The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

@Gnarf
What do you think ID entails?

The theory of evolution tries to identify and define the natural manner/processes in which species are generated and evolve. There is no mention of God in here since God by definition is a supernatural being.
What does ID try to do? What are its definition, idea & goals? And please just don't link a site, I'd like to know what your understanding of the subject is.

 

First of all, I completely agree with BTA's explanation regarding scientific laws and theories. What NOG is explaining could more accurately by thought of as a "hypothesis", which is not assumed to be factual until it undergoes some pretty strict testing.

The problem that lies therein is that many of these "cavemen" that I described are not considered homo sapiens, because while the way these "cavemen" brains worked may have been pretty darn similar to ours, there are some pretty big physiological (and especially morphological) differences. I didn't want to get into the scientific names of them, but the two "human-like" ones are Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Note that the "Homo" part identifies them as hominids, indicating that they are pretty much humans, and not ape-like at all. If you go to the third group I listed, they are called (and I'm probably going to completely butcher the spelling) Austrapolopithicus afarensis. Note here that the first word is NOT Homo. This suggests that scientists regard these creatures as more ape than man.

While I agree with the statement, I do believe this would be a wrongful use of evolution. I do not see how evolution discredits your faith unless you read the Bible as a completely literal telling of the facts. I have said before that the tales in the Bible probably have a kernel of truth to them, but they had to be "dumbed down" so the average uneducated peasant could understand them. Throughout the vast majority of human history, 99% of the populace was uneducated, so you couldn't expect them to grasp detailed concepts. The Bible had to be presented in such a way that these simple people (and I don't mean for that to be construed as an insult) could understand it.

Sadly, I must also agree with this. I also will agree that morality is learned. We just aren't natuarally born as moral people. While I do not doubt that society should have some role in developing people's morality, I do not believe that teaching ID is a means to that end.

While I do not think that is the sole explanation, I think that definitely constitutes a good chunk of the problem. While people of the U.S. today are far more educated that the peasants of the past, most of them didn't take a whole lot of science classes in high school (beyond basic requirements), unless they intended to pursue some scientific discipline in life. The frustration from people in the evolution corner is if we actually do teach evolution as part of basic science, it's a concept many people would understand, or at least they would come away from it with something more than the false statement of "man evolved from apes".

EDIT: spelling and grammar

[ December 09, 2005, 17:46: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

As a non-religious atheist who accepts the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation we've come up with the origin of life, I can't understand how a religious theist -- especially a Christian -- could combine both evolution and their faith.

If God created life to evolve, then what a malevolent creature He must be! Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, eat-or-be-eaten, plague, draught, suffering, pain, etc. Perhaps those of us living in the developed world have gotten a bit too sheltered, but for many humans and essentially all other life forms on Earth, life is a constant, daily struggle to survive. What sort of sick god would create such a place and sit back and watch the last billion years of death and destruction?

Finally -- and most importantly -- if a Christian believes that humans evolved from some primate 7 million years ago that climbed down from a tree, what was Jesus' purpose for dying on the cross? Why do we live in such a world of suffering? What was the point of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross if not to save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve? If Adam and Eve didn't exist or were merely some sort of metaphor or symbolism, then Jesus died for no reason!

So it seems to me that to be a Christian one MUST be a strict Biblical literalist and creationist. To believe in both a Creator and evolution one must believe in a malevolent creator. If I had to pick a religion, perhaps I'd pick Gnostism, a form of Christianity that sees the Creator as a sort of mad scientist who tossed us into this world to torture us or perhaps some sort of atheistic Buddhist who simply accepts that Life Is Suffering and leave it at that.

And don't give me that "God wants us to learn through struggle" crap. That's as bad as a parent who tosses their child into a shark-infested pool and says "okay son, learn to swim!... and fast!"

 

Yes, Sir Fink, I agree with you. I also don't see how you can believe in the bible and evolution, and your points are valid arguments.

Of course, a lot of Christians don't interpret the bible literally, and instead take the values of the lessons that are taught in them. In such cases, they could believe in all of the morals of the bible, but not in genesis, or something.


