Just A Crazy Thought

[Mattnxtc 0]

I got to thinking today about some things having to do with Intelligent Design and the way it is being treated with regards to some of the science community. Now the thought of intelligent design being included along side The Evolution Theory has the whole evolutionist community up in arms and screaming bloody murder about the possible inclusion of it into schools. But this got me to thinking...What was the reaction that The Evolution Theory got when it was initially proposed as a "scientific idea" I would be willin to guess that it was routinely dismissed initially before gaining some acceptance as more and more scientists joined in on the idea. This tends to be the same process that Intelligent Design is strugggling through right now. One thing I do see is that for the longest time science was a safe haven for agnostics/atheist. In this field you didnt have to worry about God creeping in and with the evolution theory they had their own religion they could put faith in without having to deal with those "crazy christians". I think that is a huge reason why now you see scientists so up in arms over this new theory. God has crept back into science and I am not sure that evolutionists want to start the fight back up...Again this is just my thoughts of late. I know that many will disagree with it but i wanted to toss it out there for some thought. I think ID brings up some great questions that evolution cant necessarily explain and that randomness doesnt seem to support so who knows. Maybe in 20 years ID will be as widely accepted as The Evolution Theory

[crowTrobot 2]

there is a mountain of empirical evidence for mechanistic evolution. there is *zero* empirical evidence for ID. huge difference. if you want to support ID all you can do is point to things we don't understand about genetics, gaps in the fossil record etc that and say that ID explains them, but that is NOT science. it is theism masquerading as science, and it has no place in schools.

[mrdannyg 274]

I got to thinking today about some things having to do with Intelligent Design and the way it is being treated with regards to some of the science community. Now the thought of intelligent design being included along side The Evolution Theory has the whole evolutionist community up in arms and screaming bloody murder about the possible inclusion of it into schools. But this got me to thinking...What was the reaction that The Evolution Theory got when it was initially proposed as a "scientific idea" I would be willin to guess that it was routinely dismissed initially before gaining some acceptance as more and more scientists joined in on the idea. This tends to be the same process that Intelligent Design is strugggling through right now. One thing I do see is that for the longest time science was a safe haven for agnostics/atheist. In this field you didnt have to worry about God creeping in and with the evolution theory they had their own religion they could put faith in without having to deal with those "crazy christians". I think that is a huge reason why now you see scientists so up in arms over this new theory. God has crept back into science and I am not sure that evolutionists want to start the fight back up...Again this is just my thoughts of late. I know that many will disagree with it but i wanted to toss it out there for some thought. I think ID brings up some great questions that evolution cant necessarily explain and that randomness doesnt seem to support so who knows. Maybe in 20 years ID will be as widely accepted as The Evolution Theory

EDIT: the guy above me said something pretty similar, but i'll just leave this mehnyways.i am not religious, so i don't know how to say this without sounding dogmatic, but:ID is simply not scientific. evolution is not a perfect answer, and whether it is correct, or correct exactly as currently believed, is definitely open to question. but there is nothing scientific about ID, and no proof or evidence of it, that doesn't rely on itself to provide that proof.it is my opinion that the state and religion should be kept separate. ID is a religious belief. therefore it should not be taught by the schools. what people choose to teach in their own homes is their own opinions.

[Mattnxtc 0]

there is a mountain of empirical evidence for mechanistic evolution. there is *zero* empirical evidence for ID. huge difference. if you want to support ID all you can do is point to things we don't understand about genetics, gaps in the fossil record etc that and say that ID explains them, but that is NOT science. it is theism masquerading as science, and it has no place in schools.

From what I am seeing lately, ID is saying that there appears to be some sort of intelligence behind the construction of things such as DNA RNA and so forth...so far I woudl be hard pressed to say believe that it comes from randomness...Like i said...It is a relatively new field of study so it needs time to develop. When darwin proposed his theory he put it on the hope that the transition fossils woudl be found...he hedged it on that...there is some small evidence that helps but no where near what darwin meant...Many of the ideas that darwin proposed are stil debated to this day alsoall im saying is that it may be to early to just discount something simply b/c it hasnt been studied long enough...I mean if that was the case evolution would have been dismissed a logn while ago

[timwakefield 68]

Many of the ideas that darwin proposed are stil debated to this day also

The basic theory of evolution is NOT debated within the scientific community, BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEBATABLE, IT IS FACT. ID being taught alongside evolution is comparable to Tim's Wacky Theory of Relativity being taught alongside Einstein.

