Evolution /Intelligent Design question?

Evolution in a species happens with reproduction and exchange of genetic material. I believe in God, that is my faith at work. I accept the reality of evolution. Faith is not involved in that. Intelligent Design, Creationism, whatever euphemisms they wish to name the Genesis story of creation in attempt to interject religious dogma into public schools under the guise of science, simply does not work as science. This is why it has failed and shall continue to fail in any court to be considered an “alternative” to a scientific theory. Scientific Method is what determines if something is science or not.

The theory of evolution is as true as germ theory, gravitational theory, and other theories of physics and math that enabled you to type your question here for display on the internet to people all over the world. I am a Registered Nurse. The abysmal level of science literacy in this country is extremely disturbing to me. Ignorance CAN harm you when those who may not share your ethics use it in ways that may harm you or the environment. Genetic testing for many debilitating diseases can be life-saving and wonderful on one level but there are growing fears that it may be leading to insurance companies denying you coverage benefits! Genetic testing is just one of the things that have come about because of an APPLICATION of processes at work in evolutionary theory.

Frankenfoods, (genetic engineering in our food supply) and cloning are also things have come about only through understanding of evolutionary theory. That is exactly what the discoverers of those processes attribute to their ability to achieve their predictions and make those new discoveries.

We have also made great strides in discovering the causes and getting treatments for diseases through application of evolutionary theory. We would not even be concerned at all about a possible mutated bird flu pandemic if evolution did not happen.

Please do not start the macro and micro evolution argument. Those terms only apply to time scale if used at all by biologists. Enough *micro* changes over time and you end up with a population that cannot reproduce with the earlier form and then you have "macro"...a new species. Not all evolutionary changes lead to speciation. Most do not. Evolution also does NOT imply direction or advancement of any form. Some changes are beneficial for survival potential, others are benign (most in fact) and some lead to disadvantages in survival potential and lead to "evolutionary dead ends".

Evolution is a cornerstone to understanding modern biology and medicine. It is imperative that anyone who plans to pursue any career in healthcare or biology understand a process that affects every living organism. As long as there is reproduction with exchange of genetic material, evolution happens. It doesn't require "believing in" but accepting the observed and tested reality. There has been absolutely NO debate in scientific circles over the reality of evolution for nearly 70 years. What IS debated in Biology are various means and methods and intricate details of the many processes at work IN evolution. We know more about how evolution works than we do about GRAVITY. This "debate" between fundamentalist literalists and the scientific and medical community is NO different from the early medieval church condemning astronomers who put forth the notions of a heliocentric solar system.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. The ideas at work cannot be applied to scientific method. They are not falsifiable, they make no predictions. This is why it fails in court EVERY time as an "alternative" view in a science curriculum. It is NOT science. Science is a method and not an entity. Scientific method does not address God belief, so it is only atheistic to the aspect that it does not address any faith in any deity one way or another. That is because we have no objective physical evidence to apply to the steps of scientific method to determine one way or another the reality of an Omnipotent Creator. Until that time, faith, belief, religion...are outside of scientific method.

There is no belief, meaning faith, required for evolution to be accepted as real.

Neither is it the case that evolution as a biologic theory, threatens or denies the existence of an Omnipotent Creator Deity. Scientific method does not apply to this issue because we have no objective data to put to the method to determine one way or another.

Evolution isn't a threat to belief in an Omnipotent Creator. It is a threat to the SELF-CONCEPT held by people who accept certain religious beliefs that formed such a self-concept in their adherents. My faith in God is not threatened by scientific method. My faith teaches me to test what I know to make sure it is real. If there is an aspect of dogma that I accept and it becomes threatened by objective evidence, perhaps that is an aspect of belief that should be challenged.

Biology shows us that rather than life appearing on the planet *poof* in six literal days, as long as life exists, creation continues!

Biology does not support or negate a God.

The same Torah that the Genesis creation story came out of is the same Torah those fundamentalist literalists deny in their commandments! They will argue viciously for the creation story but just as harshly argue that the "Old" (eternal it says in the scripture) Testament has been "done away with" Religious dogma has no place in a science class. IMHO it is NOT faith in God that is *threatened* in the fundamentalist literalist, but their SELF-CONCEPT! I tested this over a number of years in chat rooms by asking the following Yes or NO only simple question.

Are you an animal?

