Old Earth? Young Earth? Secularist?

[Mordecai]

Apparently, 40% of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Another 38% say that humans evolved from simpler creatures but God guided that evolution. Sixteen percent say God had no part in the process. I don't see this as the best poll, considering the wording. But it's interesting: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

With all the progress Intelligent Design has made, we only see a slight increase in the number of people who believe God guided evolution. Perhaps ID is responsible in part also for the decline in the number of creationists. But the percentage of people who do not believe God had any part in forming humans is up a little.

Personally, I'm curious how people on this board believe and how that has been influenced by ID. The poll above, of course, is not for Gallup.

[BCSpace]

Apparently, 40% of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Another 38% say that humans evolved from simpler creatures but God guided that evolution.

So 78% believe that God is the Creator. That's still a decent number considering the full-scale assault on religion in general.

With all the progress Intelligent Design has made,

The Intelligent Design I am familiar with is just glossed over Creationism. That is the ID I had in mind when I voted. I personally accept that God used full-blown evolution to create homo sapiens and I do not consider it to be any form of ID.

[nicolasconnault]

The first question should include more choices, such as "I don't know exactly how God created humans, and I don't really care" and "I don't have enough scriptural information to select any of the other choices".

[thesometimesaint]

I have no problem with God using Evolution in the Creation of everything.

[Bunk]

On Sunday night I saw a replay of a Stone Philips interview with Jeffrey Dahmer where he says his father gave him creationist literature in prison, and this helped him reject the lies of evolution and accept Jesus Christ as the true creator and Savior. What's the best piece of intelligent design reading I could give to a serial killer?

[Mordecai]

The Intelligent Design I am familiar with is just glossed over Creationism.

Interestingly, in the poll, a couple of people voted that ID helped convince them of gradualism instead of creationism. I can tell you personally, being familiar with creationism and ID, that you must have a very poor understanding of ID if you think it's glossed over creationism.

[thesometimesaint]

True, ID is just gussied up creationism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

On Sunday night I saw a replay of a Stone Philips interview with Jeffrey Dahmer where he says his father gave him creationist literature in prison, and this helped him reject the lies of evolution and accept Jesus Christ as the true creator and Savior. What's the best piece of intelligent design reading I could give to a serial killer?

Ha, funny thing, I watched that too. I haven't read any ID literature and I'm not sure I'd choose that, above all things, to recommend.

[Lightbearer]

As for the age of the earth, it is much older than 7,000 years, however I do not believe that death has always been on this earth until after the fall of Adam. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God the Father and he did not evolve from lower mortal forms of life... How it was done I do not fully comprehend and neither does any other human unless it was revealed to them from God. I hold with the statement in D&C 77 about the earths 7,000 years of temporal (mortal) existence. I also believe the earth was organized from much older elements than this. As for ID I have not studied it and while I suppose I may defy classification, since I do not believe in Creation ex nilo or in Organic Evolutionary theory, I guess one my say that I believe this earth was created or more correctly organized as a Terrestrial (no death) creation and thus the laws of this Telestial world does not apply to it's formation and thus I think it is not possible for science to use the tools at it's disposal to give an accurate or rational explanation as to how it was done. One thing I am certain of and that is Adam fell and that is what brought about death and sin and the beginning of this mortal existence and that because of the atonement of Christ all mankind and all things will be resurrected. I do not look upon man as a mere brute creation, an inferior being, instead I look upon him as a child of God, made in His image and likeness, just as much as I am in the likeness and image of my mortal father. I will not debate those who espouse Darwin's theories, for me this theory debases man and makes a mock of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. To me it denies the divinity of Christ and makes the Gospel into a fairytale or a myth... this I cannot accept and thus if I must choose between the two I will choose the restored Gospel every time, to me the idea of cavemen evolving over millions of years and God grabbing one of them and putting Adam's spirit into him seems to be a fantasy. If this offends my "scientific" brethren, then so be it... they can just mock me and call me an ignorant fool if they like... I need not bow to the altars of scientific theory to accept scientific advances and technological advances... it is offensive and ridiculous to accuse me of not being "true to science" especially since "science" is always evolving, the "laws of nature" are always being undated or at least I should say mans understanding or wisdom regarding those laws are.

[Mordecai]

These people that claim ID is essentially creationism are also claiming I'm a liar, but every claim I make about ID I get from the top ID advocates, and I can prove it. Perhaps one of them will have a fit again and leave the thread, calling me a liar.

ID, for example, gets peer-reviewed: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/reading_your_typical_darwin_bo042461.html#more

Of course, both Signature in the Cell and Edge of Evolution were peer-reviewed and continue to be scrutinized by the scientific community. Both have held up well, IMO.

[BCSpace]

The Intelligent Design I am familiar with is just glossed over Creationism.

