Which one do you belive, Evolution vs Intelligent design

[Mjolnir]

Evolution and ID are completely mutually exclusive, the entire point of ID was to disprove evolution.

Untrue. While the motivation for most of those who push ID is to "disprove" evolution, they are not in fact mutually exclusive. The compromise between the two is to suggest that humanity was designed by manipulating the evolutionary process, or by setting the Earth up in such a way that humanity in its current form would arise.

How are they not mutually exclusive then?

[Latooni]

Evolution and ID are completely mutually exclusive, the entire point of ID was to disprove evolution.

Untrue. While the motivation for most of those who push ID is to "disprove" evolution, they are not in fact mutually exclusive. The compromise between the two is to suggest that humanity was designed by manipulating the evolutionary process, or by setting the Earth up in such a way that humanity in its current form would arise.

How are they not mutually exclusive then?

Because if god invented evolution, then they both exist?

[Griffin999]

Since someone better than I has already done this argument reducto ad absurdium...

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

that is part of a religion called pastafarianism and I am a devoted follower who lives my live by the 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts set out by captain mosey (and I get every friday off as a religious holiday.) as well as other aspectes the main site is here: http://www.venganza.org/

[Danny420Dale]

Since someone better than I has already done this argument reducto ad absurdium...

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

that is part of a religion called pastafarianism and I am a devoted follower who lives my live by the 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts set out by captain mosey (and I get every friday off as a religious holiday.) as well as other aspectes the main site is here: http://www.venganza.org/

.....lol

[Normandy]

"I've never seen anyone who passed a biology class with higher than an 85 average advocate Intelligent Design" ~Normandy

[Mjolnir]

Untrue. While the motivation for most of those who push ID is to "disprove" evolution, they are not in fact mutually exclusive. The compromise between the two is to suggest that humanity was designed by manipulating the evolutionary process, or by setting the Earth up in such a way that humanity in its current form would arise.

How are they not mutually exclusive then?

Because if god invented evolution, then they both exist?

Do you even know what id is? Because, after that comment I don't think you do. That comment suggests you think it is the same as creationism, which it is not.

[Kaelis]

"I've never seen anyone who passed a biology class with higher than an 85 average advocate Intelligent Design"

Dude... thats scary, my friend who is a biology teacher says the same

[Atilla]

But it is offered for those who want it- It's just not payed for by the taxpayers. If it's a low interest class, why teach it at a lower school? It's unneeded education, thus it should be education you pay for. Even if it's only 20 bucks a unit like at community colleges.

The same could be said about drama, music, graphic design, accounting, specialist maths, and so on. If there are enough people to form a class, I see no reason why it shouldn't have the same status as any other subject. Besides, it's not costing the taxpayer any more; it just means that someone is learning theology instead of woodwork or some such.

Also, in my region, religion and theology classes can be taken as one component of your secondary qualification, and an acceptable mark for these classes is often an entry requirement for university-level theological study - in the same way that physics electives are a requirement for entering a physics or engineering course, and philosophy electives are required for a philosophy degree. In essence, what I'm saying is that a career in theology or religion should be treated pretty much the same as any other career, as far as education goes.

How are they not mutually exclusive then?

Because if god invented evolution, then they both exist?

Do you even know what id is? Because, after that comment I don't think you do. That comment suggests you think it is the same as creationism, which it is not.

ID at its most basic level is simply the premise that humans were designed by some intelligent entity, rather than arising purely through random chance. It is possible that an intelligent entity could have designed and/or built humans using the process of evolution (theistic evolution is the stance of the Catholic Church, for instance). It is true the vast majority of people who would describe themselves as a proponent of ID believe life was wrought fully-formed from the aether by the Hand of God or suchlike, and it is this stance which many people refer to when they use the term "ID". Understand that I am using it in a more broad and technical sense.


It may surprise you to learn that we use similar processes to create software, not to mention a whole slew of other tasks (the first link has a nice list of applications, if you're interested). It is also worth noting that algorithms produced using genetic programming sometimes coincide with those designed in the traditional way.

