Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate

[godslanguage]

You can download and watch it or read the whole thing here:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2933961.html

[Gman]

Thanks for sharing this debate godslanguage. This really summed up the ID argument very well...

It seems that there are many gaps and problems in the theory of evolution that undermine its credibility... I just wish that Darwinian evolutionists would just admit this and be truthful about the facts. If they did, I probably wouldn't be posting on this forum.. I think part of the problem here is that this theory is well protected by our laws here and it would take a miracle (and a lot of money) to change anything.

I was at a similar debate like this at our local university here (with an audience) when this evolutionist guy had a panic attack in front of the whole panel.. Yelling obscenities at the ID advocates... I thought he was going to have a nervous breakdown. So, I guess we will need to be aware that this will not do down without a fight of some kind... Or a temper tantrum..

[godslanguage]

Thanks for sharing this debate godslanguage. This really summed up the ID argument very well...

It seems that there are many gaps and problems in the theory of evolution that undermine its credibility... I just wish that Darwinian evolutionists would just admit this and be truthful about the facts. If they did, I probably wouldn't be posting on this forum.. I think part of the problem here is that this theory is well protected by our laws here and it would take a miracle (and a lot of money) to change anything.

I was at a similar debate like this at our local university here (with an audience) when this evolutionist guy had a panic attack in front of the whole panel.. Yelling obscenities at the ID advocates... I thought he was going to have a nervous breakdown. So, I guess we will need to be aware that this will not do down without a fight of some kind... Or a temper tantrum..

LOL!...I frequently have atheist friends who have nervous breakdowns talking about anything related to God. Its funny because they're the ones who start the conversation with the questions, then by default whatever answer you give back its "wrong", and you hear the usual "evolution explains everything and where is your scientific proof". Its funny to watch especially when they haven't looked at the evidence that supports they're own theory. Its the default position that evoluiton explains everything that really tends to bother me.

[phoney]

Thanks for sharing this debate godslanguage. This really summed up the ID argument very well...

It seems that there are many gaps and problems in the theory of evolution that undermine its credibility... I just wish that Darwinian evolutionists would just admit this and be truthful about the facts. If they did, I probably wouldn't be posting on this forum.. I think part of the problem here is that this theory is well protected by our laws here and it would take a miracle (and a lot of money) to change anything.

I was at a similar debate like this at our local university here (with an audience) when this evolutionist guy had a panic attack in front of the whole panel.. Yelling obscenities at the ID advocates... I thought he was going to have a nervous breakdown. So, I guess we will need to be aware that this will not do down without a fight of some kind... Or a temper tantrum..

LOL!...I frequently have atheist friends who have nervous breakdowns talking about anything related to God. Its funny because they're the ones who start the conversation with the questions, then by default whatever answer you give back its "wrong", and you hear the usual "evolution explains everything and where is your scientific proof". Its funny to watch especially when they haven't looked at the evidence that supports they're own theory. Its the default position that evoluiton explains everything that really tends to bother me.

I don't think evolution can explain th Giraffe can it?

[zoegirl]

They have explanations, it's simply a matter of what people believe are plausible.

Their explanation rests on random mutations that provided for reproductive and survival advantages. Natural selection simply then selected those that had those mutations that fit the demands of the environment.


So, yes, they do explain it. I, personally, think it demands just as much faith to support this explanation.

[NewCreature]

I think the biggest problem is how evolution has dominated. The problem is that the world is made up from different worldviews, and some people have a view that is controlled by domination and hate of other ideas. Many present their ideas as fact without proof, but require proof to entertain other ideas. The sad thing is that some ideas get so widely accepted within science that every single conclusion capitulates that evolution (or some other conclusion) is true. The sad thing about this politically correct mindset of accepting the lowest common denominator is that it impedes discovery.

A large faction of society is more interested in indoctrination than active thinkers. Without review of literature posing all sides of the issue science has become story time. While the story is interspersed with facts that would support any number of hypothesis the predominant scientific opinion is taught as fact. We have factions rushing to shut up any mention of Intelligent Design which they feel is simply a euphemism for creation and God. Doesn't this plainly demonstrates their fear?

[zoegirl]

You bring up an interesting point about the storytelling...

One of my most fascinating classes was my Mechanisms in Evolutionary Physiology class. One of the lectures concerned the earlier methods of "research" into evolution before the mid to late 70's. Much of the research assumed correlations that were not necessarily true. They called it adaptive storytelling. To give them credit, much changed in lieu of their understanding their assumptions. Evolutionary research became more empirical and not simply based on correlation studies.

However, it is ludicrous for them to claim objectivity. They come to their research already with everything set. It would be interesting to see how long it would have taken to discover that junk DNA wasn't really junk if the assunption wsn't made that this would be natural according to evolution. Preconceived idea that this junk DNA would make perfect sense if everything is random and Godless.

