Does anybody really believe in Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) anymore?

[Samuel Dravis]

An interesting and somewhat funny part of the paper I posted earlier is that it said that many quite devout religious people who were scientists also believed in spontaneous generation (aka life from non-life, something similar to the modern abiogenesis). Who knows why abiogenesis is disagreed with now on religious grounds when it was accepted for a very long time before this, even at a time when religion was far more influential than it is now.

[Achilles]

Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

= Creationism.

 

In the United States, it is against the law to teach creationism in any school that receives funding from the Federal government (it violates the Establishment Clause of our constitution).

[mimartin]

No. What you believe is Intelligent Design.

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

[Ray Jones]

So you believe in creationism?

[mimartin]

So you believe in creationism?

No.

 

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

[Q]

Instead, Intelligent Design justifies the creation of the universe to be God's creation. (ie that God created the Big Bang).

= Creationism.

I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible, not that He caused the Big Bang.

 

It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.

[Alexrd]

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

 

I was talking to EnderWiggin and he has made his point very clearly, so I don't understand why you disagree. And I never said that just because someone believe in God has to agree with Big Bang or whatever. I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.

 

@ Achilles: I know that ID is a type of Creationism, but what I meant while writing Creationism is that someone beleives on the creation of Earth literally as stated in the Genesis.

[mimartin]

I have just stated an example of what is Intelligent Design.

So was I, intelligent design is a fake scientific theory thought up by the Discovery Institute after they lost in the court of law. Someone that believes God has a hand in the Big Bang Theory does not mean they subscribe to the fake theory of intelligent design.

 

I just don’t believe in labeling someone as believing in intelligent design when it is a fake science only designed for political reason. I don’t care if people want to believe in creationism, intelligent design or witchcraft, let’s just teach real science in school and they can study creationism and intelligent design at home or in church.

[Achilles]

I thought that Creationism was the dogmatic adherence to the belief that God created the Earth in literally 6 days as stated in the Bible,

= Fundamentalism/Literalism

 

not that He caused the Big Bang.

For the purposes of U.S. law, still = Creationism.

 

It will be interesting to see what will be discovered as increasingly powerful telescopes are put in orbit that can see farther and farther "back in time". Both (or all three?) sides of this argument may get their answer then.

No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.

 

The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.

[Ray Jones]

No.

 

I'm not able to deny the evidence of evolution or natural selection which causes my major issues with intelligent design beyond intelligent design merely being a gimmick.

 

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

[Q]

No need. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the Big Bang. Nearly every prediction that was made has been confirmed.

Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.

The only piece of the puzzle missing is what caused it, however we don't need that piece to know that it happened. So the question here is "did god cause the big bang?" and unfortunately, no telescope is going to answer that question.

I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

 

diet christianity

christianity zero

the carbless christianity (low in transfats)

[True_Avery]

I disagree. Just because I believe in God does not mean I have to believe in a fake scientific theory thought up by a conservative think tank in an attempt to circumvent U.S. Laws. So no, I do not believe in intelligent design as it is not has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

So, you neither believe god created the universe, guided the universe, guided evolution, created life, etc.

 

What exactly does that mean? You believe in a god that has essentially done absolutely nothing ever?

 

Then why exactly believe in your god at all?

[Samuel Dravis]

There are some concepts of God that view him as a sustainer of existence, i.e., God doesn't do anything because he does everything. The issue of intelligent design wouldn't come up in such systems since they are axiomatic, not empirical. With this kind of concept, saying "God did it" would be wholly redundant and the believer would have no hangups with science, aside perhaps from ethical problems which might arise (cloning humans, genetic manipulation, etc).

[Achilles]

Oh, I'm not contesting that it happened; I'm sure that it did. What I'm curious about its what came before it.

Technically speaking, the question is a non sequitur because there was no "before". Space-time began with the big bang, therefore there was no time "before" the big bang, therefore nothing could have happened.

 

Clearly this train of thought will only lead to bottom of a bottle of Tylenol, but I find it helps to realize that we are really sophisticated apes. When you consider that dogs can't learn Algebra, I think the fact that we can design cars means that we punch well above our weight.

 

I don't think that it would either, but it might show what the Big Bang was the result of, and what it came from.

We have hypothesis, but unfortunately, we lack the technology to measure on the scale necessary to test them. Doesn't mean that we won't. It just means that these are questions that might not be answered in our lifetimes.

 

Brane cosmology

Zero energy universe

 

I'm sure ET Warrior would have other great links as well.

[mimartin]

What would you call your belief/point of view then?

My personal faith.

 

diet christianity

christianity zero

the carbless christianity (low in transfats)

Is that better than one of my friends’ suggestion of “closet atheist’?

