Creationism vs. Evolution

[BigRog]

hey im doing a research paper about Intelligent Design (creationism)

so i was thinking what do you guys think about the topic. Creationism or Evolution. Support your answer please. Thanks in advance.

here is a link to a creationism explanation

[MarkB]

First of all, intelligent design of a sentence requires an uppercase letter at the start, as well as any appropriate use of punctuation and grammar.

I guess you fail at intelligent design of a sentence. ;)

[BigRog]

First of all, intelligent design of a sentence requires an uppercase letter at the start, as well as any appropriate use of punctuation and grammar.

I guess you fail at intelligent design of a sentence.

thanks for the cunstructive criticism mark. it woulda been nice if u gave your opinion on the subject though

[Edam]

That article says it all:

"intelligent design 'and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life' are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

[BigRog]

thats what i think. i need to come up with counter statements cause were having debates on this topic

[Homer]

"An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9]"

just remember that this is just based on the definition and guidelines of science and not necessarily a statement of denial against creationism. creationism is NOT based on scientific principles, so therefor is not scientific. so this is just a statement of fact. i'm not saying there are not those who believe in evolution that wouldn't hesitate to label creationism as a bunch of crap, but this definition is not saying either one is right, since no one has PROVEN that either is correct anyhow. there is definitely evidence for either argument, but neither side has PROVEN anything. i can make the exact same argument by saying that evolution has no place in religion since the bible stated how the earth was created. but this is just within the boundaries of that definition and nothing else.

either way, i think it's hippocritical for anyone to make an absolute stand for either side, but that's just me. you can argue either side, depending on what definition you choose to base your beliefs in. or maybe you can choose to believe a little of both instead of the dichotomous view most people choose to see.

[BigRog]

im not definant just wanted some help on topics and such to bring up. could use ideas to strengthen and ideas i know to counter

[abc006]

yes, "creationism" is just fake science junk. Evolution is the real thing.

[Edam]

Unfortunately, debates like this usually have no winners because both sides are equally as fervent in their beliefs, and what's worse is that the side that you and I are not on uses illogical arguments to defend their beliefs. You can't prove a negative.

If I tell you that I have an invisible, 11 foot tall pink bunny that is always at my side, and advises me about everything that I do, can you PROVE me wrong? Nope. That's pretty much what they will throw at you.

They may also try to argue that evolution is just a theory. Fine. There's the theory of gravity too. Hold an anvil above their head and let go. Then ask them what they think about "theories."

There are theories and then then are hypotheses. Two different things.

[abc006]

Unfortunately, debates like this usually have no winners because both sides are equally as fervent in their beliefs, and what's worse is that the side that you and I are not on uses illogical arguments to defend their beliefs. You can't prove a negative.

If I tell you that I have an invisible, 11 foot tall pink bunny that is always at my side, and advises me about everything that I do, can you PROVE me wrong? Nope. That's pretty much what they will throw at you.

They may also try to argue that evolution is just a theory. Fine. There's the theory of gravity too. Hold an anvil above their head and let go. Then ask them what they think about "theories."

There are theories and then then are hypotheses. Two different things.

What are you talking about?! The bunny's only 8 feet tall. Wait, sir, excuse me, could you move out of the way, sir... oh, ouch, i told you to get out of the way. Excuse me, I'll talk to you later about this subject, something's come up...

[GoldGlove]

I think I'll have trouble to choose the right words on this topic, because I don't think my English isn't good enough to make it "sound" good. But I'll try it...

I don't believe any supernatural power has anything to do with evolution, the earth or the universe. Physics, chemistry and mathematics are the reasons, why everything is, how it is.

Scentists try to explain "our world" with these three things, but they just (can) rely on experiments. So they actaully "guess".

For example, for a long time there was theory, how a atom is build. So for a long time this theory was the "right" one. But as progress was/is made in science, there are new methods and experiments to examine things. And the theory was proven to be wrong.

And as far as I know, there are still some "gaps" in Darwin's evolution. Some "transition creatures" weren't found, yet.

So you can't say, it's "wrong", when you can't test it by experiment. But I personally don't belive in God or similiar "things".

[krawhitham]

FOSSILS

debate over

thank you

[Homer]

Unfortunately, debates like this usually have no winners because both sides are equally as fervent in their beliefs, and what's worse is that the side that you and I are not on uses illogical arguments to defend their beliefs. You can't prove a negative.

If I tell you that I have an invisible, 11 foot tall pink bunny that is always at my side, and advises me about everything that I do, can you PROVE me wrong? Nope. That's pretty much what they will throw at you.

They may also try to argue that evolution is just a theory. Fine. There's the theory of gravity too. Hold an anvil above their head and let go. Then ask them what they think about "theories."