EDIT: But, considering this topic is about ID, I suggest you move your argument to a new thread about the coexistence of evolution and religion.

 

And the current perception of Evolution is people trying to use science to tell us religious throwbacks that our faith is bull**** because our stories of creation is false. Maybe if the name calling on both sides were to subside, No real understanding can be made.

Unfortunately, even though Evolution makes no claim of a biogenesis, some people claiming to support evolution will claim it contradicts religion's account, then that percetption will remain. Further, If I'm not mistaken, Man was formed from the dust and woman formed from a rib from man. If evolution's supporters will not accept that as a start point, then such disagreements will flourish.

If Science will refrain from attacking or contradicting religion then that would be okay. You said earlier that Evolution makes no claim to Biogenesis? Make sure that's taught, and ID would lose steam.

Glad you asked. First off, Intelligent design must imply an intelligent designer. This designer (being carefull not to use the word God so as not to make the scientists plug your ears and scream that they aren't listening), engineered the initial creation, then continues to guide the process of evolution. It contradicts the evolutionary claims of a biogenesis, which people here claim doesn't exist but I continue to hear, and reconciles the observations of Darwin and researchers since then with this explanation of Creaton. I regard the adaptation of anti-biotic resistant germs as evidence of an intelligent designer, rather than random chance. Even the human immune system shows this intelligence.

Could these primitive primates have been animals that more closely resembled humans, but were not durable enough to survive the rigors of thousanda of years ago and dies out?

I prefer simplified. The idea is that "okay the questions of how did we get here and how did the earth and all that's here got her are answered. Now let's get to the important stuff, how to live." That worked for thousands of years, but when we started to get time to think about these things. Then people trying to come up with answers and specifically avoid God came to conclusions that contradict God. What parts of Evolution could be wrong if God does exist?

Actually this was a tangent that Ichor and I got off on. Basically I likened him blaming the resistances in pests and bacteria on ID to people blaming societies ills on leaving religion out of the classroom. Here in AoDA, I don't get that claim, so I wasn't going to give him his claim.

And as long as both sides are left with their varied misconceptions of the other position, this dispute won't go away, and you're left shaking your head...

Adam and Eve were originally placed in a paradisical Garden. When Adam and Eve transgressed, they were cast out, and they became subject to physical death. Death was needed so that our souls could progress.

Actually, I reject the part of Evolution. I have outlined where humans were created as part of that start point. Jesus dying on the cross was so that we may be saved from our sins. That part is way off topic.

Two things:

First, Adam and Eve did exist. Evolution kicks in After they left the Garden of Eden.

Second, we are accountable for our own sins, and there are more than enough of them that we need to be redeemed from...

 

So ID believes that there is a definate starting point to human life, which by your Adam & Eve statement would mean to be the rise of Homo sapiens sapiens. And accordingly all the species starting from Ardipithecus ramidus to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis are some different creature and not possibly the forebearers of mankind.
And this is also true for all manners of vegetation and animal species currently found on Earth.


EDIT:

Perhaps we are decendents of aliens

 

He was a metaphor. A classic cultural hero like Prometheus.

There was no Adam and Eve. The Book of Genesis is all metaphor (all the books of Moses are).

Statement like those are OPINION and do not belong in a science classroom. Just like Biblical studies do not belong in school (whether creationism or ID). Evolution is an process, not an explanation.

 

I've read somewhere that the name Adam is very close to the Hebrew word "man", and Eve "woman." Why could they not be referring to groups of people instead of individuals? The Old Testament is riddled with holes as to who married whom - who did Cain and Abel have children with? Their sisters, who weren't even mentioned? Isn't the whole thing inbred, if there were only two people to start with?

Couldn't Adam and Eve have been of some previous type of hominid? To me it seems the only way the whole thing can make sense is if it was symbolic, dumbed down or something like that. Hasn't it been proven that the earth and the life on it are older than the Bible says? Why cling to creationism and take it literally, especially since the translations used today are quite different from the Hebrew ones?

