Would any creationist at this forum like to critique, and refute this article?

[McBell]

Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you for the added proof.

or do you perhaps think that your link helps your position?

i mean, you have shown that creation cannot even win a mock trial in a place where teaching evolution is illegal....

 

[Super Universe]

The evolutionist lost in the Scopes Trial.

 

[McBell]

The evolutionist lost in the Scopes Trial.

And what did he lose?

He lost the court case and a hundred bucks in a purely propaganda court case.
Is that what you want to concentrate on?

Is this really the best you got?
A mocked up propaganda case from 1925?

 

[Super Universe]

And what did he lose?

He lost the court case and a hundred bucks in a purely propaganda court case.
Is that what you want to concentrate on?

Is this really the best you got?
A mocked up propaganda case from 1925?

And what did Kitzmiller win?

Is this what you want to concentrage on?

Is that the best you got, a mocked up propaganda case from 2004?

 

[McBell]

And what did Kitzmiller win?

Is this what you want to concentrage on?

Is that the best you got, a mocked up propaganda case from 2004?

I see you got nothing.

thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Super Universe]

I believe in Intelligent Design but I don't want it taught in science class.

 

[Me Myself]

That we don't know the exact details of Intelligent Design doesn't really pose a threat to ID either.

The problem with this, is that then "intelligent design" could have spurred by evolution

You have nothing to teach in ID. The class would be this long: "God/s did it"

When you are thinking on all the critiques on evolution you would want to put on that class, you are not talking at all about intelligent design. You are talking about evolution.

The problem with ID, is that there is 0 science to it. It has nothing to say by scientific standards. Evolution has many things to say, including the things we still don´t know and keep figuring out or rearranging.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, I meant that I want a creationist to refute the article from his own personal knowledge and expertise, not merely copy something that he does not understand himself. I know that I do not understand the article very well. Do you know that you do not understand the article very well? I am not an expert on evolution, so I believe that it is reasonable for me, and all other people who are not experts, to accept the opinions of, as one study said, 99.86% of experts who accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. A large body of scientific literature refutes anything of importance that you could post.

I don't qualify as a creationist or ID proponent, but I hope that I can still comment on the above (first because complex systems are somewhat my field, and second because I own the volume which the OP's link was published in). I can't claim to be any sort of expert when it comes to differentiating something like Creationism from ID, but the third chapter in the volume seems like a rather sound one for such a distinction. Additionally, among other responses to Miller's contribution, Behe himself addresses various critics in his paper, including Miller (or rather, Miller's book, but as the paper offers little in the way of new criticisms, I would say that Behe's paper addresses Miller's, even if it doesn't answer it). I think Behe is fighting a loosing battle here even when it comes to irreducible complexity and evolution (let alone the fact that his approach, if correct, merely points to an area which modern biology and evolutionary theory is lacking in, rather than supporting "intelligent design"), but the paper linked to in the OP (and published in the volume) isn't exactly the best of refutations.

 

[Super Universe]

The problem with this, is that then "intelligent design" could have spurred by evolution

You have nothing to teach in ID. The class would be this long: "God/s did it"

When you are thinking on all the critiques on evolution you would want to put on that class, you are not talking at all about intelligent design. You are talking about evolution.

The problem with ID, is that there is 0 science to it. It has nothing to say by scientific standards. Evolution has many things to say, including the things we still don´t know and keep figuring out or rearranging.

Normal evolution class:

Student asks "What activates DNA?"
Teacher "Uh, we don't know."
Student "Well why does evolution seem to go in the direction of more complexity."
Teacher "Uh, yeah, we don't really know why".
Student "Why does the fossil record show that species change suddenly and not slowly over time?"
Teacher "Well we think it's because species find a niche and evolve quickly into that niche."
Student "And somehow the whole species knows there is a niche available?"
Teacher "Uhh, yeah. That's the best thing we got now."
Student "So how did life begin?"
Teacher "We don't know but there was an experiment where amino acids were formed in a closed container and zapped with electricity."
Student "But amino acids are not alive."
Teacher "Uhh, no, they're not."
Student "Couldn't natural selection just be a factor in controlling population levels of species?"
Teacher "Well, if so then we wouldn't have an explanation for what causes all the species diversity we see now and over earths entire history."
Student "It sounds to me like you don't have an explanation for it now."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what did Kitzmiller win?

Is this what you want to concentrage on?

Is that the best you got, a mocked up propaganda case from 2004?

It wasn't a "mocked up propaganda case". One of the things that was covered in the trial (and is common knowledge to anyone who knows the history here) is that the ID movement was a re-tweaking of "creation science" to deal with the constitutional roadblocks it had with respect to public schools. And creation science was an earlier attempt to re-tweak creationism to get past earlier constitutional roadblocks. The whole point of ID is to get it into schools.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in Intelligent Design but I don't want it taught in science class.

Are you sure you believe in ID and not theistic evolution?

ID isn't just the belief that life or the universe was designed by an intelligence. It's the idea that an intelligent designer is *required* to explain the history of life because aspects of that history are incompatible with evolutionary theory.