There are theories and then then are hypotheses. Two different things.

yes evolution is a theory, that's why it can still be debated. there's no argument to evolution being a theory. but gravity...there are actual LAWS of gravity. there's nothing left to prove there. creationism will use "illogical" arguments, but then what is that logical term based on? scientific theory, right?

and yes, you can't prove the eleven foot bunny. but you can't prove the supernatural, nor have they proven evolution,...all based on scientific theories. which is fine, there are limitations to science. that's well accepted.

as far as the fossils go, that again is just evidence. it doesn't prove anything. it just sets up a very solid theory. and that it IS.

that's why this whole argument is redundant and pointless because everyone will believe what they want to believe regardless. let the philosophers debate, let the religious have faith, and let the scientists prove it. until then...i have some uniforms to make.

by the way, does this count as research or cheating? i think when i was in school they would've considered this cheating. but who knows what schools are like these days...

[JoshC77]

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a

fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time.

Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the

explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice

of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!

[Homer]

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a

fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time.

Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the

explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice

of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!

well put. i still think it's strange that either side argues that only they are right. as if there would be absolutely no explanation that ties the two sides together.

[krawhitham]

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a

fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time.

Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the

explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice

of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!

POTY

[UncleMo]

hey im doing a research paper about Intelligent Design (creationism)

so i was thinking what do you guys think about the topic. Creationism or Evolution. Support your answer please. Thanks in advance.

here is a link to a creationism explanation

Please don't be offended, but what we think does not matter. I think you should do research. Especially since there are books on both topics. This is coming from me, a creationist.

[Bama]

Of course, there's a theory that evolution did take place, but some divine being put the stuff here in the first place...

[JoshC77]

well put. i still think it's strange that either side argues that only they are right. as if there would be absolutely no explanation that ties the two sides together.

Glad you liked that quote

To your quote, there are those who subscribe to the theory of 'intelligent design'. It essentially says that a god-like deity used evolution as its mechanism for creating life. I think it is really more of a reaction by guilty people with religious backgrounds that actually subscribe to the theory of evolution to salve their guilt by attempting to tie the two together.

In the end, you can't disprove creationism because you can't disprove someone's belief in something. With that being said, evolution is actually more a fact than people realize (we have a ton of evidence that shows that species have evolved). It is the mechanism that perpetuates it that is the theory (e.g. is it natural selection, random chance, the force).

I would also recommend that the mods carefully monitor this thread, this subject tends to turn dicey VERY quickly.

[Hory]

FOSSILS

debate over

thank you

No, no, no

God put Million year old Fossils in the ground to "test our faith"

Creationism and the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is true because the bible says so, and the bible is right because the bible says it is.

Seriously, I'm appalled that this is even a subject for debate in (supposedly) one of the most advanced nations on earth.

It's as if the 20th century never happened for these people.

[Homer]

Glad you liked that quote

To your quote, there are those who subscribe to the theory of 'intelligent design'. It essentially says that a god-like deity used evolution as its mechanism for creating life. I think it is really more of a reaction by guilty people with religious backgrounds that actually subscribe to the theory of evolution to salve their guilt by attempting to tie the two together.

In the end, you can't disprove creationism because you can't disprove someone's belief in something. With that being said, evolution is actually more a fact than people realize (we have a ton of evidence that shows that species have evolved). It is the mechanism that perpetuates it that is the theory (e.g. is it natural selection, random chance, the force).

I would also recommend that the mods carefully monitor this thread, this subject tends to turn dicey VERY quickly.

i concure. but i don't know that it's guilt, or more of the fact that one who believes in a higher being is also one that should be able to believe that that being created a process that we coined evolution. and on the science end of things, i know that science does not teach you to rule out a possibility until you can prove that it doesn't exist. that's science. so either side is hippocritical unless they are willing to face the other. that's all my point was.

my second point was that i am all for science. grew up on it. but follow the principles if you choose to use it for your arguments. just remember that the fossil records are evidence, not proof of evolution. we have lots of scientific evidence, but that's all there is. evolution has yet to become a law (such as gravity - there are only a few of them). but there are other things that have been proven fact already too, but evolution isn't one of them. we have very very strong evidence. there's just too many people jumping to the gun of science but yet can't accept it for what it is. we STILL have a ways to go before we can say it is a fact. for now, it's still a theory.

[danc]

There are two types of "theories".

One type is generated by inductive processes and is by definition not science. "I observe therefore I theorize.

i.e. intellegent design - Life is amazingly complex therefore it requires a god at it's source."

The other type is generated by deductive processes and is by definition science. "I observe therfore I hypothesize, experiment (DATA), re-hypothesis, experiment(DATA), etc.............. therefore I theorize.

The problem is that the term "theory" is used by people that do not understand the difference between these two definitions.

Most of science except for intuitively obvious "LAWS" is based on deductive therories. Thats what makes it fun to do and logically valid.

[Homer]

There are two types of "theories".

One type is generated by inductive processes and is by definition not science. "I observe therefore I theorize.

i.e. intellegent design - Life is amazingly complex therefore it requires a god at it's source."