I also point out that ID, in the sense I am using the term, includes the possibility of aliens being responsible for life (yes, there are groups who believe this), not just gods; and if we've found evolutionary algorithms a useful way of designing things, there's certainly no reason why another species shouldn't use them to design an artificial life form.

[ChaosTheory]

"I've never seen anyone who passed a biology class with higher than an 85 average advocate Intelligent Design" ~Normandy

Hey, look, I disproved something . . . I passed my Biology class with a 101.8% (and my teacher only offered 20 points of extra credit), got a 100% on the final exam and essay.

Possibly because Evolution is pretty much the only facet of science I don't believe, and most people know me as being far too scientific. I accept everything up to and including Natural Selection, but merely don't think life evolved from nothing up all the way to humans.

[Raithah]

I know this is a little off-topic, but if simplistic life were to be found extra-terrestrialy would you still believe in ID ? Lets just assume that Europa (that moon of Jupiter, not that anyone doesn't know) actualy does have some lowly form of life inhabiting it. Seeing life spring up in this inhospitable environment - would it be proof that there is an unseen force urging life fowards, or that it may spring up even in the worst of environs ? It's just my belief, so don't call me on it, but if we can find even a single cell blundering about of it's own accord in the depths of space, evolution was the cause. But that's just me.

[ChaosTheory]

I know this is a little off-topic, but if simplistic life were to be found extra-terrestrialy would you still believe in ID ? Lets just assume that Europa (that moon of Jupiter, not that anyone doesn't know) actualy does have some lowly form of life inhabiting it. Seeing life spring up in this inhospitable environment - would it be proof that there is an unseen force urging life fowards, or that it may spring up even in the worst of environs ? It's just my belief, so don't call me on it, but if we can find even a single cell blundering about of it's own accord in the depths of space, evolution was the cause. But that's just me.

And if we search the cosmos for a million years and never find other life, what will that mean for evolution?

[Raithah]

... that us believers have, very poor luck ? :D. And in any case, how far could we even go in a million years ?

Seriously, though, if we visit thousands of life-supporting planets that are void of everything except for sandy beaches and mountains, I'd say that a major part of the evolution theory just got kicked out of the water. Of course, this requires that we find said worlds ...

[ChaosTheory]

... that us believers have, very poor luck ? . And in any case, how far could we even go in a million years ?

Seriously, though, if we visit thousands of life-supporting planets that are void of everything except for sandy beaches and mountains, I'd say that a major part of the evolution theory just got kicked out of the water. Of course, this requires that we find said worlds ...

. . . and if we don't? What would that prove? I suggest you read the book "Our Privleged Planet", I found the subject matter rather interesting, even through it takes no real sides on the Ev:ID issue.

[Raithah]

This Privileged Planet ? Huh, I'll have to look into that.

On the remark that the Earth is an amazing fluke (or example of intervention), I have this to say : luck. Sheer, unadultered, astoundingly precise luck, god damnit. If any of a number of conditions weren't right, we wouldn't have come to today in the first place, and because of this you can't say that an intent was behind everything. It's like having a set of criteria, then shuffling the Hat of Life, coming up with a couple trillion incorrect answers and a few correct.

[ChaosTheory]

This Privileged Planet ? Huh, I'll have to look into that.

On the remark that the Earth is an amazing fluke (or example of intervention), I have this to say : luck. Sheer, unadultered, astoundingly precise luck, god damnit. If any of a number of conditions weren't right, we wouldn't have come to today in the first place, and because of this you can't say that an intent was behind everything. It's like having a set of criteria, then shuffling the Hat of Life, coming up with a couple trillion incorrect answers and a few correct.

No, this book: The Privileged Planet

(whoops, not "our")

But yes, the same sort of deal. Read and watch both, for all I care, I might look at the movie version myself.

I find the discovery/life relationship highly interesting.