 

@ Gnarfflinger: Well sorry to inform you, that I haven't blamed multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria on ID, or people supporting it. People's ignorance is the biggest problem. People sprayed DDT everywhere even when the debate over ID vs. evolution theory was so heated as it is today.

The problem is that the discussion is made as a discussion over morals. (Sorry about trying to make the title short and catchy.) I know I'm walking a thin line over here, but what I'm trying to say is that the possible consequences are more grave if the theory of evolution is abandoned outright. The problems with those resistances have come about because of people's weak understanding of the mechanics of evolution.

The decisions to use pesticides, antibiotics and whatnot are most usually decisions that are done by people who are not scientists. Although the green revolution did improve crop yields, there was little consideration on longer time-span effects on ecology, biodiversity and the rising of multiple resistant strains, which the evolution theory predicts.

Now how much more would the basic principles of evolution be ignored, if the theory of evolution is said or understood to be wrong?

To most of people, 'not accurate enough' and 'totally wrong, simply not true' is the same thing. This is why I'm worried about teaching ID in schools. By making the debate 'ID vs. Evolution: Which one is The Truth' and a very public debate about it, there's too big a chance there will large misconceptions about the whole subject.

When the discussion has gone past the point of rational argumentation into throwing insults and making fistfights about it I fear little hope for proper understanding to arise.

 

I remember this movie; Inherit the Wind, based on a real-life case in 1925 called the Monkey Trial, about a school teacher who dared to teach Darwinian theory in his classroom.
I see that sometimes religion behaves like a sect, I mean, is always "this is white and if you say green, you are the devil". I know I may be getting out of topic here but I can't understand why some people are so closed to other ideas or think that everything is 'spiritual'. I know that everybody has freedom to think/believe in whatever they want, so hey, don't discredit what everybody else think/believe.

 

In most cases, yes. But when a persons beliefs/way of thinking is endangering other people, causing unnecessary suffering and making the world a miserable place to live, I definitely don't agree.

The right or wrong of some action is measured by the consequences and the intentions. Ends do not justify the means, if the means are in contradiction with what is sought after.

If one does mean to lessen the suffering of fellow human beings, then the action should be in accordance with this intention. If the goal is met, then one has done good. If one fails, then one reason for this might be that one has not been aware of all the details required to perform the deed properly.

To ignore valid information which helps to do good, or to encourage people to ignore this information, is foolish and little good can come out of it. Only those too much in love with great tragedy might consciously want to do such a thing.

 

A: How do you propose to identify someone's way of thinking?
B: How do you propose to alter it?

 

Inherit the Wind was not a factual account of the Scopes trial. Too bad really, because the people involved were far more complex and interesting than the movie portrayed.

 

Well, the first distinction that needs to be made is whether or not we are talking about evolution in general, or human evolution in specific. The term evolution does not directly contradict Genesis, as evolution does nothing to answer how the earth was formed, or how life originally started. Evolution starts when we alrady have the earth inhabited by life, and the survival of that life is dependent upon passing down genes to subsequent generations.

However, human evolution does contradict the explicit story of Genesis as it regards the creation of the human species. While I agree that scientists should not attack religion, hoping that they would stop contradicting religion is something that won't happen. If you believe in human evolution, then you cannot simultaneously believe a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

As an aside - to answer a previous question - there was no inbreeding. God provided additional wives for both Cain and Abel. I don't recall the names, but Gnarff would be the better person to ask on this topic.

Wow, that's not a question that has a simple answer, but I'll do my best to be concise. First, I don't know if we want to call them animals. The line between when they were still too ape-like to be human, and when they were human, is generally associated with some advanced tool building. Yes, monkeys will use a rock to break open nuts, or use a twig to get ants out of a hole, but they didn't spend hours sharpening spears for hunting or making stone axes for cutting meat. Other scientists place the dawn of humans with the ability to make fire, as all other known animals have a natural aversion to it. Regardless of which one you pick, the line between animal and human occurs before the split between modern humans and our immediate predecessors.