The frustration is that even though much of the previous research was not necessarily good and proper, I doubt highly that much of the research has been re-examined.

Saying that, we can also make huge assumptions. If God wanted DNA to have non-coding regions, He certainly can and this has no bearing on desing.

[j316]

They have explanations, it's simply a matter of what people believe are plausible.

Their explanation rests on random mutations that provided for reproductive and survival advantages. Natural selection simply then selected those that had those mutations that fit the demands of the environment.


So, yes, they do explain it. I, personally, think it demands just as much faith to support this explanation.

I wonder why the anti evolution people cannot seem to accept that it is possible that God is behind that. I mean who is to tell God how to design His universe. If science has any validity at all it points to the fact that the universe is orderly and changeable. Evolution could just be God's way of making changes, or it could be a record of the changes He has made.

[zoegirl]

I don't necessarily disagree. My only contention becomes, as you also stated, what is behind it all.

Genesis clearly states that GOd planned the creation, conducted the events, deliberately and thoughtfully caused things to happen. If He caused changes over time, perhaps that was timeline. Who knows? I know it was orderly, in God's timing, and intentional. God simply didn't just throw some elements in the ocean wondering what was going to happen.

I am intrigued by what you said about this possibly being a record of events. Could be. Always interesting to think about.

However, evolution, it most of its usage, implies a random, non-directed (i.e. mutations happen randomly, with no intent behind the mutation, I know that natural selection isn't a random mechanism) mechanism. YOu must even admit that in the vast majority of literature, this is the meaning behind the word. In fact, few words provoke such an amazing emotional response from people. Most people would associate evolution with being anti-God. Hardly surprising when evolution is used so liberally with atheistic philosophy.

THis is by far, one of the most emotionally loaded subjects ever. As Christian, we must always remember that we are to be "wise as serpents, but gentle as lambs" in our relationships. Unfortunately, sometimes our reactions to the scorn and disdain out there do not reflect back on Christ.

[archaeologist]

as you can see i am new to this forum and have not explored everything yet so if i bring something up already discussed, please forgive me. i am also a bad typist.

i have never been a fan of the intelligent design theory basically for the reason that i feel that it is a compromise to gain a foothold in the science classroom.

i did read the debate in the original post and felt that it was highly favored towards evolution and not an objective discussion. i am not an evolutionist either. so i will add a few comments here :

It seems that there are many gaps and problems in the theory of evolution that undermine its credibility

this is an understatement and a very polite way of saying it doesn't work, having been in quite a few discussions on the topic, it is easy to see that evolution is not scientific at all. evolution fails in almost every aspect and is undermined by its own operating procedures.

then by default whatever answer you give back its "wrong", and you hear the usual "evolution explains everything and where is your scientific proof

this is typical and the one i hear most often is, 'you do not understand evolution' well i do and would if they didn't keep changing it to meet new challenges that expose their weaknesses.

the latter partof that quote is funny, because evolution doesn't explain anything. ask the right questions and you will get complete silence or the changing of the subject.

evenin reading that debate, the pro-evolutionist avoided expalining the mousetrap opposition. he did not come up with any plausible explanation at all for why the mousetrap fails in its defense.

his main point was that we would assume some intelligent designer made tht mousetrap but why would we assume it? if we do not assume that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer then there is no probable cause to do the same with the mousetrap. it could have pieced itself together randomly.

of course evolutionists would laugh at that, yet that is their line of thinking with something far more complex than a mousetrap. evolutionists will then say that developement of the species was guided by the evolutionary process but they fail to recognize that a process is unthinking, unfeeling, unknowing robot which can only proceed ina manner in which it is programmed.

it has no knowledge of what is the right combination let alone set natural selection into in motion. it cannot conceive of right or wrong thus neither of those characteristics can develope because no by-product of this process would know what right or wrong was thus evry person would do what they wanted to do because there is nothing overseeing their actions and administrating punishment for bad behavior.

there are so many ways in which the theory of evolution fails that it is impossible to list.

but my contention is really with those who advocate intelligent design. if you are going to lead people to the truth then you must stick with the simple truth. that truth is 'God created', anything else is just telegraphing to the unsaved world that you do not believe what the Bible is saying and that instead of trusting Him, you use a back door.

all believers should know that creation encompasses science, and all science can be used to dissect what is in the world and universe today. it is evolution that is the usrper to the science classroom and does not belong there.

we can predict with creation also. as it has beenthe last 10,000 years it will be the same for the next 10,000, if the world doesn't destroy itself first. everything will reproduce according to their kind. creation meets the scientific standard on observation and testibility as well which evolution cannot do despite its claims.

the other thing that evolutionists need to consider is that there is no ancient society with a story that is an alternative to creation. all societies have a creation story, none have an evolutionary tale. if evolution was true, then we would not be digging up all these tablets with a creation myth on them, we would find some reference to some sort of evolutionary explanation.

