yet it remains quite brown.
Enough Grizzlies moved far enough North and stayed long enough.
Or the Chameleon, for example. Only ID would take a lizard and turn him into a United States Senator.
I don't think I agree. ID ascribes that design to God, or at least some version of God. It's not just "anything" such as scientific laws or facts.
It's a Designer. It can't just be anything.
In a lot of respects, it is MORE rigidly religious, hostile to heresy; pontifical; exclusionist; etc. than the starchiest RC, Lutheran, Baptist or Mennonite congregation.
Polar bear hairs are not white, they're translucent. Try again
If God is responsible for creating all the species on the planet, then your suggesting that they all existed as they are now from the beginning (which means we lived with dinosaurs), or youre saying that he added some at different times throughout the history of the planet.
Id be curious to know how IDers think this occurred. Did they just appear *poof* out of thin air? Was it just two of a species (for reproduction), or did a... herd all appear at the same time? How old were they? etc.... Thats if youre not a YEC.
Seems we've heard that song before.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of science be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also.
If the supposed conclusions of science are false, and truth is a supernatural event then airplanes can fly today only because God wants them to, and there is no rational reason to assume that they will still fly tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure there was no way primitive man could have built the Grand Canyon without the help of an alien, advanced race.
We've heard songs on both sides. That's not an argument either way.
Welcome to FR. You'll find that the evos will shred you for questions like that. Don't take it personally; they do it to everyone. It's sort of like an initiation rite or running the gauntlet.
I don't understand his question about evolution pertaining to polar bears. They are perfectly adapted to their environment, but I don't think they were always.
ID is an element of theistic evolution and creationism
Creation ascribes the design to God.
ID states that some aspects of nature and/or life are better explained by design than chance. The designer isn't specified; it could be an highly evolved extra-terrestrial which is not the same as God.
Creation could be considered a subset of ID, as it's more specific, but ID is not creation is disguise just because some people happen to believe that they can name the creator.
You find marks on the wall. Determining whether they were designed is a different exercise than determining who was the designer of them.
I'd be more curious to know how accidentalist thought it occurred. :-)
And a lot of IDers are evolutionists, anyway.
On the launch of Sputnik, my mother was the editor of her college newspaper, and she published the first "Extra" edition in the papers history, with interviews of big mukymucks on campus about the new artificial moon. They universally called for more science, more math, etc. It was a big deal.
Then in the 1980's "creation science" came out, and it's been downhill ever since.
We should return to the curriculum your mother had as a child. Let us start the school day with prayer and scripture!
What you'll find, is that incorrect statements, like polar bears having white hair for example, will be refuted and corrected. It's no big deal. You'll also find that some creos have very thin skins; almost translucent. :-)
*Shrugs* ID leaves the door wide open. Can you say Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Sure, and whores just want to be called sex workers.
Evolution is a theory that is constantly being defined by research, by scientists using proven methods and techniques. A conclusion is drawn from data.
Creationism is a preconcieved end (Its in the Bible!) and then pseudo science run by dodgy fake doctors (Hovind) to reconcile and make up facts to support the preconcieved conclusion.
Your assumptions are a little bit mixed and vague. Sometimes the lines get blurred and mischaracterizations of creationist beliefs are...just that, mischaracterized.
Creationists don't believe that every creature we see now looked exactly as Adam saw it. There has been a great deal of change in the different kinds of animals. When you start with a founding, parent species, and give as much time as we've had (thousands of years) you're going to get all kinds of variety.
IDists (I like the way the author of this opinion piece referred to them, "IDists," so I'm substituting that for "IDers" from now on) only say that something designed the order we see today, and we can infer that design in nature.
How that came about is the same problem that evolution eventually smacks headlong into, if you go back far enough.
We still recited the Lords prayer every morning back then, along with the pledge of allegance. Afterward, we would study geology about how old the Grand Canyon was. In high school I wrote my first paper on evolution, and was the only person asked to read their paper in front of the science class. The school was filled with good Southern Baptist kids that I went to church with on Sundays.
Not a single classmate told me that "evolution was religion". No one objected to my reading in class about evolution. The discussion didn't even come up.
Not till "creation science" in the 80's did the erosion of science begin.
"And a lot of IDers are evolutionists, anyway."
Not this guy. He attacks evolution at the end of his article. You can believe in God though and believe in evolution, thats true.
"I'd be more curious to know how accidentalist thought it occurred. :-)"
You mean the origins of life at the very beginning? I wonder that too. To be honest, the idea that it just started by accident seems sort of like a *poof* explanation too. But I think scientists are working on quite a few good natural explanations. We'll figure it out eventually.
I like "IDiots" myself.
Interesting poll question on the site:
What's your take on global warming?
- We should do our part to help the community.
- I don't know what I can do to help.
- Wait, whats global warming again.
Are those the only choices?
So God could have caused evolution?
Wow. This is thread number 1777776. Missed 1777777 by THAT much.
"incorrect statements, like polar bears having white hair"
I think you're splitting hairs here ;-) We regularly speak of old people having white hair, but their hair doesn't have white pigment either. I suspect most "white" colors in nature are due to the same cause as that seen in polar bear fur.
Are we talking about airplanes flying, or life forming?
Yes, God COULD have caused evolution. He's clearly that powerful.
However, He makes it pretty clear that that's not how it happened.
For those that are scientifically educated, respectful of science, and who are believers, there is an elegant answer. God produced a creative and adaptive world. God created individual each species upon a genetic template in the same way a man may create ever more intricate inventions using the same tools. Many species have become extinct and God sequentially creates many more. God's creative world is ongoing. Adaptation within a species and natural selection within a species are a reflection of God's creative genius.
Even if I were a hard-core evolutionist, I'd agree with this. The arrogance on the part of many evos is downright amazing.
Creationism has been around since the beginning.
Since evolutionists have been in the majority of science for so long (a fact rubbed in the faces of creationists time out of mind), why is it that you ascribe the alleged downfall of science to the tiny little creationist minority? Sounds like, if science has deteriorated, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
And how do you reconcile your opinion that science has deteriorated with the marvelous scientific advances since the 1980's? (IE, the internet, various new drugs and medicines, artificial implant devices, nanotechnology, computers, weapons, etc.)
Very compelling treatise on the evolution of genes.
Thin skin! That's funny!
Ah, pining for the golden days of yore when Christians compromised, and didn't critically consider the implications of evolution in the Bible.
Miss 'em and weep; they're history.