|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism in schools
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
As I concluded earlier in my argument I conceded that Intelligent design is not ready to be taught in public schools.
I will present evidence in support of Intelligent Design from a theistic perspective under a new topic called Evidence For Design.
Chris
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
This debate asks the question: Is the origin of life best explained by natural processes, or best explained by supernatural creation by a transcendent creator.
I think it’s fair to ask can there be both a supernatural and a natural origin of life. Perhaps some organisms were created by God’s intervention, and others evolved from non-living material on their own.
Maybe we can ascertain whether or not life must be exclusively created supernaturally. We might conclude that it is not reasonable to believe that life as we understand it can appear as an accident in nature based on the evidence.
And it’s also fair to ask that if we conclude there is indeed a creator, what are the characteristics of this creator. If we discover there to be design characteristics in the universe and the earth we would expect them to reflect something about their creator.
In a design analogy, we can study a piece of technology and how it was built and realize that it also reflects the purpose for which it was created.
So if something is created for a purpose, and what that purpose is, we might be able to predict what we might find in a system as we learn more about it.
But if it wasn’t created for a purpose, but just an accident, it would make sense that what we would expect from an accident would apply to what we are observing.
We have two models of the origins of life. One is abiogenesis which hypothesizes that non living matter can create living matter.
The other competing model is intelligent design, which hypothesizes that living matter was created by an intelligent designer.
The original question was if intelligent design is a viable model. I was hoping that someone would point out that there are different viewpoints different intelligent design models, as well as there are different evolutionary models.
I did state some basics about the model that I believe is viable. This is a Christian creationist model, where the God of the Bible creates the universe, the earth, and all forms of life including humanity in the sequence of Genesis 1.
Of course this model can’t be taught in schools. The model that can be taught in schools is harder to defend because it won’t define the creator. It is for this reason that I don’t believe it is a viable model if the creator is to remain ambiguous because it looses its power to make certain predictions. However, as more scientists are taking the ID approach to their studies I fully expect this model will be refined enough to make predictions about future discoveries.
A good model not only explains best what we see, but has the power to make predictions.
If we state that the designer is the God of the Bible, we are getting much more specific. We have characteristics of God, and we have an explanation of the purpose of the universe and humanity in the Bible itself.
So if what we see in humanity and the universe doesn’t line up with what’s in the Bible then it may falsify this hypothesis that the designer is the God of the Bible.
Each model encompasses a variety of sciences including astronomy, geology and biology. It’s very difficult to approach these issues from a biological standpoint because biology, is so complex it is hard to understand, microbiological so miniscule that they are difficult to manipulate and study outside of laboratory conditions which interferes with their natural functions.
It astounds me that we understand microbiology on the level that we do and have imaging devices and laboratory tests that can isolate the molecular systems they produce.
Though, with continuing advancements we do have a limited means to study microbiological systems in real time and analyze their contents.
Geology and astronomy, the physical sciences, to me, provide the most powerful arguments for ID because they are much less complex, and easy to predict. We can generate computer models that accurately simulate the kinds of things we can directly observe.
Of course this is about abiogenesis, so we will discus the biological data in context with physical sciences.
Right now I’m out of time, but the next post will contain some actual data. I just wanted to give everyone a background on what this is about before we continue.
Chris
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Heavenstorm:
OK, you're on:
Show the evidence that supports a logical, rational and scientific argument that proves ID/Creationism is better at explaining the origins of life than the theory of abiogenesis.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
I think when science is applied and we take measurements and generate conclusions, we find that the record of nature (astronomical and geolical) best supports a superantural orgin of life.
I believe it best supports a supernatural orgin of man, and a high level of design. Not only a high level of design, but what can be argued to be optimum design applying to cosmology, earth sciences, biology, physics, and astrobiology.
I believe it is arguable that we can conclude, that in light of the body of evidence as whole, a naturalistic explanation for this design is not reasonable.
I think the Bible is compatible with science, and I believe God would not mislead us by condracting the record of nature or history with His Word. God created this universe and His nature is reflected in it. I believe that the Bible is the truth of God, where truth is absolute and there is no errors in the ideas it communicates.
I believe there are extreme theological and philisophical implications surrounding this issue, and the issue of Biblical innerancy.
I have evidence to support my views that I believe you might find compelling.
I started this discussion to get people to compare these two views. I was too general to start with. You did point out that naturalistic evolution encompasses a great deal of science.
As I pointed out I believe in evolution, where evolution means a change over time, because this is supported by the record of nature.
We can explain these changes as driven by natural processes, and/or driven by supernatural intervention or creation from nothing.
I think the most important relevant topics to Christianity in this debate would be specifically the explanation of the origin of life, and the origin of humanity at.
However, the Intelligent Design movement encompasses a wide variety of materials and ideas as well.
Not everyone is going to be exposed to the same materials or ideas when it comes to the debate. I'm hoping we are seeing it from different angles, but I fear the news media has taken one stance and that is that evolution is an established bulletproof fact. That is not so.
I believe they are misreperesenting the scientific community when they say that scientists reject intelligent design because it is not scientifically viable. This does not apply to all scientists, as we see a division even in this community.
I want people to understand this, and come to thier own conclusions with a view from both sides.
Chris
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
It takes no amount of faith to accept evolution theory.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Science does not depend of faith, either you accept rationality and the scientific POV, or you reject it.
You have faith and belief in God. God does not depend on imperical evidence. This by definition makes belief in God irrational, but no less valid.
If we fail to teach proper science, then we fail our Creator. God has given us the gift of science to understand His creation and marvel in its wonders and to become co-creators with His on-going miracle. Why would we purposely dimish our capacity to serve our Lord this way?
Embrace God. Accept science.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Tennessee Elijah
Advanced Member
Member # 5277
|
posted
Obviously, we are engaged in spiritual warfare here on Planet Earth. As far as our American schools are concerned, the latest issue of note should be resolved this way: Teach children the "Theory of Evolution," the "Theory of Creation," and the "Theory of Faith." It takes faith to believe in either Darwin or God. I prefer to believe that God is more credible.
--------------------
DO A WEB SEARCH TO FIND JIGROP
Posts: 55 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
The theory of evolution is certainly falsifiable as constructed, but the preponderance of the emperical evidence supports its validity.
Intelligent Design is tragically flawed in its logic and as a scientific concept, so it is not credible at all.
Creationists, as you call them, have an observable track record of attacking evolutionary theory without providing a viable alternative, so you are correct on that point.
This is an issue I follow closely. I live just a few miles from Dover, PA and have followed that particular case in the local and national press. But I follow this topic in general.
As far as presenting creationism as a myth, I presume you are refering to the college class that was to have taken place in Kansas. Well, because of the poor judgment of the professor in charge of the class, it is cancelled and so will not take place as far as I know. At least not this academic year.
The use of the term fact is a tricky thing in this context. The best way to say it is that from a scientific POV the theory of evolution provides the best understanding of the facts at hand. The only way the scientific community will move away from evolution as the predominant theory in explaining how organisms adapt to their environments is if overwhelming data is discovered to falsify the theory.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
I wonder if anyone's been following the news about the possiblity of teaching an alternative to Darwinian Evolution in schools.
So far we have the framework to create a competing model to evolution called Intelligent Design. I think the question is, is this model complete enough to be presented as a credible rebuttal to naturalistic design?
Now we have teachers trying to present creationism as a myth and Macroevolution as a fact.
Macroevolutionists are saying Creationists have a tendency to tear down thier model without building up an alternative, falsafiable model.
Do you think this is true?
Do you think macroevolution is falsifiable?
Chris
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