Interestingly, in the poll, a couple of people voted that ID helped convince them of gradualism instead of creationism. I can tell you personally, being familiar with creationism and ID, that you must have a very poor understanding of ID if you think it's glossed over creationism.

Most people who know anything at all about the issue know that they are one and the same. For a primer, see here:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] Its leading proponents

[Mordecai]

Most people who know anything at all about the issue know that they are one and the same. For a primer, see here

Wow, you're arrogant and condescending. Do you have to insult everyone who disagrees with your mindless political dogma that ID=creationism? Reminds me of debating "gay marriage."

First of all, argument ad populum and that quote is not a primer on anything but the people behind ID, much of it speculative. You're conflating the people with ID, i.e. argument ad hominem. Let me illustrate:

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

Yes, it is. That doesn't mention God, 6 days or Adam and Eve. It doesn't reject evolution in any way. The wording is carefully made to be scientific, as it is tentative in its claim. This can include the strong anthropic principle while still embracing Darwinism, in fact.

It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]

If your definition of creationism includes the idea that God did it, then this sentence is self-contradictory. It's hardly a criticism to say ID avoids mentioning the nature or identity of the designer, because that is outside the realm of science.

Its leading proponents

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism%27s_Trojan_Horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3100/creationism:_don%E2%80%99t_use_the_%E2%80%9Cc-word%E2%80%9D/

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

And finally what real scientists have to say.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/

[Mordecai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism%27s_Trojan_Horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3100/creationism:_don%E2%80%99t_use_the_%E2%80%9Cc-word%E2%80%9D/

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution

And finally what real scientists have to say.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/

Wow, that's convincing... er something. Your typical tactic of having no arguments and spamming everyone with a bunch of links that may or may not useful has gotten tired. For example, what "real scientists" are saying doesn't contradict ID at all, so it has nothing to do with this thread. How about you explain how ID is creationism for us (but since BC's own source admits it never mentions God, it clearly is not) and then explain how whales evolved from land creatures to aquatic ones in only 30 million years. Since Darwinism is basically toast as an explanation for the origin of species, the obvious explanation based on our common experience of where specified complexity comes from is intelligent design. Even without the intelligent design movement, it's a common sense explanation anyone can logically infer based on observation. Observation+inference=science.

All your attacks on central figures in the ID movement are worthless, because ID, even without them, stands on its own.

As a side note:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." [brighton is not part of Scotland.] The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. [Aberdeen is part of Scotland.] This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most people who know anything at all about the issue know that they are one and the same. For a primer, see here:

Though I am not really a propontet of creationism or ID, I will say that no reasonable person can seriously say that ID=Creationism.

Nothing in ID demands Adam and Eve a 6 day creation period or a 6,000 year old earth.

If you do you are being lazy.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and the Missing Link

The PR catastrophe for Discovery Institute of the Kitzmiller trial concerned in large part revised editions the Of Pandas and People[57] promoted at trial by various DI-sponsored experts, particularly DI Fellow Michael Behe. The issue began when some proponents of intelligent design associated with Pandas found a need to distinguish it from creation science, whose teaching in public science class had been negated as a violation of the Establishment Clause by the Supreme Court in Louisiana "Balanced Treatment Act" case

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

I doubt you'll read this but I'll keep trying.

Evolution of the whale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

I doubt you'll read this but I'll keep trying.

Evolution of the whale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Hey... uh... genius, this has nothing to do with explaining the speed at which whales evolved, and how that is proof positive that natural selection was not the primary organizing principle involved in its evolution (unless perhaps its evolution occurred on another planet, which would be weird). Wow. This is what happens when people think they know everything and are completely clueless.

I strongly recommend you read The Edge of Evolution, by Michael Behe, so you understand why whale evolution wasn't primarily steered by natural selection. In fact, much of the work in that book is now in a peer-reviewed journal. I might post a link to it one day, if anyone cares. But I don't find it that relevant, since the book was peer-reviewed and is still being peer-reviewed.

The PR catastrophe for Discovery Institute of the Kitzmiller trial concerned in large part revised editions the Of Pandas and People[57] promoted at trial by various DI-sponsored experts, particularly DI Fellow Michael Behe.

Michael Behe is one of the leading advocates of intelligent design, so he is one of the people that define it. While Of Pandas and People was a PR disaster for ID, it still doesn't define ID. It's leading advocates do, like Behe, Meyer and Dembski. Even if, at one time, ID tended to share more in common with creationism than it does now, isn't it possible for the movement to redefine it? Obviously.

Why are you guys on a constant smear campaign instead of arguing the substance? I think the answer is self-evident. You just don't care if ID is scientific or not, not being that intellectual. You only care what people think.

LDS biologist, Frank Salsbury, for example, while he doesn't want to associate with the ID movement, probably partly due to Pandas, still says he's an advocate for ID.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

Keep shifting those goal posts. It's all the Creationists/IDer's have left.