Most people will of course, say YES. Sometimes they will qualify it that our soul or spirit is different or that we have greater abilities, etc..but we are still animals. Almost all Creationists will give a knee jerk reaction that NO, we are human, we are above animals.

When the very rare Creationist said "yes", it was ALWAYS with the qualifier that we are above and separate from all other animals. Well that wasn't the question..but at least they recognized they were animals.

Our psyche is a wondrous thing. If our self-concept is threatened, the self-protective mechanism of DENIAL kicks in to prohibit the shattering of self to be replaced by one that is unacceptable to them. That EXPLAINS why they simply cannot see the literal mountains of observable, tested, verified, physical evidence that is SO VERY PLAIN to see to those whose self-concept is NOT threatened to KNOW that they too are an animal affected by the same biologic processes at work in all life. They are unable to consciously process things that would replace their self-concept with one that is degrading to them. So many of them are completely revolted by the notion that they are an animal. I do not see it as degrading. In fact, I can find spiritual wonderment and awe in knowing I am connected to all life on the planet. Nevertheless, that is just my own personal bent, that opinion has no bearing on the science involved to show me that connection.

If you are indoctrinated to believe that humans are SEPARATE and ABOVE ALL other life and NOT connected to it..then THAT is why you cannot appear to grasp evolution. Evolution shows that humans are all related, related to one another and to all life forms..we are bipedal primate mammals and we are still evolving as a species. That is a fact, not up for debate.

Sometimes that self-protective mechanism is very helpful; in this instance, it impedes knowledge. There is NOTHING degrading about acceptance of our biologic mortal physical self. Our very thoughts are electro-chemical processes. I believe that an Omnipotent Creator set every process at work in the universe in place. That isn't my place in a science course to try to teach that, it makes no difference if one is atheist or theist in a science classroom; objective data is something that can be seen and tested by ALL.

Scientific method is the best method yet devised by the human mind to determine if something is real or not. This is why theories change when new evidence comes into play. That is what makes it SCIENCE. Creationism/ID is religious dogma. It cannot be tested, it cannot be changed, and to do so is heresy. It is religion.

Religion is belief in a deity with dogma and a method to seek to find meaning beyond our mere mortal life existence and find connection on a spiritual level and to fulfill purpose of existence. Science is a method, steps to discover knowledge of the universe. It primarily answers questions of why and how, not who.

One may seek and find knowledge by using both in their life. I do and I understand their differences and their limitations to connect to one another. Homo sapiens has become Homo technos. We have lost something since we have gained technology. Our human ancestors once recognized our connections to all other life. Now we separate ourselves, and not to our psychological benefit, I might add. I try to look at this from a holistic perspective.Since we have greater technologic capacity and ability to manipulate our environment, it makes the case for damning the human species all the greater. With our greater skills, we should be greater caretakers of this earth we have "dominion" over. A good ruler cares for those under his care. Humans are not even taking care of each other, much less our other ape relatives. There is nothing demeaning in recognizing your relation to other animals.

It can, in fact, empower you with empathy and understanding and perhaps let you realize how we as just one species on this earth have such a great impact on all our relations.

© 2008 by mama_pajama_1

To answer, simple: evolution. Creationism and Intelligent Design have no argument other than "God did it". The vast majority of creationists spend their time trying to disprove or discredit evolution rather than building a scientific case for their beliefs. "First I want to say this: that even most scientists will admit "that evolution is a theory, not a fact. Why? because it has not been proven." Actually, evolution itself is an confirmed, observable fact. The theory aspect of it is how it operated. "The Second Law of Thermodynamics/The Law of Entropy states that everything tends toward disorder. This is a law that Scientists discovered and know to be true." Yes, that holds in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and it has an huge external power generator. "Also, if evolution is true, where did the first cell come from? Not to mention, the earth, the sun, our entire solar system, the Milky Way Galexy, and the universe as a whole. I somehow doubt that the big bang could create all of that by chance. And even if it did, what/who caused the big bang? These are all questions that evolutionist scientists can't answer. I find these questions to be to big for me to believe these scientists. There are, however, Scientists that believe in ID and they can answer all of these questions." The theory of evolution does not make statements of either the origins of life or the origin of the universe. Those would abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory. "I honestly believe that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than intelligent design." No it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is well documented around the world. You only need to look it up. The "evidence" for Creationism is the Bible and appeal to emotion argument of "look around you, it's evident". "People say that the similarities in different animals are reason to believe in evolution. But if their was an intelligent designer of the world, it would make sense that they would use some of the same types of designs in different animals." Irrelevant "If you look at how buildings and bridges are made, they both have similar things in them. They often are both made with triangles. Why? because they help strengthen the structure. They also both use similar metals and other materials because they work well. Why would an intelligent designer not use the same principle when creating all the different animals in the world?" Why do humans have a vestigial organ that pretty much gets infected and can kill you? Why do our eyes have a blind spot on them due to our blood veins being backwards, when squids have perfect vision? Why do we have little toes? Why are some human babies born without faces? (Treacher Collins Syndrome) Why are some human babies born with tail bones? Why do whales have small leg bones?