The other type is generated by deductive processes and is by definition science. "I observe therfore I hypothesize, experiment (DATA), re-hypothesis, experiment(DATA), etc.............. therefore I theorize.

The problem is that the term "theory" is used by people that do not understand the difference between these two definitions.

Most of science except for intuitively obvious "LAWS" is based on deductive therories. Thats what makes it fun to do and logically valid.

well said. though i'd still change it to "...fun to do and scientifically valid." as "logically" valid has certain connotations and can be a very subjective term.

[danc]

right..........................

How about "functionally valid" ????????????

hit restart

[abj13]

evolution has yet to become a law

that have been proven fact already too, but evolution isn't one of them.

What constitutes a law? What makes something in science provable? I think too often people who are not heavily involved with the scientific process utilize terms that inaccruately portray what truely is the scientific method. For something to be proven, one would have to complete an infinite number of trials, and get the expected result each, and every time. But can you do that for most things? You cannot. The only things that can be proven are mathematical relationships, ie E=mc^2. But evolution doesn't boil down to mathematical values. One cannot describe fercundity or natural selection in one simple equation.

Case in point, can you "prove" you are made of "cells?" Sure, I could look under the microscope and see some circular, cuboidal, columnar, and squamous objects, but can I really be confident that they are cells? What if the next time I look, they look like pyramids? What suggests that cannot occur? What if Joe CrackPot decides that those circles are filled with magic, and that's how life works, how would you "prove" him wrong?

To answer those questions, you cannot "prove" it. This is where statistics comes in. The majority of scientific results, which cannot be described with an equation, rely on statistics, specifically the usage of 95% confidence intervals. Heck, even consumer products companies work on the same manner, I'm sure each of us has a story where we were the unlucky 5% that received a defective product.

That's the thing about evolution, we have such a diverse and deep amount of scientific results that support evolution. It is the same situation with describing the fundamental unit of life, the cell. There is no magical equation that allows us to prove that life is made of cells, but we do have mountains of evidence, just like what is available with evolution.

Pseudoguesses like "Intelligent Design" are completely dependent on either warping the definition of science, or relying on a series of illogical arguments. Whenever one hears the "irreducible complexity" argument, it is completely based on the assumption that science will never be able to answer the "irreducible complexity." But that's the thing, one would have to assume, and in this case, is an extremely poor assumtion to make. Cancer hasn't been cured yet, we don't know how gravity works, we don't know the science in a black hole, we don't understand Alzheimer's. I think we will someday, but if one adopts the logic from "Intelligent Design," then sorry cancer will never be "cured."

Science cannot eliminate the one in one trillionth billionth that the next time you walk into the wall, you might just walk through it to the other side (this is true via quantum theory). Should we start to worry about that possibility, because it exists? This the illogical falliacy of probability. Just because it may happen, does not mean it will happen, or that it will ever happen. And this is the situation with science. There's a mountain of evidence supporting evolution, there's illogical assumtions with "Intelligent Design," and with any relgious creationism, there isn't any evidence behind that (because God(s) could make the universe in any matter they want. They could make everything illogical and non-sensical, or they could make a universe that has scientific principles and connections. Unless one speaks for God(s), you cannot be sure. That's the problem, it doesn't matter what it is, anything can be attributed to some higher power. If all evidence can be attributed to something, and there is no alternatives, then it isn't evidence at all).

(such as gravity - there are only a few of them).

And how does gravity work? Somehow a more massive object attracts the less massive object, but how does this work? How does this work between an apple and a branch, because according to Newton's equation for gravity, there is still a force.

I think you are confusing what exactly is known about gravity. We know Newton's equations work, at least on the supermassive scale. But they are completely nonsensical on the subatomic level, they make no sense at all.

The only thing that is law with gravity is Newton's equations with Einstein's corrections (Newton's equations turned out to only be a very good estimate, but still gave us incorrect answers in specific situations). But those equations are 1)mathematical, and 2)only describe the force gravity causes. We have no clue how gravity works, so in that manner, gravity is still a theory. What is gravity? We have a theory. We can apply mathematical "laws" to describe the EFFECTS of gravity, but none of them can actually describe what is the CAUSE.

there's just too many people jumping to the gun of science but yet can't accept it for what it is. we STILL have a ways to go before we can say it is a fact. for now, it's still a theory.

What is a fact? Again, this is from the same ideas above. Very little in science can be a "law" or "fact," or whatever concrete term you want to put on it. Science cannot adopt canon, everything can and must be questioned, unless we have a mathematical proof behind it. One cannot prove cells. One cannot prove how gravity functions.

But we have to be able to at least be confident in something. If we obey the liberalist idea of the science, that anything is possible, then we know nothing. We could not be confident in anything. So what would be the point of continuing research, if we cannot be sure that our result of today, which helps cancer patients, will work tomorrow? That's exactly why a liberal interpretation of the scientifc method is not used. We have to be able to conclude something, so we use 95% confidence intervals.

And so far, with the mountains of evidence, all signs point to evolution being the description of how life developed into today's form.