 

[Super Universe]

It wasn't a "mocked up propaganda case". One of the things that was covered in the trial (and is common knowledge to anyone who knows the history here) is that the ID movement was a re-tweaking of "creation science" to deal with the constitutional roadblocks it had with respect to public schools. And creation science was an earlier attempt to re-tweak creationism to get past earlier constitutional roadblocks. The whole point of ID is to get it into schools.

I'm a believer in ID, I don't want it in schools.

You're trying to put all of your ID eggs into one basket but they don't fit.

 

[Super Universe]

Are you sure you believe in ID and not theistic evolution?

ID isn't just the belief that life or the universe was designed by an intelligence. It's the idea that an intelligent designer is *required* to explain the history of life because aspects of that history are incompatible with evolutionary theory.

Wow, you're really slicing those hairs fine.

I do believe that God is absolutely necessary for the universe to exist. There would be nothing otherwise. Now, that does not mean that everything that happens is a direct result of God's actions, He has built some random aspects into the physical laws and He does assert some element of control as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, you're really slicing those hairs fine.

I do believe that God is absolutely necessary for the universe to exist. There would be nothing otherwise. Now, that does not mean that everything that happens is a direct result of God's actions, He has built some random aspects into the physical laws and He does assert some element of control as well.

So what do you think is incorrect in the theory of evolution that requires an intelligent designer to explain it? Please be specific.

 

[Pozessed]

So what do you think is incorrect in the theory of evolution that requires an intelligent designer to explain it? Please be specific.

Isn't evolution taught to initially start within earths atmosphere. Whereas it should be taught that an "energy of life" was needed in order for evolution to exist that is not of this world.
If it is taught maybe it should be more emphasized so it doesn't invoke so much religious turmoil.

Before anyone posts about bio-chemicals creating the first energy to form life on earth. I would like to remind you that those chemicals, produced by the amino acids, are producing energy that has the same properties as the energyused in order for those organisms to be created in the first place.

 

[Super Universe]

So what do you think is incorrect in the theory of evolution that requires an intelligent designer to explain it? Please be specific.

Not incorrect, incomplete. Without God you have no matter or energy and you don't have physical rules that control them. Even if you had some creation without rules to govern things it would all fall apart or lead to nothing.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Isn't evolution taught to initially start within earths atmosphere.

Nope. Evolution is a process, one that only occurs in living organisms. We do not know how life initially started, although various potential ideas have been proposed under the field of abiogenesis.

Whereas it should be taught that an "energy of life" was needed in order for evolution to exist that is not of this world.

If it is taught maybe it should be more emphasized so it doesn't invoke so much religious turmoil.

Before anyone posts about bio-chemicals creating the first energy to form life on earth. I would like to remind you that those chemicals, produced by the amino acids, are producing energy that has the same properties as the energyused in order for those organisms to be created in the first place.

What is this "energy of life" you refer to and what makes you think it's not of this world?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not incorrect, incomplete. Without God you have no matter or energy and you don't have physical rules that control them. Even if you had some creation without rules to govern things it would all fall apart or lead to nothing.

So then you don't actually accept ID.

Again, ID is not just believing that the universe or life were designed by an intelligence.

 

[Pozessed]

Nope. Evolution is a process, one that only occurs in living organisms. We do not know how life initially started, although various potential ideas have been proposed under the field of abiogenesis.



What is this "energy of life" you refer to and what makes you think it's not of this world?

Are amino acids not made of atoms which are a form of energy that was created with the big bang??
Isn't all energy derived from the big bang?

As for the last part of my statement. I meant to remove that because I may be misinformed of what I claimed and was tired when I wrote it. Hell, I am still tired now.
However since I wrote it I will try to back up what I wrote and hopefully I will have an answer in a day or so.
I'm sorry for posting such a narrow comment without the proof on hand to back it up, I try not to do that unless I'm asking a question about it.

 

[Me Myself]

Normal evolution class:

Student asks "What activates DNA?"
Teacher "Uh, we don't know."
Student "Well why does evolution seem to go in the direction of more complexity."
Teacher "Uh, yeah, we don't really know why".
Student "Why does the fossil record show that species change suddenly and not slowly over time?"
Teacher "Well we think it's because species find a niche and evolve quickly into that niche."
Student "And somehow the whole species knows there is a niche available?"
Teacher "Uhh, yeah. That's the best thing we got now."
Student "So how did life begin?"
Teacher "We don't know but there was an experiment where amino acids were formed in a closed container and zapped with electricity."
Student "But amino acids are not alive."
Teacher "Uhh, no, they're not."
Student "Couldn't natural selection just be a factor in controlling population levels of species?"
Teacher "Well, if so then we wouldn't have an explanation for what causes all the species diversity we see now and over earths entire history."
Student "It sounds to me like you don't have an explanation for it now."

That cuold be part of the class, some of those (not all, you have a couple misconceptions when it comes to teacher´s answers) but that´s nowhere near the whole class. That´s just what we dont know.

When it comes to ID, the whole class is "Creation is smart, God/s did it". If not, by all means, there is a thread asking what an ID class would be like. You can also find a big subject list of what an evolution class would entail. If you can teach anything ID, that is not "god did it" and it is ACTUALLY about ID (instead of being more commentary on evolution) I am fruballing you. Warning: it most have more to do with science than with comparative religion class.