Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Rubystars
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 37 (125713)
07-19-2004 2:58 PM


Many people get theistic evolution and intelligent design mixed up. It's not accurate to portray theistic evolutionists as supporters of the intelligent design (ID) movement, nor is it accurate to portray ID advocates as those who completely accept evolution.
Both believe that there is design in nature, that God created the universe. However, it is only ID advocates which claim that there's some sort of scientific basis for this belief. A theistic evolutionist would say that while design in nature can be inferred, it can not be scientifically established.
The ID movement is an attempt to undermine science by saying that natural processes are not sufficient to produce what we see in nature, i.e. supernatural miracles are required (or aliens, or some other intelligent interference). They may hold up "irreducibly complex" systems as evidence that some sort of interference or help was needed along the way. Theistic evolutionists accept that natural processes are sufficient (though they may believe God could intervene in a more direct manner if he wanted to) and that irreducibly complex systems do have a natural explanation.
ID advocates seem to think that either something is naturally designed, or intelligently designed, and they seem to set it up in such a way that both can't be true. The ID movement, as promoted by many Christians, basically says "I don't know how this could have happened naturally, so God did it." This is an argument from incredulity, and puts God into gaps that will inevitably be filled one day.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God can work through nature to exert His will in a situation. While nature is believed to be created, natural processes are a sufficient tool for that creation, or at least the primary one.
The most major difference between ID advocates and theistic evolutionists are their views on public school education. ID advocates have been going to court to get their beliefs taught as science in science classrooms. Most theistic evolutionists would be opposed to this happening.
Creationists often take well to ID style arguments, while they reject theistic evolution as being false. One can be a creationist and an ID advocate at the same time, while a theistic evolutionist always accepts evolution.
Below is summary of the above points, comparing atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, and intelligent design.
Is nature designed/created by God (or other conscious intelligence)?
AE: No TE: Yes ID: Yes
Can nature's design by an intelligent being/beings be scientifically established?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes
Are natural processes sufficient to produce the designs we see in nature?
AE: Yes TE: Yes ID: No
Should the role of an intelligent designer in nature's creation be taught in public schools as science?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes
Can you be a creationist (one who rejects evolution and believes in special creation) and still hold this position?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes

My POTM: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: January 2003

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by contracycle, posted 07-21-2004 6:47 AM Rubystars has not replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2004 9:21 PM Rubystars has not replied
 Message 37 by randman, posted 06-01-2005 2:44 AM Rubystars has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 37 (126162)
07-21-2004 3:32 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (126196)
07-21-2004 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rubystars
07-19-2004 2:58 PM


quote:
Below is summary of the above points, comparing atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, and intelligent design.
Below is a corrected version.
quote:
Is nature designed/created by God (or other conscious intelligence)?
AE: No TE: Yes ID: Yes
Correction
AE: unknowable
quote:
Can nature's design by an intelligent being/beings be scientifically established?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes
Questions begs its own conclusion, and relies on a Yes answer to question 1.
quote:
Are natural processes sufficient to produce the designs we see in nature?
AE: Yes TE: Yes ID: No
Uncontested
quote:
Should the role of an intelligent designer in nature's creation be taught in public schools as science?
AE: No TE: No ID: Yes
Correction
AE: Yes, if one could be demonstrated, as that would be the correct desciptive model

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rubystars, posted 07-19-2004 2:58 PM Rubystars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 7:14 AM contracycle has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 37 (126204)
07-21-2004 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by contracycle
07-21-2004 6:47 AM


I disagree:
Correction AE: unknowable
The original poster was correct. It would take an agnostic to posit your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by contracycle, posted 07-21-2004 6:47 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by contracycle, posted 07-22-2004 5:56 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 37 (126215)
07-21-2004 8:14 AM


intelligent design is a funny concept, really. evolution allows for it, actually, through artificial selection. humans are able to "design" features in animals, etc.
i think the basic theistic-evolution stance is that natural selection is really super-natural selection some or all of the time. it is, admittedly, a religious belief and completely unfalsifiable. but it's not claiming to be anything else, really.
but yes, most theistic evolutionists would contend that natural selection and other natural process are perfectly sufficient to produce life as we know it today. it's not even god-of-the-gaps so much as it is god-as-a-bonus for me.
[edit:]
i've read your post-of-the-month a few times. it's a classic one. i think i'll read it again. out of curiousity, what is your current stance? are you a theistic evolution person?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-21-2004 07:17 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 07-21-2004 11:01 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 9 by Rubystars, posted 07-24-2004 5:06 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 37 (126256)
07-21-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
07-21-2004 8:14 AM


LLRB
Could you be sure to use the little red reply button when appropriate. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2004 8:14 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 07-22-2004 1:52 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 37 (126468)
07-22-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by AdminNosy
07-21-2004 11:01 AM


Re: LLRB
i try to, but i thought hitting the reply to topic was the same as replying the first post. on closer examination i guess that isn't so. ah well. i'll remember that in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 07-21-2004 11:01 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 37 (126507)
07-22-2004 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Jack
07-21-2004 7:14 AM


quote:
I disagree:
Correction AE: unknowable
The original poster was correct. It would take an agnostic to posit your answer.
You are mistaken; an agnostic only asserts that it is unkown WHETHER god exists. Atheism says it is unknowable, and must therefore not be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 07-21-2004 7:14 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 07-27-2004 7:46 AM contracycle has replied

  
Rubystars
Inactive Junior Member


Message 9 of 37 (127265)
07-24-2004 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
07-21-2004 8:14 AM


I'm still a theistic evolutionist. I'm glad you liked my post of the month. There were some people at the MSN EvC group that helped vote for me.

