Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Any evidence can be interpreted to support creationism, as you well know, ros.

Im not going to provide you any further fodder (simply because eg, my honest appraisal of limted fossil records of bats, that I once presented in a response to ros, was subsequently used by you as some kind of twisted evidence for Creationism.

Great discussion, everyone! I am surprised and pleased that the essay I quoted yesterday has generated so many responses.

Don't misunderstand, or misstate my post, Chumly.

Specifically, I said there is no evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

I do not claim that evolutionists have no evidence.

I simply point out that the same evidence can also be interpreted as being consistent with creation as well.

Kessinger admitted as much in his article, and a good many evolutionists understand this also, though it makes them uncomfortable.

Creationism: A step backwards
(Taylor Kessinger, Arizona Daily Wildcat, February 2, 2007)

The controversy between creation and evolution continues to grow in this country. But is this simply an argument, or does it have more severe consequences?

To believe God created the world, in whatever manner He chose, demands just one thing: faith. But to be a creationist - that is, to believe that scientific evidence suggests a recent creation of the world in six Earth days - demands another thing entirely.

What is the difference? The former is a religious belief that demands respect like any other. The other is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.

The creationist effort is spearheaded by two groups: victimized, misguided citizens and politicians who have been fed faulty information, and phony "scientists" who present their equally phony arguments in opposition to the "theory of evolution," a catch-all category that includes accepted scientific principles like common descent, abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory.

The issue is closer to home than you think. Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas have both announced their intentions for the presidency, and like good old John McCain, they support the teaching of "alternate theories of origin" in science classes.

If school boards in Ohio, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are any indicator, the so-called "creation-evolution controversy" will be in your backyard soon - provided that it's not already.

Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence or, worse yet, of science itself. Ask any UA scientist and they'll tell you the same.

To circumvent this, creationists are fond of misrepresenting science and using cheap debate tactics. They know that their claims take much longer to refute than they do to set forth, which makes it appear as though they have a legitimate basis.

Here's an experiment you can perform yourself: Read aloud the common creationist claim that "there is no direct evidence for the Big Bang." Then, go and look up the words "cosmic background radiation" in the search engine of your choice.

Which one was easier and took less time? Which one is correct? Notice these two questions don't have the same answer.

The simple truth is that scientific theories adhere to principles such as testability, falsifiability, parsimony and naturalism. That last one is the most important: It's what prevents scientists from invoking magic, gremlins or God as explanations for physical phenomena. Creationism has none of these principles. There shouldn't even be a controversy; science clearly wins on its own grounds.

But creationism isn't just factually incorrect and mischievously dishonest. It's a direct detriment to our country's progress. That anyone can graduate from an American high school or university while still clinging to creationism suggests that students lack the critical thinking and research skills they need - not to mention the understanding of basic scientific concepts.

If the value in a good scientific education isn't self-evident, consider this. What does our scientific ignorance say about America's continued status as the most technologically advanced nation in the world? According to a 2006 Gallup poll, roughly 46 percent of Americans accept strict creationism. Compare this to other Western countries, where the figure is in the single digits.

It's nothing short of embarrassing.

Perhaps worse yet, creationism is an assault on faith itself. Theologians have long recognized, as Martin Luther did, the importance of faith, not evidence, as the guiding force behind belief - a sentiment that has been echoed in recent times by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican, among others.

The time is nigh to take action. Courts all over the country need to keep up their strict, no-tolerance policies regarding creationism and its lightweight cousin, intelligent design, in classrooms. Intelligent Americans have the same duty to be informed about science as they do about politics or history, and UA students in particular should take advantage of the many available origins-oriented science courses as a means to that end.

And know that, should you choose to believe in God, your choice should be informed by faith and personal commitment - not by lies and faulty arguments.

Either way, don't be deceived by the crimes of creationism.

The interpretations of the evolutionary side are not as conclusive as they would like everyone to believe, i.e. there is no 'smoking gun' , not even close.

Those who want to refer to evolution as a 'fact' are far overreaching the bounds of what science will support, and a few honest ones admit that their conception of science includes the unproved and unprovable assumption that all things must have a natural cause.

But as several of the surveys of scientists that constantly get posted (and then often misconstrued) on these threads indicate, there are about 40-45% of scientists who believe that natural causes alone are insufficient to explain the variety of life we have here on Earth.

Most of these are not creationists, and I have never said they were. Most of them are theistic evolutionists, a type of IDer.

But still their position is not in agreement with the hypernaturalism that is often put forth here as the only valid scientific foundation.

Those attacking intelligent design are attacking the core Christian revelation and the only valid Biblical interpretation on which it rests and are thus attacking the very foundations of our culture……

Those attacking intelligent design are attacking the core Christian revelation and the only valid Biblical interpretation on which it rests and are thus attacking the very foundations of our culture……

RL, you have somehow erroneously surmised that Im in London. Not this year at all. Mayeb you were reading something spendi wrote.
I aw "Planet of the Apes" last evening . It was on the TMC betwork. I never realized how that movie could be a stand-in for this thread. Even though the poobah apes publically denied evolution, they knew the secret of human kind and ape-hood.

Hi-ya Chum-

What time is it there?

Are you on a bender?