As to why these more primitive species died out, that is something we don't know for sure, although we seem to have narrowed it down to a few possibilities. If we're talking about modern humans and neanderthals (which incidently are now thought to NOT be modern human anscestors, but rather more like cousins) it appears that neanderthal decline coincided with modern human expansion. Where ever modern human remains appear, neanderthal remains disappear shortly thereafter. Now, the mechanism is unclear. It could be that modern humans, who used slings, bow and arrow and throwing spears were better hunters than neanderthals who didn't make any of those items. The neanderthal method of killing was much more up close and personal, and usually involved a spear thrust. So it may be that they died out due to being less-efficient hunters. Conversely, modern humans may have used their advanced weaponry to actively kill off their neanderthal neighbors.

In almost every instance of human evolution it appears that a more advanced group replaced a pre-existing one. It wasn't that neanderthals weren't durable enough to handle their environment - quite conversely neanderthals thrived for a quarter of a million years, and lived through two complete ice ages in Europe. They were the best hunters and at the top of the food chain until modern humans showed up. It was not a case of them not being well adapted, but a new species (or race if you prefer) showing up that could do everything they did, and do it better.

 

Alright, a persons actions can be judged good or bad and thoughts cannot, if they do not lead to any actions. However some way of thinking, or some views of the world have a tendency to incite actions. Lack of knowledge is not a way of thinking, and it can lead to some pretty devastating results. If a way of thinking consists of hubris and embracing ignorance it can be very dangerous. Ignorance can be corrected by teaching and diligent research.

 

Perhaps, but since many ignorant people are too lazy to try and learn, we end up with stupid people who choose to act on their knowledge instead of learning more, and then acting.

 

And because there is so many muddleheaded people, public education should not be neglected. Nor should be the teached knowledge be erroneus or misguiding, but such that it helps to alleviate the woes of the world and make it a better place. Illusions and falsehoods may be entertaining and take our thoughts to better places where anything might be possible, but if we fail to see the laws that bind our world and not that of stories and fail to see the consequences of our actions, we'll find ourselves from deeper pits of misery than ever before.

Accurate knowledge of the world brings humility and wisdom, yet there will ever be people who even with large amounts of knowledge fail to be humble or wise. But in larger amounts those with little knowledge are gullible and fall easily as prey for the wicked and those with desires in excess. They trust in their hierarchies and their authorities and fail to question their leaders when they are led to the slaughter.

 

Then any attempt to use Evolution as an explanation must be inaccurate.

I see that more as a rather short sighted mistake made by people who take the word of people who should know better. The people who make the antibiotics and pesticides should know that what they want to kill will ultimately adapt, rendering their product less effective, but either keep quiet about that in the interest of profit or otherwise neglect this for a quick fix. Don't lay that at the feet of the common people, but those that they listen too...

Then who is closing their mind to middle ground?

So if evolution contradicts the account given in Genesis of the creation of humans then we're back where we start from--with people touting science to tel me that my religion is crap and that I am simply a throwback. It's insults like that that keep generating steam for ID, and until that is fixed, and proper middle ground is found, this controversy will not die.

Human evolution is EXACTLY the part I am rejecting. As long as that specifically is included in teaching evolution, you will have people trying desparately to get research grants to try to contradict this research.

So if they weren't human and they weren't animals, then what the hell were they?

That is evident throughout human history too. The Egytians took the Israelites into bondage because the Egyptians were better at farming and storing food while the Israelites were starving. How many conquerors thrived by new weapons or tactics that caught less learned tribes and nations unaware? WWII ended when the Americans developed the Atomic Bomb...

So the people who preach evolution and get really arrogant about it really don't know what they are talking about?

But when they do question something, the people thay ask tend to discredit them and tell them that they should get with the program.

 

There really is not and can not be any middle ground since the one side believes in the fact and the other side believes in the truth. With those starting points it's a bit a difficult to compromise since a compromise would be a fiction and a lie.

On a personal level I think ID is just complete BS, it has nothing scientific to stand on compared to the theory of evolution. It's a hypothesis which exists only to point out flaws in the theory of evolution. That's not the way science is done and therefore it can't be taught as science. There is no theory, there is no evidence. This has however been pointed out by others so it's pretty much useless for me to repeat their words.