BTW. Nearly 1 in 5 adult Americans believes the sun revolves around the earth because it says so in the Christian Bible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

Keep shifting those goal posts. It's all the Creationists/IDer's have left.

Again, no substance. Anti-intellectual drivel. I mentioned whale evolution earlier in this thread, and I didn't say they didn't evolve. I said they didn't evolve via natural selection. I didn't shift the goal post. You just didn't bother to read what I was saying. Edge is the goalpost, and it hasn't shifted in the slightest. That goalpost has been there for a while now, and as I said, it's peer-reviewed. It's real science, as much as that bothers you.

If you can't deal with it, just admit you've got nothing instead of continuing to lash out at things you obviously don't understand.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

That is still moving the goal posts. Behe has been proven wrong there is no such thing as his irreducible complexity. ID has been shown to be gussied up Creationism. "cdesign proponentsists" aren't even words in the English language.

As far as the whale evolution it was either natural selection or some outside agent(creationism) caused that evolution.

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

That is still moving the goal posts. Behe has been proven wrong there is no such thing as his irreducible complexity. ID has been shown to be gussied up Creationism. "cdesign proponentsists" aren't even words in the English language.

As far as the whale evolution it was either natural selection or some outside agent(creationism) caused that evolution.

More drivel. You are truly and completely oblivious. In fact, Edge discusses irreducible complexity in cilia. Regardless, the goalpost isn't moved in ID anymore than the goalpost was moved when Neo-Darwinism was introduced instead of Darwinism. More smearing of ID, instead of an honest discussion. What a surprise.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

None is so blind.

Ps. Evolution of the Flagella

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

The bacterial flagellum is frequently invoked as an example of irreducible complexity.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts. Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex as in his view if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Scientists regard this argument as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.[64] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.[65] Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. On this basis, Kenneth Miller notes that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."[66][67]

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Argument from ignorance

Intelligent design proponents attribute to an intelligent designer those biological structures they believe are irreducibly complex and whereof they say a natural explanation is insufficient to account for them.[80] However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument.[7]

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[81] Behe has been accused of using an "argument by lack of imagination", and Behe himself acknowledges that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.

Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems are found, the argument goes, then intelligent design must be the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.[82][83]

[Mordecai]

Scientists regard [the flagellum argument] as having been disproved in the light of research dating back to 1996 as well as more recent findings.

Greater understanding of the flagellum has, in fact, rendered it less irreducibly complex than previously thought. The arguments are a bit sophisticated, but I can bore you with them if you like. However, the biggest discovery, the type 2 secretory system, that comprises a good percentage of the flagellum and is a proposed building block for it appears after the flagellum, according to DNA analysis. So, while it would have become more plausible for the flagellum to have evolved via Darwinism, had the type 2 secretory system come before it, it didn't.

Even so, as Behe points out, the issue is not whether the naturalistic formation of a flagellum is impossible or not. The issue is how realistic is it to attribute it to naturalistic causes. Even with the new discoveries, it's not very plausible. Then again, even if the flagellum is shown to be fairly plausible, ID doesn't rest on the flagellum, however much the control freaks of science insist that it does. I've been saying for years that the information in DNA is where it's at, and Behe has also moved on board that conclusion. Meyer has been arguing that for more than a decade.

So the goalpost, as I understand it (and I clearly understand ID better than you do, as you seem completely oblivious to what it really entails), is finding the best and most logical explanation for where the information in DNA came from. As I said, it's already been proven that selective pressures were not the primary cause of, for example, whale evolution. Something else is. Since intelligence is the only plausible, logical and observable explanation left, it's the best scientific explanation. That's 3 points for the visiting team.

However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument.

That's because they're willfully ignorant of what ID actually is, or they just want to smear it, because they're frightened little children, deep down inside, unable to actually deal with reality that they're not the gods of knowledge. It's a positivistic argument, in reality, and not remotely an argument from ignorance.

Behe himself acknowledges that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.

Of course. Behe is a scientist. I never said anyone has proven the impossibility of it. That's not the argument. Of course, if you understand the problems with explaining whale evolution, considering the speed at which it occurred, we can honestly eliminate Darwinism as the primary explanation for that. It is literally impossible in that case. I think it's impossible with the flagellum, too, but I haven't looked at the numbers personally. Not sure if they can be accurately calculated anyway.

Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems are found, the argument goes, then intelligent design must be the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.

That's not the argument. The argument is that intelligent design is the only observed mechanism for producing irreducible complexity or specified complexity. To produce a large amount of functional information, you must have insight about the future outcome. To produce an irreducibly complex system, similarly, the mechanism that produces it must organize with the end in mind. Because intelligence is the only observed mechanism to do this (among other reasons), that is the best explanation. It's not a false dichotomy as you so gleefully imagine.

[Mordecai]

Accidental post. Bump, I guess?