My POTM: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: January 2003

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 07-21-2004 8:14 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rubystars, posted 07-24-2004 5:07 AM Rubystars has not replied

  
Rubystars
Inactive Junior Member


Message 10 of 37 (127266)
07-24-2004 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rubystars
07-24-2004 5:06 AM


I always thought atheism = lack of a belief in God.
There are strong and weak atheists. Strong atheists say they know there is no God, or at least are certain to a high degree. Weak atheists are sometimes hard to tell apart from agnostics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rubystars, posted 07-24-2004 5:06 AM Rubystars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 12:23 PM Rubystars has not replied

  
Bruce1651
Junior Member (Idle past 5736 days)
Posts: 4
From: United States
Joined: 07-13-2008


Message 11 of 37 (127487)
07-25-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rubystars
07-24-2004 5:07 AM


Hi Rubistars. This is my first post so be gentle! I am a Christian - converted from the 70's drug culture. Recently a friend who is a science teacher got me onto Creationism. I downloaded alot of hovind mp3 talks who in spite of his rhetoric seemed to talk alot of sense. I have never had a problem with evolution but it was nice to hear someone make the Bible sound so literal. I guess the main thing to me is that God is at the origin of all things as Creator and He sustains all he has created whether by natural law or miraculous power. I have recently been studying the idea of ID reading "Science and evidence for design in the universe" (Behe; Dempski; Meyer) so i have hit upon this thread. What has impressed me so far is that our search for Intelligence in outer space has developed a scientific system for such recognition which, if accepted, by the scientific community should also be an accepted means of detection of ID in creation. I haven't got any further so cannot say much more.
I read your other post and some things perturbed me.
"I saw Carl Baugh on tv with a human footprint that supposedly had a trilobite embedded into it."
You say he was lying - in what way?
"He was also kind of appealing in some ways cause he talked about how he had evidence that dinosaurs might have been around as recent as 4000 years ago and he even claimed there were eye witnesses of dinosaurs more recent than that. Lies, dirty lies ..."
I understood that Creationists are not asserting these things to be true but possibilities.
"I didn't really fully understand the scientfic method nor did I understand that eye witness testimony is not considered to be a good source of information."
Some people may lie or fabricate but not all lie. Do you dismiss all reports re dinosours - incl photos. I think you have come across the usual stuff Hovind etc come up with.
"One thing I had a serious problem with was that they firmly declared that there were two kingdoms, plants and animals. I knew from my earlier class that this was wrong. I knew that bacteria and protists and fungi were in different kingdoms. This was my first dose of skepticism regarding creationists."
I'm not a scientist. Could you make it a little clearer what the problem is?
"and then chose the first hominid that was fully human to be Adam and then the story went from there."
at what point does one decide true "hominidity" and is there not a theological problem in that death came through the sin of the first man whereas in this case death existed before Adam?
Sorry to bombarde you with questions. You don't have to answer them all - and they are open to anyone to answer - also sorry if I have used quotes in the wrong way

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rubystars, posted 07-24-2004 5:07 AM Rubystars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-25-2004 12:42 PM Bruce1651 has not replied
 Message 13 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 6:03 PM Bruce1651 has replied
 Message 21 by gbunty, posted 07-28-2004 1:42 AM Bruce1651 has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 12 of 37 (127488)
07-25-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bruce1651
07-25-2004 12:23 PM


Welcome Bruce. I'm glad to see that you felt comfortable just jumping into a discussion that interests you.
Here are a few formating hints for beginners.
http://EvC Forum: Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
Don't forget to read our Forum Guidelines
Once again, welcome.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 12:23 PM Bruce1651 has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (127520)
07-25-2004 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bruce1651
07-25-2004 12:23 PM


The law of man
I guess the main thing to me is that God is at the origin of all things as Creator and He sustains all he has created whether by natural law or miraculous power.
Fascinating. Sounds like a control freak except, why would should a deity endow one of his creations with the power to destroy itself along with the rest of his creation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 12:23 PM Bruce1651 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 6:35 PM SRO2 has replied

  
Bruce1651
Junior Member (Idle past 5736 days)
Posts: 4
From: United States
Joined: 07-13-2008


Message 14 of 37 (127528)
07-25-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by SRO2
07-25-2004 6:03 PM


Re: The law of man
Fascinating. Sounds like a control freak except, why would should a deity endow one of his creations with the power to destroy itself along with the rest of his creation?
not sure what you mean.........
This message has been edited by Bruce, 07-25-2004 05:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 6:03 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 6:40 PM Bruce1651 has replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 37 (127529)
07-25-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Bruce1651
07-25-2004 6:35 PM


Re: The law of man
The creator can't be all that bright, he was dumb enough to create a being with the intellegence to destroy everything he created (The A-bomb).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 6:35 PM Bruce1651 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Bruce1651, posted 07-25-2004 7:49 PM SRO2 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024