[mrdannyg 274]

From what I am seeing lately, ID is saying that there appears to be some sort of intelligence behind the construction of things such as DNA RNA and so forth...so far I woudl be hard pressed to say believe that it comes from randomness...Like i said...It is a relatively new field of study so it needs time to develop. When darwin proposed his theory he put it on the hope that the transition fossils woudl be found...he hedged it on that...there is some small evidence that helps but no where near what darwin meant...Many of the ideas that darwin proposed are stil debated to this day alsoall im saying is that it may be to early to just discount something simply b/c it hasnt been studied long enough...I mean if that was the case evolution would have been dismissed a logn while ago

i think i understand your point, though i'm confused as to why you say ID has only recently began to be studied. it seems like ID has been being studied for a couple thousand years now, if the word "studied" can mean "try to prove."the Watchmaker philosophy (google it) - the argument that things are too complicated to be formed without intelligent design is interesting, and I believe is the reason behind a significant portion of religious belief. Personally, I think it is silly to accept that something is simply "too complicated" to understand, but I realize that some people have other things to think/worry about than the level of complicatedness of their surroundings.daniel

[timwakefield 68]

To those of you who accept evolution, reject evolution, or question evolution, I IMPLORE you to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.It is the best explanation of evolution I have ever read, and examines in great detail many alternative theories.

[crowTrobot 2]

From what I am seeing lately, ID is saying that there appears to be some sort of intelligence behind the construction of things such as DNA RNA and so forth...

there is no evidence for that. ID just points out what we don't understand and says a creator did it. that is not science because it is not provable or disprovable - it does not make testable predictions. ID is irrelevant (other that it's relevance to creationists to try to sneak their religious agenda into schools).

When darwin proposed his theory he put it on the hope that the transition fossils woudl be found...he hedged it on that...there is some small evidence that helps but no where near what darwin meant...

you've gone from no transitionals to "some small evidence". that's progress at least lol.

[Canada 0]

Now the thought of intelligent design being included along side The Evolution Theory has the whole evolutionist community up in arms and screaming bloody murder about the possible inclusion of it into schools. But this got me to thinking...What was the reaction that The Evolution Theory got when it was initially proposed as a "scientific idea" I would be willin to guess that it was routinely dismissed initially before gaining some acceptance as more and more scientists joined in on the idea. This tends to be the same process that Intelligent Design is strugggling through right now.

It wasn't actually the 'evolution community' that went up in arms at ID being included in school classes, it was parents and teachers.The evolution communities main objection beyond the long standing contention of evolution vs creation is that ID was being touted as a science. A judge saw that this was clearly not the case and ID was thrown out because it is a religion. Of course he is now an 'athiest activist'Anyone with half a brain can understand why there is no place for religion in public schools.

One thing I do see is that for the longest time science was a safe haven for agnostics/atheist. In this field you didnt have to worry about God creeping in and with the evolution theory they had their own religion they could put faith in without having to deal with those "crazy christians". I think that is a huge reason why now you see scientists so up in arms over this new theory. God has crept back into science and I am not sure that evolutionists want to start the fight back up...

It's not a 'fight'. Evolution started as a scientific theory that gained credibility as evidence was continously found to support it.ID is reworked creationism that was started to circumvent laws that prevent religion being taught in public schools.

Again this is just my thoughts of late. I know that many will disagree with it but i wanted to toss it out there for some thought. I think ID brings up some great questions that evolution cant necessarily explain and that randomness doesnt seem to support so who knows.

It doesn't. It glosses over the unexplainable with the all-answering "there is a creator with powers that can do things we can't understand"

Maybe in 20 years ID will be as widely accepted as The Evolution Theory

As I said, ID is simply a rewrapped creationism. As such it will never gain acceptance as a scientific theory and will remain a religious belief. However it doesn't specify a God - simply a cerator or designer so if it does gain momentum it will more likely attract followings from existing Christians who feel disillusioned with how Christianty & the bible fit in a modern world and are more comfortable with an non-specific deity that is less binding. This could lead to a further fracturing of the faith. Now that would be ironic lolAll you have done here is listen to propoganda and not looked at facts, but hey, as a Christian you're good at that! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Mattnxtc 0]

you've gone from no transitionals to "some small evidence". that's progress at least lol.

