The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

One has to look at the root of the ID "movement" to see their true agenda.

That agenda is that evolution promotes atheism, which promotes lawlessness and imorality in our youth. To teach kids that they are merely pond scum; a cosmic accident is to give them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc. because hey, you're just an ape with slightly less body hair so why not behave like one?

Whether this is true or not seems beside the point for creationists; what matters is that we must maintain a belief system -- even if it's based on myth -- that promotes a well-heeled, civilized nation of upstanding citizens.

Maybe they've got a point? But to me evolution is much like Gallileo's heliocentricism: it's not the most pleasant discovery to make about the universe but it's true nonetheless.

Creationists tend to get laughed off of CNN if they go on there talking about the Earth being but 6,000 years old and Adam having a pet dinosaur, etc. So some nerdy scientist from Pennsylvania says "hey, maybe there was some 'intelligence' that started everything" and the nutty creationists see it as a door; an opening to get their agenda into public schools without getting laughed at.

 

So then Gnarff shouldn't make statements such as the ones Adelth commented on, just as I am not fit to make comments about religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which I know nothing about (becuase I forgot it all ).


...Right?

 

So for Science to be self-correcting, it has to make mistakes. What you are complaining about is a mistake of science, not the results of ID.

On the basis that when religious teaching isa rejected, it's opposite is embraced. Therefore you get apathy towards your fellow man and a perceived liscence to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. Th ere's no direct evidence to say that, but there's just as much evidence that says ID leads to people becoming morons.

Religion teaches of Creation, which is the start point. Science needs to pick up from that point, as opposed to trying to re-write that start point.

First, many of us who are of religious faith choose to believe in God, who created us in his image. As long as you have people telling us that is bull**** without adequate proof (none has yet been provided), then we will insist that your theory go back to the drawing board...

So you have Genesis as your start point, and the same God that created the Heavens and the Earth would also be guiding Evolution as opposed to sheer random chance. You don't get a card house by throwing all the cards int he air, but by carefully placing them.

Actually, Aldeth corrected me on that one in a prior thread. I thought that Gravity was a law. I'll hold the Camcorder while you Gravity is only a theory folks jump out of a window...

So the objection to Intelligent design is that they don't like the idea of an Intelligent designer?

You don't build a house without Hammer and Nails. Could Evolution be the means by which the Designer affects the needed changes?

So where do the claims of Humans decended from primates? The more controversial points are what I am claiming were rushed.

Because someone else started up the ID people are stupid morons Spiel.

I know what people try to tell me about it. I tune out the religion is bull**** part.

Finally, someone that sees humanity as more than just an animal. This is perhaps the biggest concern I have--when Evolution attacks creationism, it also attacks the rest of religious teachings, ultimately leading to an attack on morals.

Why must they be labeled as religious nuts? Because they actually believe that man is more than just an animal?

You know what people tell you about these things. And when you base your opinions off things that they screw up, then you get what I see. Perhaps the better charge is that people rush to make conclusions that aren't supported by the actual research, thus spreading the things I seem to know and believe that leave Aldeth shaking his head.

The same thing has happened to Religion--people without authority to address the doctrine changing it to suit their own ends to the point where few people really have any clue what it's really about beyond the basics...

 

* me shakes me head *

I have long since given up any pretext of attempting to bring enlightenment upon the strong supporters of ID. It is an exercise in futility I think I do this more for my own personal mental health than anything else.

I cannot deny that there are scientists over the past 100 or some odd years that have erroneously jumped to conclusions about the evidence of evolution. I cannot give you specific named examples of such, because they are usually heckled by the entire scientific community, party because science demands that you don't rush major statements out the door, and party because we scientists do so ever enjoy heckling people for any reason. So their names are largely forgotten.

And any scientist that claims such is a freakin' moron. Really I mean that. Because no where does evolution state that man decended directly from any type of ape. What evolution does state is that it is likely that all primates descended from a common primate ancestor. Primates are not defined as being an ape, but rather as possessing an opposable thumb, and humans certainly have opposable thumbs, ergo we are primates.

That having been said, no one said it was a one step jump from "world's first primate" to man. To think such is total lunacy. It defies all logic. The problem is many proponents of ID think that is what evolution is saying. They find such a concept impossible to believe - which is good - because with the current understanding of evolution such a possibility IS IN FACT IMPOSSIBLE.

While a detailed language is a charactistic that is thought to be unique to humans, there are many other "human" features that are not unique to us. Modern humans are not the only species to ever exist on the planet that, for example, walked upright, used fire, or made basic wood and stone tools. Early man did all these things, but we certainly weren't the first. There were earlier versions of humans that possessed these things as well.

Gnarff, I'm going to speak in layman's terms here to try to convey my point. The current understanding of human evolution states that modern humans decended from a very human-like precursor. Consider it a "caveman" for lack of a better term. They walked upright, they hunted with wooden spears with stone tips, they cut the meat from their kills with stone axes, they used fire to keep warm, they lived in small close-knit communities in caves, and they buried their dead - just like modern humans. In many ways they were very much like us.

These caveman evolved from yet an earlier caveman, who also walked upright, knew how to use fire and make stone tools, and lived in small communities, although there is no evidence that they buried their dead.

