Comments on: Evolution book takes aim at “Intelligent Design” Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: j Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:53:36 +0000 Creationism, however starts with the assumption that the Bible is the word of an all knowing God who does not lie, who also made everything and therefore knows how/when it was made. They also believe that when the evidence is interpreted on this foundation it is a better model. It explains why there is death, suffering, where did we come from, and who are we/what is our purpose. It is inseparable from Christianity.

Evolutionism starts with the assumption that there are only naturalistic explanations for everything (the atheist view). That there is no room or possibility for any intelligent or divine interference in science or history. However, there is no evidence supporting this. This view also teaches that there is no value to human life, that only the fit survive, and that right is only that which helps you.

Now i hope Anon i have shown you that all three sides make assumptions that cannot be tested by the scientific method (a creationist invention). This means that all three require a belief/faith that any one is true. This is why i call them all -ism for they are all religions with their own value systems and beliefs about creation, the after-life, value of life, purpose, and many others.

Religion has always been a target of ridicule and persecution and the followers realize that. It has nothing to do with science vs religion but everything to do with sin and the worlds hate of God. This debate is just used as a way to rationalize that hate and not recognize it for what it is.

By: j Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:15:37 +0000 Anon, you have your history wrong at least when applied to ID, Creationism, and Christianity.

First Christianity has long embraced science, as you can see by the very short list of scientists i posted earlier. Also, when the Catholic church attacked Galileo it was because they had taken the predominant scientific view of a geocentric universe and had added it to their religion. So they where following science when they went against Galileo.

by the time when Darwin came out with his work the Catholic church was teaching the unbiblical doctrine of the Fixity of the Species or that God created them where they are and how you see them today. The Protestant churches at that time, however, where teaching that all creatures we see today were descendant from those that went with Noah on the ark and therefore where not created how/where they are seen today. this is in line with the writings of the scientist Edward Blyth, who coined the term Natural Selection years before Darwin used it. This is why the Catholic church today partly supports Darwin and the Protestant churches do not.

Now, concerning the differences between ID, Creationism, and Evolutionism. All three make some base assumptions in order to interpret what they find.
ID starts with the idea that there may be an intelligent interference in evolution, but who that is we don’t/can’t know (an agnostic view).

By: Anon Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:59:10 +0000 Faith, when confronted with science, has attempted many things to survive.

First it tried to ignore science. And eventually, this denial ended up harming their own social dominance.

So then it tried to take the rationality of science, and use it a mask for religion to hide. We ended up with Intelligent Design and Creationism. And by doing so, religion became a target of ridicule.

So now, religion attempts to take its own irrationality, and try to tar science with the same brush.

“Science is irrational, because it makes assumptions” they say, “so it is OK to possess an irrational faith”.

The last refuge of any apologist. When you can’t beat the other side, you try to pull them down to your own level. Or create this impression to your supporters.

By: Satan Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:00:59 +0000 I despise most or all religion, but I agree with JD that the scientific, rational, atheist perspective can degenerate into religion. This should be discouraged. Science is a precious, fragile thing. Religionists use it constantly in their lives, but have no respect for it, like a child playing with an expensive camera in a sandbox. (Many people who have earned the pro forma title of “scientist” also have no respect for it, like these people who live on grants to prove that unhealthy foods and beverages are slightly healthy, or the people who churn our antidrug research featuring invalid analysis.)

Re my handle, “satan” is an ordinary Hebrew word meaning something like “adversary” or “accuser”. It isn’t a proper noun in Hebrew; that was a Christian development.

By: Mark Stevens Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:38:28 +0000 jd, john, and j. “Neither theory can be tested by the scientific method.”

I think that should read ‘ID theory cannot be tested by the scientific method.’

Cheese and rice, no wonder our science education in this country is so far behind other nations.

By: Michael Cecil Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:59:55 +0000 John,

It was Karl Popper, as I recall, who observed that *no* fundamental assumptions can be proven. *All* of them must be accepted on faith.

Surely, religion is based upon faith. And the religionists are willing to accept that.

But the scientific method, too, is based upon a faith in certain metaphysical assumptions (for example, the metaphysical duality; the existence of a ‘thinker\'; the uni-directionality of time, etc. etc.); which, also, cannot be proven. But the scientists are unwilling to accept that any of these things are matters of faith. On the contrary, they assert such things as being “facts” rather than “beliefs”.

In any case, neither the scientists nor the religionists are willing to seriously examine the question of human consciousness itself. Science has not yet come to an understanding of what consciousness is; while the religionists do not yet recognize that the consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) is *not* the consciousness of the ‘thinker\'; but, rather, that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is, itself, a consequence of ‘the Fall’ in the first place.

Only when the implications of both science and Revelation upon the question of human consciousness are examined in detail will there be any hope of resolving the conflict between science and Revelation.

Michael Cecil

http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot .com/

By: jd Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:38:46 +0000 this is less science vs religion than clash of religious worldviews (theistic vs atheistic); that most scientists embrace evolution is as significant to the discussion as how many people embrace one religion or another. neither worldview rejects observation of empirically derived data, but each interprets those data according to its own paradigm. neither id nor creationist supporters deny microevolution (change within a kind), but see the genome project and other discoveries as either failing to support or outrightly disproving macroevolution (“molecules to man”). atheistic scientists reject as epiphenomena anything contradicting their religious belief, hence are dismissive of dr behe’s discussions of irreducible complexity. the secularists also hold the power in academia and government, and so get to play the grand inquisitor – just as they accuse the church of having done with galileo.

By: John Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:59:09 +0000 ID and creationism are completely the same. In the sense that neither are scientific theories, and should not be taught as such.

These theories base their logic on a supernatural cause, which has no basis in scientific thought.

Neither theory can be tested by the scientific method.

Nor are these theories based on the scientific principle of observation. They merely take the evidence (Complexity) and attribute it to a cause (Deity) without any actual evidence of causal connection.

And no, the Bible is not evidence. Because it was written by man, making it the theological version of hearsay.

But these theories do something much worse. They try to dress up religion as a form of credible science. Have things gotten so bad that religion must resort to such deception?

Religion is based on faith. If a person has a true faith in their religion, they must simply dismiss any science to the contrary. Such behaviour may not be logical or rational, but that is what faith has always demanded.

By: j Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:42:55 +0000 When will evolutionists realize there is a difference between ID and Creationism?

The reason they lump the two together is that the creationists get a different result from the same evidence. Creationists have been using natural selection to support their view, seeing as the term was coined 20 years before Darwin in support of creationism. The resistance of bacteria, the populations seen on islands all fit the creationist model.

The creationist model also makes verifiable predictions. The work of Pasteur, Newton, Francis Bacon (inventor of the scientific method), Kepler, Galileo, and Dr Damadian (inventor of the MRI). To name a few people whose creationist work has been verified and accepted today as fact. But this is why you never hear evolutionists asking about what creationism has done for us.

The truth is that the evolutionist community is afraid that more people will see that the creationists have a better model. They are also afraid that then they will be held responsible for their actions when they die for if the science of the Bible is correct then the rest of it is as well.

If you really want to know what creationist think go to and see what they really believe.