Theistic Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

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: YesCan nature's design by an intelligent being/beings be scientifically established?AE: No TE: No ID: YesAre natural processes sufficient to produce the designs we see in nature?AE: Yes TE: Yes ID: NoShould the role of an intelligent designer in nature's creation be taught in public schools as science?AE: No TE: No ID: YesCan 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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 FormattingDon't forget to read our Forum GuidelinesOnce again, welcome.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

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

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

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).