Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...
*YAWN* People who say that are usually unwilling to accept any evidence. What is proof? What would be sufficient? Everytime new evidence is added the IDers and creationists just ask for more. What's would be enough? I'm tired.
Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...
Evolution has mountains of evidence, intelligent design does not.
Really?
Interesting that men who as a group are united in their conviction that religious beliefs are primitive should find themselves suggesting theories that include aliens, special universes in which natural law does not apply, multiple dimensions and imaginary particles, based on an eerie mix of technical sophistication and philosophical incompetence. Take the paper by distinguished cosmologists Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger, that posits that there may be myriad universes with every possible combination and permutation of natural law, yet their essay includes the very existence of [the Landscape] is based on an assumed set of laws which all universes have in common.
Journal of Cosmology
Of course you know evolution is a lie, right?If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.
Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools
Have to laugh to stop from crying as the anti-science wing of the GOP hands four more years to Obama.
Who created the creator?
Who created the creator?
Evolution "began" after life "began". Evolution says nothing about how life "began".
People who argue against evolution generally seem to look at it as "Evolution" being some overall term that includes all biology. It's not.
Evolution is a theory of how life on this planet changed over time. It's not about how life began, or anything else.
If one runs with just evolution and disavows intelligent design,the the big bang is the start of said evolution there for evolution and the beginning of life are inclusive of each other and can't be separated.
They certainly can be separated - they are separate fields of study.
The only "connection" between them is that they both go against "intelligent design".
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science .It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw& holes as sound parts.Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.
Evolution is as much a theory as intelligent design, NEITHER has been scientifically proven...
*YAWN* People who say that are usually unwilling to accept any evidence. What is proof? What would be sufficient? Everytime new evidence is added the IDers and creationists just ask for more. What's would be enough? I'm tired.
Who created the creator?
Where did the "big bang" come from?
If one runs with just evolution and disavows intelligent design,the the big bang is the start of said evolution there for evolution and the beginning of life are inclusive of each other and can't be separated.
They certainly can be separated - they are separate fields of study.
The only "connection" between them is that they both go against "intelligent design".
Sure we study them separately,but if not for the big bang nothing would be right? intelligent design aside.
Nothing?? really?? isn't the very base of the idea??
Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.
The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.
can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.
Now, however, science has evolution on the retreat. For example:
* A single cell, which Darwin thought "simple," is encoded with information that would fill thousands of books, and is far too complex to have formed by chance.
* In his book Darwin's Black Box, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe demonstrates that certain biochemical systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they consist of interdependent parts that cannot function in lesser stages, and thus cannot have evolved step-by-step.
* In Not by Chance, Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory at Johns Hopkins University, documents that random mutations--evolution's alleged building blocks--cause losses of genetic information, not gains.
* In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton shows that, on a cellular level, there is no evidence for the proclaimed evolutionary sequence "fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal."
As the new data has emerged, evolutionists have fought to prevent classrooms from openly discussing the weaknesses in Darwin's theory. Freedom of speech has been suppressed in academia, and educators persecuted for daring to address intelligent design (ID). It was this trend that prompted the documentary Expelled.
Nope. You're confusing evolution with cosmology and the Big Bang, which is a completely different subject.
The origin of life also has nothing to do with evolution, another common confusion.
can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.
If you want to say there's ID in the Big Bang when all physical laws were established, fine. From there, however, it was all evolution, first stellar, then planetary and finally life. There's no need and no evidence of ID. It all happened at the BB, if you're a theist.
Funny thing about evolution is you have to believe...
Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?
Thus we come to the crucial question: Is intelligent design a scientific theory? If by intelligent design, one means the Biblical account of God's creation of the world in six days, the answer is clearly no. Science is based on empirical observation rather than acceptance of divinely revealed truth.
However, most versions of intelligent design offered as alternatives to Darwinian evolution do not insist on the literal truth of the book of Genesis. Rather, they contend that gaps in evolutionary theory can only be plugged by the assumption that an intelligent agent has guided the development of life on Earth.
Some proponents of intelligent design do raise real objections to current understandings of Darwinian evolution. Based on my own reading of the intelligent design literature, it appears that its two strongest arguments point to the general absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record, and to unanswered questions about how certain new, complex patterns of animal bodies could have arisen through random mutation and natural selection.