No i merely said that b/c if i said no evidence youd post the site again and i really didnt wanna see the website again haha

i think i understand your point, though i'm confused as to why you say ID has only recently began to be studied. it seems like ID has been being studied for a couple thousand years now, if the word "studied" can mean "try to prove."the Watchmaker philosophy (google it) - the argument that things are too complicated to be formed without intelligent design is interesting, and I believe is the reason behind a significant portion of religious belief. Personally, I think it is silly to accept that something is simply "too complicated" to understand, but I realize that some people have other things to think/worry about than the level of complicatedness of their surroundings.daniel

Yes I agree that ID is based off the premise of christianity, but I think that it took understanding DNA and other extremely complex elements to realize that just maybe there is something more than just "natural selection" at work. Dont get me wrong ID is as untestable as evolution but I think given time we will see it get a foothold in the scientific community

To those of you who accept evolution, reject evolution, or question evolution, I IMPLORE you to read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.It is the best explanation of evolution I have ever read, and examines in great detail many alternative theories.

Is this the book where you got the theory for how the eye was made?

[Canada 0]

Dont get me wrong ID is as untestable as evolution but I think given time we will see it get a foothold in the scientific community.

One of the fundamentals of science is to search for answers within the natural world.ID by definition requires a super-natural creator and as such is not a science.Any community it establishes a foothold in will not be scientific.You can say that ID is a science as often as you like; doesn't make it one.

[crowTrobot 2]

Dont get me wrong ID is as untestable as evolution

evolution does make testable predictions, such as in what strata transitionals should be found, and what genetic relationships should be in modern species if they evolved through a branching evolutionary tree, among other things.

[MDXS 0]

This may sounds like a broken record by now, but ID is NOT science. It has NO place in science classrooms. Evolution IS testable.There ARE intermediary forms.Anyone who claims otherwise on the last two points are IGNORANT or LYING. "One thing I do see is that for the longest time science was a safe haven for agnostics/atheist. In this field you didnt have to worry about God creeping in and with the evolution theory they had their own religion they could put faith in without having to deal with those "crazy christians". I think that is a huge reason why now you see scientists so up in arms over this new theory. God has crept back into science and I am not sure that evolutionists want to start the fight back up..."Safe haven huh? It sure was a safe haven for Galileo and Copernicus. Really, religion has handicapped science in a big way. Before thy'd be extreme consequences for any scientific idea to contradict your perfect bible. Now it's just religious fanatics slowing down progress and confusing the weak minded.Scientists aren't up in arms over this. There aren't scientific articles written about creationism or intelligent design. Evolution is considered fact and the debate is closed because there is no debate. The questions are about how evolution occured not if it did or didn't.Matt, scientists, unlike religious fanatics, don't care what conclusions they come to. They have no personal stake in evolution being correct or not. If there were holes in the theory, it'd be discarded or refined to a better theory. This is not going to happen. I really hope this ID/creationist silliness is done away with in my lifetime.

[Farnan 0]

Personally, i think DNA is the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...http://www.venganza.org/

[Petoria 0]

ID is a cop out. It says we don't understand it, so God must've done it. ID has actually gotten less and less following over the years, and is more likely to die out than become accepted.On another point, religion crippled the scientific community for over 1,000 years. Why would we want something like that to continue? Ironically, it's people's wanting an explanation for everything (ID), that is keeping them from becoming more knowledgeable. Do people who believe in ID want scientific research to happen? We know that they didn't want it in Galileo's time.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Matt, scientists, unlike religious fanatics, don't care what conclusions they come to. They have no personal stake in evolution being correct or not. If there were holes in the theory, it'd be discarded or refined to a better theory. This is not going to happen.

this is wrong

[Canada 0]

Personally, i think DNA is the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...http://www.venganza.org/

WWFSMD

[Mattnxtc 0]

One of the fundamentals of science is to search for answers within the natural world.ID by definition requires a super-natural creator and as such is not a science.Any community it establishes a foothold in will not be scientific.You can say that ID is a science as often as you like; doesn't make it one.

I didnt say it was yet...I said merely that it brings up some quesitons and answers to things that seem much more logical than just "natural selection"

[Petoria 0]

this is wrong

I think what he was trying to say, is that if a theory proved the existence of God, then it would be so. People who believe in ID have to come to the same conclusion that there is a God.