These caveman evolved from yet an earlier precursor, and this is the first time you can look at what you have and say that it is more ape than human. They didn't make stone tools, they didn't use fire, about the only thing "human" about them was that they happened to walk upright.

So it's totally wrong to say humans evolved from apes. If you want to use the words "evolve", "modern human" and "ape" together in the same sentence, it is more proper to state that, "The precursors of the precursors of modern humans evolved from a somewhat ape-like ancenstor, and all of these species evolved ultimately from some very distant and ancient primate relative.

Why? I'm not religious, yet I feel no over-riding compunction (never mind perceived liscence) to lie, cheat, steal, screw and kill at whim. I also don't beat my wife, or use illicit drugs, or engage in any other type of societally-recognized self-destructive, violent, or otherwise taboo behavior. When you reject God, it does make you God-less and faithless, but it doesn't mean you're wallowing in the depths of every human depravity. *Aldeth presents himself to the jury as exhibit A*

I've no desire to label any IDist a moron. They're beliefs are founded in faith, whereas mine are founded in science. While that may mean it is easier to make someone who is uninitiated in any religion or evolution more readily believe evolution than religion, it doesn't mean it's better.

Gnarff, there is a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. There is more than adequate proof. Some people will not believe any proof short of God coming down from heaven and holding a news conference explaining that he didn't make all the species and they all got here from evolution. I don't see that happening for some reason.

 

Insomuch as ID is anti-science, I firmly agree that it should not be taught in science classes if there is little scientific evidence to back it up.

That said, I do not believe that in science classes the leap should be made from the existence of evolution to the assertion that there is no God. I do not see the two as mutually exclulsive, though the way evolution is sometimes presented it seems they are.

There are many people, excellent scientists, who have found it possible to reconcile cold scientific fact and a belief in the Almighty.

 

Never heard of the term before. Is that the latest buzzword for 'Creationism'?

Actually, reading more of these posts, I guess it is.

Man, you guys really get heated up about this, don't you? Why is evolution (of all the many scientific theories) such a big deal for you? Why not argue about gravity, or electricity, or the law of thermodynamics instead? Why evolution (or lack thereof?

 

here's more fuel for the fire...

 

Agreed. Doing what you describe would be so hypocritical (of the scientists I mean).

I gotta move to New Zealand. That's exactly my point, and I don't know the answer HB. Evolution is just as firmly rooted in science as many of these other "theories" you describe.

 

Good thinking. I have never come across such heated debate on evolution ever arising here. At least not enough to ever actually make the newspapers.

 

Ok, evolution and religion, or at least Christianity, are not mutually exclusive. I've said this before, but if anyone wants me to clarify, just ask.
That said, ID and evolution are both attempts to explain observed phenomena. Evolution has some very large holes in it that they are still trying to fill, this is why no one talks about the 'law of evolution', though many would like to. ID looks at the same phenomena and sees a patern that they cannot explain through natural laws or trends. Their explanation of this is that an inteligent mind could have caused such patterns.
I think they should be presented side-by-side in high school.
These theories are mutually exclusive, but the teaching thereof is not.

 

To be perfectly honest, now that I think about it, I don't remember learning about either evolution OR god-created-everything when I was at school. Maybe my school was completely deficient in that respect.

At what age level are you guys debating this seemingly hot topic? Are we talking about 6 year olds or 16 year olds?

 

Most people talk about this in high school, but there are a few waccos on both sides that want to indoctrinate kids as early as kindergarten.
Blackthorne:
??? Theories are regarded as true? In what fields? Since when? I can think of lots of theories many scientists will tell you are almost certainly false, most notably String Theory. The only thing that makes these things still theories is the fact that we can't prove they are false.

 

Complete agreement. I am an extreme atheist, and I have done none of these immoral acts.

I don't see any atheists acting like apes. Teaching people that they "are merely pond scum" in no way, shape, or form, "give them a license to steal, rape, murder, etc." Atheism is not lawlessness, it lack of faith, and in most cases, reason. Just because religions are moral doesn't mean the lack of religion is immoral.


So basically, I am with Adelth on this one.

 

AFI: BUt couldn't many of those changes in the "Caveman" be the result of generations of learning as opposed to Genetic change? What I am asking is that it be considered possible that "homo sapiens" be accepted as part of a start point that was "created" by God. From there, evolution would make certain adjustmens, such as different skin colours, different breeds of animals and the like. As long as people seek to use evolution (I'm guessing you believe wrongfully) to discredit my faith, then no progress can be made.

So then the problem must be inadequate knowledge. As long as people keep trying to tell me that Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive, guess which one is getting rejected...

You and Saber (actually, most of the people here at SP) seem to be more intelligent than the mass rabble. The problem is that most people aren't that smart. Further, it's badly off topic, but I believe that morality is taught. Some how you two have learned that these things that you don't do are wrong. But many people don't reach that conclusion.

Is it possible that ID sprung forth from the misconceptions about Evolution? Apparently many people have tried to claim that Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive--which has been established in this thread to be incorrect. Could the Rush of support for ID be the result the more offensive of these inaccuracies?