Is Evolution really Intelligent Design?

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

are bodys cant also be in gods image( god doesn’t have a body) if not, is it posible that we could have had any kind of body? do you think god might of liked to experiment with animals? it might explain why their are different kinds of creatures at different times in are earths history. There used to be giant dinosours, that where likley wiped out by a meteorite. and then suddenly( or over a period of time) a different variety appear that are alot smaller then the dinosour breeds. what do you think?

God being perfect doesn’t need to “experiment”.

 

[JSmitty2005]

buffalo:

God being perfect doesn’t need to “experiment”.

Yes, this is very true. An all-powerful and all-knowing God does not need to experiment on anything. As humans, we experiment to expand our knowledge, but God’s knowledge is infinite! He knows what you’re thinking right now. Pretty awesome stuff!

 

[Orogeny]

Della:

Oh, I think an experiment could be set up to do that. I think that no one is interested in doing so, which is why it hasn’t been and probably won’t be done.

How would you propose to falsify ID?

So, why hasn’t anyone taken it on? Because no one wants to take the chance of being laughed at or worse, losing their position at universities and other institutions in this country.

If you falsified ID, that would put the whole ID movement to rest (until they figured out another way to get creationism into the science curriculum). Why do you think that would be considered a negative? For those who support ID, finding an experiment that would potentially falsify the “theory” would give ID grounds for demanding legitimacy. No, the reason there isn’t an experiment that could falsify ID is that ID cannot be falsified. After all, once you get to the point where no further evidence is possible, you can call in a supernatural explanation for the evidence.

People have already been ostrasized and even fired for attempting to introduce ID as a viable theory. And that’s just as a theory, mind you.

A theory is a very well supported concept in science. Supported as in lots of evidence. ID has none, therefore it doesn’t even come to the level of hypothesis at this time.

I thought science was supposed to be open to all possibilities and not married to any one idea lest it hamper proper investigation of the facts?

Would you support the concept of Zeus being the creator? How about fairies? Science isn’t a field of study where just anything is accepted. One must have some evidence before being given a chance to make one’s case. Once again, ID has no evidence.

Scientific method is all very well, but it cannot explain everything by the methods it employees. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot see evidence of ID within nature. In fact, the evidence is so clear only those who do not want to see it can’t see it.

So you are saying that to see God in creation takes faith? Hmm. How does faith fit into science?

God doesn’t just exist in some supernatural ether “somewhere”, he’s the God of the physical world just as much as the supernatural world and evidence exists for those with eyes to see everywhere we look.

Yes, God exists everywhere, but He is supernatural (isn’t subject to the laws of nature). He can do things that cannot be done in the natural world. We call them miracles. The reason they are considered miraculous is that there is no natural explanation for them.

There are theories about mutations influencing evolution that have not been proven nor even falsified but are assumed by the scientific community. Assumptions and theories are not evidence of anything, that’s my point.

Well, first off, things are not proven in science. Second, it is the ability to falsify something that is important. In fact, if it were falsified, then we would know that it was, ahem, false.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

your response is true and wise, glory to the God and God bless you. If evolution isnt true, then what mechanism do you think would replace it in similarity?

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

your response is true and wise, glory to the God and God bless you. If evolution isnt true, then what mechanism do you think would replace it in similarity?

I have no answer to that because I have no reason to think that evolution is not a fact. My point was that if some evidence was found that conflicted evolution, an explanation for that evidence would be required. That explanation would also have to explain all the current evidence supporting evolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

okay, thats cool, but isnt a scientist, or evolutionist ment to look for other scientific theorys that might compete with what we know of evolution. do you know of any links that speak of these theorys? for instance, the big bang is a populour theory but there are also other theorys that challenge this theory or at least extend the theory in to somthing else, like multiverses.

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

okay, thats cool, but isnt a scientist, or evolutionist ment to look for other scientific theorys that might compete with what we know of evolution. do you know of any links that speak of these theorys? for instance, the big bang is a populour theory but there are also other theorys that challenge this theory or at least extend the theory in to somthing else, like multiverses.

Scientists go where the data takes them. If there was data suggesting something other than evolution at work, there would be a community of scientists pursuing that subject. There is not. Evolution is considered a done deal in the biological community because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it and none opposing it.

The Big Bang and evolution are not related and, in fact, don’t even fall into the same scientific disciplines.

Peace

Tim

 

[freesoulhope]

i guess its a done deal then and there i was thinking that creationist had somthing, i have a feeling i was fooled God bless

 

[buffalo]

freesoulhope:

i guess its a done deal then and there i was thinking that creationist had somthing, i have a feeling i was fooled God bless

I don’t know if I would go that far. Keep an open mind.

 

[Orogeny]

freesoulhope:

i guess its a done deal then and there i was thinking that creationist had somthing, i have a feeling i was fooled God bless

You are free to accept creationism. The Church doesn’t have a problem with that. If your faith is made stronger by that approach then I would absolutely recommend that you accept the creationist approach. To me, this whole discussion, including the many other threads on these forums, is more academic than anything. I don’t think that either position will get us to heaven quicker than the other.

Don’t take my word regarding the science. Research the subject yourself. Just don’t look at only one side of the matter. From the scientific side, check out www.talkorigins.org. It has a bunch of articles mostly written so a non-scientist can follow them. That site also has links to many creationist sites.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I don’t know if I would go that far. Keep an open mind.

Now, buffalo. Freesoulhope has seen the light! Now it’s your turn!

Peace

Tim

 

[Ahimsa]

Evolution is God’s way of doing things.

– Fiske