you are rattling and comparing something that is even a theory with an established therory. Actually intelligent design might have been at some beginning point but then evolution took over and finished the job. The only possible way you can use intelligent design is to start the life on this planet and it is probably the wrong answer anyway and you would be shotting down the first Chapter in the Bible if you use the intelligent design argument. Evolution is change over time and it is how things on this planet that now exist have come from lesser or earlier life forms. Whether the first were of any intelligent design is rather inmaterial anyway because it can not be proven because we can not go back in time 2 billion years.

Sounds like you understand intelligent design, but it seems like you do not understand evolution.

First consider the components that an airplane wing are made of (metal, plastic, rubber, etc.) then consider what a bird's wing is made of (organic matter, chemicals, and DNA).

metal, plastic, and rubber do not have the capability of combining or developing complex structures on their own (physics and chemistry do not allow it). As such any complex item made from metal, plastic, etc. MUST have been intelligently designed.

DNA on the other hand is a molecule. Molecules can freely combine and transform with surrounding molecules. Physics allows for organic matter to absorb and metabolize other compounds thereby changing their structure.

Evolution only applies to biologic matter and DNA: any natural compound capable of metabolizing surrounding chemicals, changing its structure and passing those changes on to future generations through reproduction. Wood, metal, plastic do not have those capabilities which is why we will never see a computer or airplane evolve.

An airplane wing isn't alive. There is absolutely no evidence that anything was designed if it's alive. There are a ton of fossils that show a clear progression to feathers and wings and there is no magic required for it.

Not a single paper has passed peer review indicating that there was intelligence behind any of this. All it is, is wild conjecture based on nothing but Bronze Age myths.

So, you basically don't know DNA from a pocket watch then?

Airplane wings don't work like bird wings...unless you've seen a plane with wings that flap and/or a bird with an engine to propel it.

It is usually the person with the least scientific knowledge who thinks that their guess is as good as anyone else's.

Welcome to a very large group.

Evolution and Intelligent Design (an oxymoron!) are definitely incompatible!Evolution is scientific and has predictive power;

I D has no predictive power, it simply says that God created everything and we can never know how He did it...What good would that bring to scientific thought? Absolutely nothing!

Science does not prove anything, in fact it tries to disprove hypotheses, not prove them. People, especially Christians, confuse scientific reasoning with mathematical proof-there is a vast difference between the deductive laws of mathematics and the inductive theorization of science! Next time a Christian tells you that you can't prove evolution tell her that you are right! Science disproves and explains!

Wings were not "designed" for flight, they just happen to work well for it. As more birds began to fly (actually some dinosaurs could fly), the better evolved wings did better, until they got to what they are today.

Why was a plane designed and not a bird? A bird is a living thing, a plane is not.

Going by that logic, I'd have to say your mystery designer for the bird's wing must be a retard because it took him/her millions of years to change the, say, eagle's wings. Yet we mere mortals went from flightless to space flight in less than 60 years.

Does that make humans the intelligent designer?

They're not incompatible, at all - but what you forget is that many of mans inventions have been created due to the theory of evolution and such forth..

So while we 'intelligently design' computers and planes, it doesnt mean that the theory behind the inventions were intelligently designed - especially in the case of planes.

This is the old if it looks designed it must be argument. A piece of paper isn't designed for flight, but try to catch one when the wind is blowing.

Comparing machines and animals makes machines of animals. Animals are capable to selecting a mate, those most capable of surviving and producing offspring. Observe humans seeking a mate. Do they not have a list of preferred qualities and those they dislike. Well so do animals. So yes animals have a designer, themselves!