I didnt say it was yet...I said merely that it brings up some quesitons and answers to things that seem much more logical than just "natural selection"

Ok, I've never heard the term "logic" apply to ID in a serious tone of voice. It only seems logical because that is what you've been fed since the day you were born. It's actually the least logical explanation, bc it is unprovable.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I think what he was trying to say, is that if a theory proved the existence of God, then it would be so. People who believe in ID have to come to the same conclusion that there is a God.Ok, I've never heard the term "logic" apply to ID in a serious tone of voice. It only seems logical because that is what you've been fed since the day you were born. It's actually the least logical explanation, bc it is unprovable.

actually this is an assumption that seems to be made over and over that is wrong. I am not some homegrown christian. I became a christian in the latter part of highschool. ID at the very core says that there is something beyond us that designed things to be what they are. As for the second part..heres the thing that has been bothering meYou see a car, You know that some intelligent thing helped create the car, You would never believe it just randomly came togetherYou see an airplane and know that it just didnt randomly come together, that something created itHeck look at yoru computer...you would be laughed at if you said it just randomly came together. Yet the universe and even more so a human is far far far more complex than those 3 examples, yet it is deemed "natural selection"....do you not see a problem with this?

[Canada 0]

I didnt say it was yet...I said merely that it brings up some quesitons and answers to things that seem much more logical than just "natural selection"

I am pointing out that it is not a science. It will never be one. It is impossible for it to become one by definition of what a science is...... and you choose to use the word 'yet'It's like saying a bannana isn't a racing car... yetAnd as for more logical, hmmmm. There must be a big all powerful invisible being out there because there are some things we don't understand and can't explain yet (see thats the correct usage of the word).There is no other logical explanation ffs - it is based on faith. Faith is that which is used to maintain belief when logic dictates otherwiseIt's not interesting. It's not new. It's 'creation' was with deceitful intent. It's an old story with a new cover

[Mattnxtc 0]

evolution does make testable predictions, such as in what strata transitionals should be found, and what genetic relationships should be in modern species if they evolved through a branching evolutionary tree, among other things.

hehe i wouldnt call this science crow...Id call this people takin fossils and tryin to figure out what we should find so that we can claim evolution...science is something that can be tested....lookin at old fossils and making assumptions about what shoudl be there isnt exactly science

[Farnan 0]

Here is a good article that explains better than I the reason why ID comes up short:http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/intelligent-design.htmlHere is a quote:

The known library of DNA and protein sequences is now so huge that numerous comparisons between organisms are possible. If evolution had not already been elaborated by Darwin, we would be led to it by the more recent results of substitutions in molecular sequences. Many amino acid substitutions result in inactive mutant proteins that are not further elaborated by the organism, if it survives the mutation. On the other hand, many substitutions do not impair function and result in amino acid sequence variation of a functional protein, as in the example of the beta chain of hemoglobin above. Furthermore, in humans there are more than 100 amino acid substitutions in the 146-amino-acid beta chain of normal adult human hemoglobin that still yield a functional protein, and most carriers are unaware that they bear a hemoglobin variant. On the other hand, the substitution of only the third amino acid in the beta chain of human hemoglobin gives rise to an aberrant hemoglobin that aggregates within and produces sickling of the red cell with consequent reduced oxygen-carrying capability. This kind of trial-and-error probing involving numerous inter- and intra-species amino acid substitutions has evolution written all over it; it is very difficult to ascribe any design or anything intelligent to this process.

[Canada 0]

As for the second part..heres the thing that has been bothering meYou see a car, You know that some intelligent thing helped create the car, You would never believe it just randomly came togetherYou see an airplane and know that it just didnt randomly come together, that something created itHeck look at yoru computer...you would be laughed at if you said it just randomly came together. Yet the universe and even more so a human is far far far more complex than those 3 examples, yet it is deemed "natural selection"....do you not see a problem with this?

None what-so-ever

science is something that can be tested....lookin at old fossils and making assumptions about what shoudl be there isnt exactly science

No, but taking old fossils and making predictions about what will be found in the future based on information gathered is science. It is defining the test for the theory.And when those predictions are confirmed you have a test that passed. This has happened countless times for evolution.ID has yet to step up to the plate

[Petoria 0]

You know, I can make up analogies just as good as the next guy, but they don't get us anywhere. Tell me how random assortments dont explain our existence. Did you know that given an infinite number of trials, something that has a 1 in infinity chance of happening will happen 63% of the time?