 

So, you neither believe god created the universe, guided the universe, guided evolution, created life, etc.[/Quote] Never really wrote that. I wrote I did not believe in a Conservative Think Tank’s attempt to get around a Supreme Courts ruling and introduce Creationism into the classroom in disguises as “intelligent design.”

 

What exactly does that mean? You believe in a god that has essentially done absolutely nothing ever?[/Quote] No. I have faith in a God, but understand that there is absolutely no way for me to give proof of his/her existence. Highly illogical, but I don’t believe I’ve ever presented myself as a logical being and if I have I apologize.

 

Then why exactly believe in your god at all?

Mark12:17

 

John 20:29

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

dude, it's low in transfats

[Q]

Technically speaking, the question is a non sequitur because there was no "before".

Actually it isn't, because it originated from nothing, as I suspected.

 

Isn't that scientifically impossible?

[Achilles]

I don’t believe I’ve ever presented myself as a logical being and if I have I apologize.

Do you want me to pull examples from just this thread or can I use your entire posting history to prove you wrong?

 

The reason your faith has never been an issue for me is because you acknowledge that it's not logical (a statement, which in itself, shows not only a capacity for logic, but it's application). I don't worry about what you're going to do in a voting booth because I know that you're voting with your head first and your religious faith not at all.

 

You want to have your cake and eat it too and because we're friends, I'm inclined to let you, but please don't convince yourself that you have me fooled

 

Actually it isn't, because it originated from nothing, as I suspected.

 

Isn't that scientifically impossible?

I guess I would need to know which law(s) of physics it violates.

 

Even if we ignore the whole "space-time sprung into existence at moment zero, therefore neither 'something' nor 'before' apply" and try to soldier on anyway, we're simply spiraling into an infinite regress. We found "something" "before" moment zero. Okay. Great for us.

 

...

 

....

 

.....

 

What came before that? And before that? And before that? *initiate ad infinitum*

 

We have the same infinite regress problem with the god hypothesis however the god hypothesis has absolutely zero evidence, isn't based on any observations, etc. All of the weaknesses. None of the strengths. That we should be skeptical of the scientific "explanation" and accepting of the religious one smacks of a hypocrisy that I cannot even begin to wrap my head around (please note that I am not accusing you of doing so ).

[Q]

I guess I would need to know which law(s) of physics it violates.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, specifically conservation of mass and energy, unless I'm mistaken, of course.

[Achilles]

The First Law of Thermodynamics, specifically conservation of mass and energy, unless I'm mistaken, of course.

The big bang theory posits that all energy existed in a singularity which expanded, cooled (becoming matter), etc to become the physical universe. If you're trying to apply this to what came "before" the singularity, I'll have to refer back to post you just replied to

[Q]

So you're saying that because the universe did not exist in the "before", that the laws of physics that define the universe cannot be applied because there was nothing to apply them to, correct?

 

Makes sense.

[Achilles]

We have physical laws that make sense, are consistently observable, etc, etc when applied to things on the macro scale. When we try to apply them to the micro scale they break down (uncertainty principle dictates that we work with things on the basis of probabilities). Trying to unify these "two universes" has been the holy grail of theoretical scientific community for the last 90 years or so. Einstein was working on a "unifying theory of everything" when he died. Others picked up the mantle and the race has been on ever since (you may have heard of "string theory", "superstring theory", etc).

 

Anyway, yes, because the singularity existed on the Planck scale, the laws you are referencing may not necessarily apply. Once expansion was initiated (aka "the big bang happened"), they would take over.

[SD Nihil]

I think both sides in schools need to be presented, debated, and let people make up their own minds. Creationism shouldn't be the only thought of the issue, and neither should be evolution. Both I feel need to be taught as they are theories. Let people make up their own minds. And it is a matter of opinion.

 

Some will only believe what they see as something they can touch, others are not sure, but the rest will have their belief regardless of evidence, or lack of evidence against or for Creationism.. But I feel in classes the debate should be allowed.

[Achilles]

I think both sides in schools need to be presented, debated, and let people make up their own minds.

If someone wants to cut another program so that they can offer a "history of religious philosophy" course in order to discuss all the creationism myths in public school, then that is one thing.

 

non-science has no place in the science classroom.

 

Creationism shouldn't be the only thought of the issue, and neither should be evolution.

But evolution is science. Why shouldn't we teach science in science class?

 

Both I feel need to be taught as they are theories.

No they are not. "Theory" and "theory" are not the same thing.

 

EDIT: Short podcast discussing scientific Theories (~8 minutes)

 

Let people make up their own minds. And it is a matter of opinion.

No, it is not. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

 

EDIT: Might be time to dust

off again. (~10 minutes)