Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please

Post Reply New Topic

What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented! - then we might easily reply: 'We are, indeed, not among the least contented. You, however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book... As things are, however, all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.

- Nietzsche

Kallister, this thread is not about bashing religious people or their beliefs. I don't particularly care what Nietzsche has to say on the matter.

Still no one wishes to step forward and pose a challenge to evolution? Or at least correct our working definition of ID?

I was putting forth serious discussion about the separation of science and religion. You aren't going to get a rational answer from the religious side.

Maybe. For purposes of this discussion I don't care much about anything relating to religion. I care about the observable evidence for or against different explanations for the diversity of life. In regards to your second statement, this isn't a religious vs non-religious debate, so there can't really be a "religious side."

Close. I'm saying that the lack of constraint following from the assumption of a designer allows them to rationalize anything. Whether they do you can treat either as an empirical question or a psychological one, but either way it's not directly related to the merits of their theory.

The Science Blog of New Scientist has an entry on efforts by the ID community to do (or possibly just claim to be doing) scientific work, with a link.

Sounds reasonable to me.

I think what we need to have is less knee-jerk foul-crying every time ID is mentioned.
I mean, a new approach to the scientific inquiry of our origins is not heresy.
(Unless the scientific community now considers itself infallible. )

The quoted passage is clearly one of honest scientific inquiry,
and you simply can't knock that. Not without knocking all of science.

But I understand the fear involved in the evolutionists who decry ID most vociferously.
ID is a competing idea, and, as it's much more instinctively attractive to people than the theory of evolution,
it's likely to catch fire quickly, and become a formidable competitor to evolution.
But competition is good -- it stimulates all participants to do their very best.

you still have no idea of the quality of experiments these "experts" are doing... you can't even analyze the experiemtns evolutionists are doing with any6 sort of competancy.

as soon as you see scientists researching ID... you're oooh, i buy that! (me---i'd like to see some of their papers).

it's not like i agree with every paper ever published on evolution... there's definitely some crap ones.

Please read the terms of debate outlined by Orwell. Alleging fear is well off topic. This is for a serious discussion of the scientific basis for evolution or various versions of creation-related theories. This thread is about the theories, not the psychology of their adherents.


"instinctively attractive" has nothing to do with scientific merit, which is the topic of this thread.

Not infallible, one of the issues with ID is whether or not it can genuinely follow the scientific method, and many believe it cannot. In fact, some scholars and individuals promoting the ID movement have pushed for a different interpretation of science just to allow for the theory, which considering that science itself is relatively valid and the criticisms are mostly ideological, there is no reason to allow it.


Competition IS good, which is why if ID is a valid theory, they should have been publishing in scientific papers trying to prove the validity of their theory. They have not been doing so but instead seeking political power, which is not how competition works just about anywhere.

No, it's a press statement. Anyone can have a fancy press statement. I want to see some of their science. Post links if you find anything interesting.

Creationism was the established theory before the overwhelming evidence for evolution convinced most people of its truth. What you are saying is akin to pointing at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD as evidence of the Roman Empire as an emerging power. It's simply not true, you're taking a dead concept and trying hopelessly to breath new life into it. Evolutionary biologists aren't worried about a serious intellectual attack on the fundamentals of evolution, because that's simply not forthcoming. I see you have finally posted in this thread; would you like now to respond to its question? I would like to see some science, or if not science, at least directly observable and measurable evidence.

I think these quotes say it all

I think the last time in religion was c1520

Bazza, that didn't really have anything to do with science. We're not bashing religion here, create your own thread if you want to do that. No ad hominems, just discussion of whether or not evolution best explains our observations, and whether ID has any evidence going for it.

My response here wasn't actually to you so much Bazza, I kind of wanted to bump the thread. But my comments still stand.

Ben? (iamnotaparakeet) Ragtime? I know your both regulars here, and you've both responded to this thread. I really am interested in seeing what contributions you can make. If you want to convince anyone of your ideas, you'll have to give solid reasons for them.

I don't believe ID is a theory. Evolution is. If there is any credible evidence to support ID, I would like to see a link to it.

IMHO ID is just an argument that was invented by creationists to replace the "theory" of creationism is about as credible as the world being flat.

Thank you, Bazza, for some Aussie common sense.

Ragtime, I'm still waiting. I'll give it to the end of this month. By then you should have been able to skim through some of the articles form the Biologic Institute and post links to any you find interesting. Thanks in advance.

Orwell, you might not want to wait standing up - Ragtime usually ditches threads that have gone wrong for him!