Creationism / Evolution / Intelligent Design???

Prometheus wrote:Oddly, you are very right. Science per definition deals with natural explanations to natural phenomena. IF God had created the universe, what science would do is explain how (s)he did it, not just say that (s)he did it. The ID-movement would have to do the same to be of any scientific interest.

The main thing I always disliked about how the theory of evolution is taught is that it is often taught as if it were fact; emphasis is taken off of the fact that it is a theory.
Evolution does not explain the beginning of it all with concrete fact or proof; proponents of evolution have come up with assumptions of how the universe and life began based on the evidence/proof/facts that are availiable to us now. Ironically, none of the solid proof for evolution really disproves ID, even the millions and billions years old earth thing.

Oddly wrote:The main thing I always disliked about how the theory of evolution is taught is that it is often taught as if it were fact; emphasis is taken off of the fact that it is a theory.

I Ctrl+C my earlier answer:
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

Oddly wrote:Evolution does not explain the beginning of it all with concrete fact or proof; proponents of evolution have come up with assumptions of how the universe and life began based on the evidence/proof/facts that are availiable to us now. Ironically, none of the solid proof for evolution really disproves ID, even the millions and billions years old earth thing.

You are absolutely right on the first part. There are no fossils from the beginning of life, so most of it it just hypotheses on how it might have happened. Some things we know, some things we don't.
On the second half I'd have to say it depends on what you mean by ID. The words can be interpreted in so many ways.

Prometheus wrote:I Ctrl+C my earlier answer:
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

Let me use my more science-y language, I dislike that the theory of evolution is often taught as if it were a scientific law.

Prometheus wrote:You are absolutely right on the first part. There are no fossils from the beginning of life, so most of it it just hypotheses on how it might have happened. Some things we know, some things we don't.
On the second half I'd have to say it depends on what you mean by ID. The words can be interpreted in so many ways.

ID = Intelligent Design

And to make it more clear, I meant that proof backing the theory of evolution does not disprove intelligent design.

Oddly wrote:Let me use my more science-y language, I dislike that the theory of evolution is often taught as if it were a scientific law.

There are no difference in certainty between theory and law. Wikipedia tells us this:
"The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

Oddly wrote:ID = Intelligent Design
And to make it more clear, I meant that proof backing the theory of evolution does not disprove intelligent design.

That again depends on what you mean by the words Intelligent Design. If you refer to Behe's irreducible complexity, you are wrong. The things he said were i.c. were not. If you mean some kind of theistic evolution you are completely right. There's no way of disproving that.

The theory of evolution is science and should be taught during biology... after around 20 000 BC or maybe even earlier i guess it should be a part of history classes as well...
i see no reason why ID can't be mentioned in schools but only during philosophy classes or religion classes while teaching existentialism

Prometheus wrote:There are no difference in certainty between theory and law.

Let me elaborate more ~ what I dislike being taught (concerning the secular theory of evolution) is how the fact that science still has no way to truly explain how the universe was created is not emphasized; many students are left to believe those educated guesses/assuptions are true/fact when, in fact, there is no way of gaining any more information on how exactly the universe/world/life began as that which has not been/cannot be observed and tested repeatedly cannot be explained scientifically.
Even if some person were able to develop some kind of friggin' time machine and observe the beginning of life or the universe, they would not be able to explain how it happened with out seeing it again and again, coming up with hypotheses, testing them, trying out their hypotheses for themselves, et cetera...there's no way! **
There are many people who do not understand that. I think that's just as bad as those who are teaching people to believe that God/(insert Creator here) directly created everything that exists in the present day.

Prometheus wrote:That again depends on what you mean by the words Intelligent Design. If you refer to Behe's irreducible complexity, you are wrong. The things he said were i.c. were not. If you mean some kind of theistic evolution you are completely right. There's no way of disproving that.

Irreducible complexity has been, as far as I know, pretty much disproven as there is proof that living things have adapted and evolved from other *less complex* living things; that alone should have really signaled to you 'from her earlier posts**, she is obviously not referring to an idea/any idea that has been disproven by science.'

**Previous posts

Oddly wrote:Evolution does not explain the beginning of it all with concrete fact or proof; proponents of evolution have come up with assumptions of how the universe and life began based on the evidence/proof/facts that are availiable to us now. Ironically, none of the solid proof for evolution really disproves ID, even the millions and billions years old earth thing.

Oddly wrote:And to make it more clear, I meant that proof backing the theory of evolution does not disprove intelligent design.

The theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. At all. And yes, the beginning of life is more of a historical science than a natural science, just like you can't test that Napoleon lived or that Julius Caesar was killed. What we can do is find the "fingerprints" and make conclusions, but never recreate the actual event.

Personally, I've never had a science class where the instructor tried to prove the existance of Napoleon or other historical folks; every single biological science class I've taken (starting in my first years of public high school) has had an instructor who has tried to tell me that science proves that there was a secular begining to life, and they tie it in with the theory of evolution. That is what I dislike because that is false information.

Oddly wrote:Personally, I've never had a science class where the instructor tried to prove the existance of Napoleon or other historical folks; every single biological science class I've taken (starting in my first years of public high school) has had an instructor who has tried to tell me that science proves that there was a secular begining to life, and they tie it in with the theory of evolution. That is what I dislike because that is false information.

And to that I totally agree.

Exactly.

Handsome lad...

I've decided to put the issue on the shelf for a while.
This thing gives me a headache.

Maurice the Zombie wrote:I've decided to put the issue on the shelf for a while.
This thing gives me a headache.

Same here, but mainly cause I have too many other serious issues to deal with in life at the moment.

Same here.

I would like to put more time and energy into it, but alas, Zombies have restrictions to what is possible and what is not.

Brains?!?

Exactly.

Me needs them.

Ash wrote:

Ha?

I think I know that guy!

The question I would like to have answered is how is it possible for all people to be born from one man and one woman

it's not...

"From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer?"

-Thomas Paine, "Th Age of Reason"

adam means man it's as simple as that

I was reading the book of genesis again and the thing I would like to know is where did Cain's wife come from? There is reference to him having a wife but the only people known to live on the earth at that time are his mother and father?

HIs mother and father simply could have had many sons and daughters.. especially considering they had lifespans of lie 600 to 800 yrs of age.. and stuff..

noooo... sure the daughters are a possibility but the other sons are mentioned... there is one and his name is Seth. then Cain suddenly goes of to another country (wait a minute why does nations exist if there is only Adam and his family?) and build a f-ing town!!!! sure people build a lot of towns during neolithic and copper age, but thats because there where a lot of people. and just a few generations later there are several different peoples. note that even if you believe that god created the world in 6 days, there is nothing that contradicts the possibility of good creating more humans after adam.

and ash if i took you and a possible sister of yours and put you on an island. and told you to stay there and breed for 10 000 years, even if you lived to be 800 all i would find when i came back would be corpses with various signs of mutations and sicknesses.
an experiment like this has been made, a colony was created by a wealthy women. hoping to create an island where only "pure blooded" germans lived. the result was a catastrophe