evolution Vs ID Vs Creationism

[ragordon168]

could someone help me by defining the difference between evolution, ID and Creationism?

the way i understand it is:

1. Evolution - All animals on earth evolve from a common ancestor. natural selection and adaption control what species live and die.

2. ID #1 - Some 'God' created the universe and started the process, beyond that he has left it to evolution.

3. ID #2 - Some 'god' created the universe as it is now and is routinely involved in the running of the universe.

4. Creationism - The whole Garden of Eden story and everything from there.

anybody have any additions/adjustments?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that you should start with method.

Theories supporting evolution use the scientific method.

ID fantacies abuse creationism.

Creationism relies on the interpretation of the Bible, and imposes itself on the interpretation of science (at best).

 

[Autodidact]

I think you've got #1 and # right.

ID I would say is the argument that certain features of the natural world are so complex and inexplainable by natural means that they could only have been designed by an "Intelligent Designer" i.e. God. In particular, it argues that certain features of natural organisms* could not have resulted from evolutionary processes, and must therefore have been designed by the ID, wink wink, God.

*(oddly enough, the tail on an E coli bacteria. No, I'm not joking.)

Needless to say this enterprise is flawed at the get-go and has utterly flopped, except as a PR trick. Which I guess is success, since that's what it was invented for.

 

[Willamena]

1. Evolution - All animals on earth evolve from a common ancestor. natural selection and adaption control what species live and die.

"Natural selection" and "adaptation" (genetic) do not exert "control" so much as they are identified "processes". A processes is us looking at nature and outlining the series of actions that must occur for a particular result to take place.

2. ID #1 - Some 'God' created the universe and started the process, beyond that he has left it to evolution.
3. ID #2 - Some 'god' created the universe as it is now and is routinely involved in the running of the universe.

ID does not require itself to identify the "source" though of course many of those trying to grasp at it fill in gaps. I my opinion, if it moved the concept of creation/creator away from wearing the mask of "cause and effect in an objective world" it might better approach its target.

4. Creationism - The whole Garden of Eden story and everything from there.

...taken literally.

 

[ragordon168]

1. Evolution - All animals on earth evolve from a common ancestor. natural selection and adaption control what species live and die.

2. ID #1 - Some 'God' created the universe and started the process, beyond that he has left it to evolution.

to me these are the two real arguments. I accept #1 is right because of the evidence.

but since #2 states that 'god' has had no interaction with the universe since the big bang it is also a possibility. it also offers a potential reason for the origin of life which evolution doesn't deal with.

until we can find evidence of what existed before the BB then it can be claimed 'god' exists as there is no evidence either proving or disproving that theory.

while i believe #1 i can accept #2 as a credible argument but #3 & #4 are fairytales in my opinion.

 

[Nepenthe]

to me these are the two real arguments. I accept #1 is right because of the evidence.

but since #2 states that 'god' has had no interaction with the universe since the big bang it is also a possibility. it also offers a potential reason for the origin of life which evolution doesn't deal with.

until we can find evidence of what existed before the BB then it can be claimed 'god' exists as there is no evidence either proving or disproving that theory.

while i believe #1 i can accept #2 as a credible argument but #3 & #4 are fairytales in my opinion.

#1 is scientifically verifiable; it can actually be investigated and empirical evidence can and has been presented. #2 falls outside any means of scientific inquiry. The problem is that propositions need evidence (not proof), so until evidence is offered that supports the existence of god(s) the parsimonous answer is "where's the evidence?"

 

[ragordon168]

#1 is scientifically verifiable; it can actually be investigated and empirical evidence can and has been presented. #2 falls outside any means of scientific inquiry. The problem is that propositions need evidence (not proof), so until evidence is offered that supports the existence of god(s) the parsimonous answer is "where's the evidence?"

thats my point, we dont have ANY evidence of what existed before the big bang so there are only speculations.

this is why #2 can be an idea as 'god' could exist/ have existed at the big bang.

if evidence is found that shows 'god' didn't exist before the big bang then yes the theory should be thrown out

 

[Man of Faith]

ID doesn't necessarily mean God did it, but there is a designer. We might not know who the designer was, God, or alien life forms, etc...

