A proof against ID and Creationism

I have not yet gotten a chance to welcome you, so please, I hope you enjoy it here . But to the topic now.Creationism/ID is not specifically related to God. In Creationism, it's the "Creator"; and in ID, it's the "Designer."Both of these theories claim to be science (unlike religion), so they must follow the rules of science, i.e., they must be able to support their claims with empirical (physical) evidence (actually, they shouldn't start out making claims in the first place, but that's a whole other plate of cookies). If the claim is made for a Creator/Designer, then there must be supporting empirical evidence. Creationists/ID Theorists have yet to provide satisfactory evidence proving the existence of their Creator/Designer. Without such evidence, we are left to do nothing but conclude that there is no Creator/Designer.But, if the evidence were found, then we would accept it as fact. Science doesn't care if the new view conflicts with the old. If the new stuff is right, then that's what it goes with.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

So, are you saying that ID and Creationism disprove themselves? I would have to agree here, though I've never thought of it this way.Great Topic,
Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Well, I'd say that their reasoning doesn't apply to anything. I mean, if their reasoning doesn't hold true for all things, then what is their proof for applying their reasoning to the Universe?Do Creationists/ID Theorists know they have shotty science, or do they really think it's valid?Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Of course not. If you could see the "missing link," it wouldn't be missing anymore. When I was first reading this sentence, I was worried you were going to finish by saying that you haven't seen evolution take place. I'm glad to see that you followed with a different, albeit equally unfounded, statement. That is the problem with Creationism/ID: presuppositions. Read my signature. Darwin came to the conclusion of evolution AFTER looking at the evidence. Creationists/ID Theorists START with the conclusion, and then try to prove it through misinterpretations of the evidence.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

About God and religious compadability with evolution, I agree with what Asgara and jar said.As for the missing links, just because we have not reconstructed EVERY single evolutionary path of EVERY single creature on Earth (and we may very well NEVER be able to do so), does not mean that the theory as a whole is incorrect. We state gravity as a law, despite the fact that we have yet to visit EVERY body in space to check if it exhibits gravitational properties. And even if we were to find ALL the evidence, Creationists/ID Theorists would STILL claim they wanted to see the missing link, whether it existed or not. It's quite simple actually: a lack of evidence for is not evidence against.Evolution is the same way. Just because we don't have ALL the evidence at hand, does not mean that the evidence we do have is insufficient to form a theory. If I am correct, Darwin formed his theory on evolution mostly by looking at LIVING creatures (remember the finches?) and only the occasional fossil.And what are these "ape-men" to which you refer? There are no such thing. Neanderthals have been found, as have other "pre-homo sapien" "missing links." Not to mention those fossils found for other animals.And read my signature about Darwin coming to the conclusion AFTER looking at the evidence. Darwin's presupposition was as a Christian.Trék

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species