Nonetheless, for two reasons, it appears that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
The First Reason Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Theory: Conflating Uncertainty with Error
First, insofar as it offers itself as a critique of standard Darwinian evolution, intelligent design cherry-picks uncertainties at the edge of our knowledge, and asserts that these undermine our core understandings. But the fact that some phenomena remain unexplained by natural selection hardly shows that natural selection--which provides a powerful organizing principle for vast swaths of biological data--will not eventually provide the best account of these phenomena.
Consider an analogy. Our best current understanding of gravity remains mysterious because the most ambitious efforts to unify gravity with other forces in the universe--comprising so-called superstring theories or M-theory--have not been empirically tested. Yet that hardly calls into question the principal analytical tools of modern physics.
If the intelligent designers were to apply the same criticisms to physics that they apply to evolution, they would have to say that gravity, too, is "just a theory." However, the fact of Darwinian evolution is as real as the fact of gravity. To be sure, our understanding of each phenomenon is incomplete, but the scientific approach to plugging gaps in our knowledge is not to create a new-anti-theory that dismisses the underlying phenomenon.
The Second Reason Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Theory: It Isn't an Explanation
The second problem with intelligent design is even more fundamental: It does not actually explain anything.
Darwinian evolution by natural selection posits a mechanism that explains how species change over time: As environmental conditions change, individual members of a species with traits suited to the new environment survive and reproduce in greater numbers than those lacking the traits. And so, over time, and aided by randomly occurring occasionally adaptive mutations, the species evolves to adapt to the new conditions.
By contrast, what does it mean to say that species arise or change through "intelligent design?" Certainly the term connotes intervention by some intelligent agent. But are the intelligent agent's interventions themselves subject to the laws of the natural world, or are they supernatural?
Even if one is prepared to accept the possibility that science could, without sacrificing its essential premises, include accounts of supernatural phenomena, the concept of "intelligent design," standing alone, is simply a label, not an account.
To press the physics analogy, in classical mechanics, Newton's law of gravity--according to which the attraction between two bodies increases in proportion to the product of their masses and decreases in proportion to the square of their distance--was for many years viewed as problematic, because it described action at a distance. Scientists wondered: How did distant celestial bodies transmit their masses and positions to one another across space, such that they moved instantaneously in reaction?
To a substantial extent, Einstein's theory of general relativity solved the action-at-a-distance puzzle, but suppose that prior to Einstein someone had proposed that gravity worked through the operation of an "intelligent agent." It would have been a perfectly valid objection to this proposal that it isn't an explanation at all, but merely a restatement of the problem. For now, we must ask how the intelligent agent accomplishes action at a distance.
In both biology and physics, in other words, supernatural phenomena may be conceivable. But for an account of such phenomena to qualify as science, it must do more than simply posit an intervention from outside the ordinary natural order. It must also explain how the intervening agent interacts with the natural world. Otherwise, it is simply an article of faith rather than a scientific explanation.
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Why It's Unconstitutional to Teach "Intelligent Design" in the Public Schools, as an Alternative to Evolution
If the Education Board of Ohio does not include intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be denied a first-rate science education.
can't separate the two, as the two build on each other.
If you want to say there's ID in the Big Bang when all physical laws were established, fine. From there, however, it was all evolution, first stellar, then planetary and finally life. There's no need and no evidence of ID. It all happened at the BB, if you're a theist.
But that alone IS intelligent design if one would want to argue.
Who created the creator?
The Bible addresses this, read it.
Now, however, science has evolution on the retreat. For example:
* A single cell, which Darwin thought "simple," is encoded with information that would fill thousands of books, and is far too complex to have formed by chance.
* In his book Darwin's Black Box, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe demonstrates that certain biochemical systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, are "irreducibly complex"--that is, they consist of interdependent parts that cannot function in lesser stages, and thus cannot have evolved step-by-step.
* In Not by Chance, Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory at Johns Hopkins University, documents that random mutations--evolution's alleged building blocks--cause losses of genetic information, not gains.
* In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton shows that, on a cellular level, there is no evidence for the proclaimed evolutionary sequence "fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal."
As the new data has emerged, evolutionists have fought to prevent classrooms from openly discussing the weaknesses in Darwin's theory. Freedom of speech has been suppressed in academia, and educators persecuted for daring to address intelligent design (ID). It was this trend that prompted the documentary Expelled.
Allow intelligence! Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed makes an intelligent case for pursuing the scientific evidence wherever it may lead—including even intelligent design | New American, The | Find Articles
Once again, Santorum and those who support him are ignorant of, or in contempt of, the Constitution and its case law. The Supreme Court has determined ID religion, to teach it in public schools is un-Constitutional. See: Edwards v. Aguillard
Who created the creator?