[LJ57]

but my contention is really with those who advocate intelligent design. if you are going to lead people to the truth then you must stick with the simple truth. that truth is 'God created', anything else is just telegraphing to the unsaved world that you do not believe what the Bible is saying and that instead of trusting Him, you use a back door.

Intelligent Design, fortunately, has nothing to do with religion and creationism. It's a 'big tent' that encompasses OEC's, YEC's, TE's, agnostics (like me:), Buddhists, and pretty much everybody who doesn't accept materialism as a scientific fact. My hope is that it will stay this way and not become an instrument of the radical Christian right. So far so good for the most part.

[Enigma7457]

I was personally led to God through apologetics, so the ID movement is big for me. I believe it should be at least mentioned in public schools. here is evolution, here is what's right and wrong with it. Here is ID, here is what's right and wrong with it.

In regards to the mousetrap analogy, there is an interesting site where Behe defends it. I have yet to see it debunked.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

Evolution still has too many problems for me (like when did the sexes emerge. Or, if the apeman is better than the ape but worse than us, why are there apes but no apemen? Survival of the fittest puts the apeman ahead of the ape.)

Anyway, those are probably for another topic.

[zoegirl]

YOu cannot use the arguemtn about the apes evolving into humans, so why are there still apes? This is very frustrating becuase this is not what the evolutionary theory states and it shows basic ignorance on the part of CHristians. Further it does even more damage in the debate because it shows that we do not understand their arguements. If we donot understand theirs, we are in a very weak position.

According to the evolutionary theory, we evolved from a Common Ancestor shared with chimpanzees. Thus, BOTH chimps and humans evolved from the common ancestor and therefore both are around. The chimps fit into theor niche and the humans fit into theirs. Both were selected for their traits that fit their environment. Because the environment for chimps still exists, the chimps still exist. Survival of the fittest (and really it is more reproduction of the fittest) merely states that populations will be selected for their traits according to their fitness to the environment. The chimp is fit for its environment, so it still survives and reproduces.

However, saying that, the problem still revolved around whehter this is possible, which. for me, it isn't.

I think you are very correct in that ID is very important. My only fear is that we should never fall into the trap of testing God and sometimes I worry that ID will come of as that.

[Enigma7457]

I wasn't saying we came from apes then why are there still apes. I was saying, according to evolution (Surivival of the fittest) APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes. Yet APEMEN are gone and APES are still here. Why? If APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes, then apes should be gone and we should have apemen. If i am misunderstanding something about evolution, let me know.

I don't think ID 'tests' GOd. It only sets about to prove what he said. I am not (and cannot) be a Christian through blind faith. That is a problem of mine. I wish i could, but i can't. I need evidence. Something to base my faith on. Those who seek will find. Not those who sit around. Doubting isn't necessarily a bad thing as lond as it leads you to seek, since those who see, find.

[zoegirl]

I wasn't saying we came from apes then why are there still apes. I was saying, according to evolution (Surivival of the fittest) APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes. Yet APEMEN are gone and APES are still here. Why? If APEMEN were 'fitter' than apes, then apes should be gone and we should have apemen. If i am misunderstanding something about evolution, let me know.

I don't think ID 'tests' GOd. It only sets about to prove what he said. I am not (and cannot) be a Christian through blind faith. That is a problem of mine. I wish i could, but i can't. I need evidence. Something to base my faith on. Those who seek will find. Not those who sit around. Doubting isn't necessarily a bad thing as lond as it leads you to seek, since those who see, find.

I think I was confused by apemen...

If you are referring to hominid ancestors like Homo erectus, you bring up a good point. The arguement would be that either they did not survive and reproduce or that other species were fitter and replaced them in the environment (i.e. outcompete)

Populations survive because each FIT the environment they work with. Many speciation models depend upon allopatric speciation which requires a change in geography so that a population is separated and new selecvtive pressures are placed on each set of populations. The population of the alleged common ancestors of apes were in forests. A change in climate meant that suddenly there are both forests and grasslands. This change in geography means that there are new demands upon the population. THis means that the ancestors of the great apes were still fit for the forests, while some other portions of the ancestors were more fit for the grasslands. Because of these new selective pressures, each subset of the population changes when individuals survive and reproduce more than others because of difference phenotypes. Therefore it is quite plausible within this explanation that the hominids were no longer fit for their environmnet while the apes still were fit for theirs. as long as the environments that support them are still around, they will survive and reproduce

Now, whether this is plausible according to mutational probabilites, is another question.

I think that ID is great. I just remember a newspaper article on (at that time) junk DNA and the ID proponents saying that, according to what we know of God, then God wouldn't make junk DNA without a purpose and therefore there must be a purpose. They called this a testable hypothesis of design. I think this is a dangerous idea, that somehow God's intentions can be a testable hypothesis. God could make non-coding DNA (I know that they have found pruposes for junk DNA, just calling for caution). I just think we need to be careful to never restrict God within a box.