Creationism is God did it.

Evolution is Time did it.

 

[MSizer]

Evolution is Time did it.

No, evolution is genetics did it by natural selection under the pressure of external environmental influences over time.

 

[MSizer]

Also, if ID actually suggested who that designer might be with some verifiable evidence for the existence of such a specific designer, then it could be called a theory, but it does not do that, so it is not a theory at all.

 

[Nepenthe]

thats my point, we dont have ANY evidence of what existed before the big bang so there are only speculations.

this is why #2 can be an idea as 'god' could exist/ have existed at the big bang.

if evidence is found that shows 'god' didn't exist before the big bang then yes the theory should be thrown out

The difficulty with that is evidence showing a deities non-existence is not going to happen; every detail about how the universe operates further removes any magical component of existence, yet we will never achieve omniscience, we will never peek under every atom in the riverbed of the cosmos. So the gods of the gaps will always be there to fall back on despite its lack of evidential support.

That's why scientific propositions require evidence, not non-evidence. Any god hypothesis has to be supported, not a "you don't have anything showing my additional premise of a god(s) doesn't exist". It's up to the claimant to step up with the facts, and until such is presented the hypothesis remains pure speculation. But it's a premise of pure speculation at the same level for Quetzolcoatl or Ereshkigel; both have just as much support of being credible.

 

[Jose Fly]

could someone help me by defining the difference between evolution, ID and Creationism?

the way i understand it is:

1. Evolution - All animals on earth evolve from a common ancestor. natural selection and adaption control what species live and die.

2. ID #1 - Some 'God' created the universe and started the process, beyond that he has left it to evolution.

3. ID #2 - Some 'god' created the universe as it is now and is routinely involved in the running of the universe.

4. Creationism - The whole Garden of Eden story and everything from there.

anybody have any additions/adjustments?

There are many types of creationism. Because we live in the West, we assume that Biblical creationism is the only type, but that's not the case. Vedic creationism stems from Hinduism, and there are countless types of creationism that stem from native/tribal belief systems. Christian creationism is just one type in a suite of creationisms.

ID is also one type of creationism. It is a descendant of Biblical creationism, and came about after the federal courts ruled that teaching Biblical creationism in public schools is unconstitutional. In response, some Biblical creationists stripped their arguments of overt Biblical themes (e.g. young earth, global flood), kept a core set of arguments against evolution, and renamed it "intelligent design".

 

[Autodidact]

ID doesn't necessarily mean God did it, but there is a designer. We might not know who the designer was, God, or alien life forms, etc...

Creationism is God did it.

Evolution is Time did it.

MoF: Before telling us what Evolution says, maybe you should learn it yourself? Just a suggestion.

 

[ragordon168]

The difficulty with that is evidence showing a deities non-existence is not going to happen; every detail about how the universe operates further removes any magical component of existence, yet we will never achieve omniscience, we will never peek under every atom in the riverbed of the cosmos. So the gods of the gaps will always be there to fall back on despite its lack of evidential support.

That's why scientific propositions require evidence, not non-evidence. Any god hypothesis has to be supported, not a "you don't have anything showing my additional premise of a god(s) doesn't exist". It's up to the claimant to step up with the facts, and until such is presented the hypothesis remains pure speculation. But it's a premise of pure speculation at the same level for Quetzolcoatl or Ereshkigel; both have just as much support of being credible.

i didn't mean that a creator is a theory equal to ToE but it is just as possible as every other speculation made about pre-big bang. there is no evidence for any and for now a creator is possible. if evidence is found then the possibility of creator would be dismissed in the same way genesis was.

i dont't think there is anywhere that deists can fall back to if ID was disproved but they'd probably find something

 

[imaginaryme]

I thought #2 was Deism. From the way I heard it told, ID was just a method to sneak Creationism into the classroom. Funny thing is, last time I looked into it, Dumbski and crowd were actually forcing a rift between mainstream Christianity, and now there's a new fish in the pond - spiritual Darwinism. :biglaugh: