Wednesday, 15 October 2008
-
Science: Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism
This is a touchy subject in the field of both science and religion. It is no secret that since the founding of Darwinism, religion and science have bumped heads. Does this really have to happen?
It is well known and documented that some of the world's most renowned scientists, past and present, believe in some sort of intelligent design. Among these are Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. Some, such as Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton looked at their faith in Biblical Christianity as their backbone for their scientific findings and thought that their faith backed up their scientific discoveries. Now before I get ahead of myself- I did not say that Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are Christians and support Creationism. I said they were/are firm in their belief in Intelligent Design.
I will go ahead and explain the difference.
Definitions!:- Evolutionism- A belief in the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
- Darwinism- The Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind. *(In other words, the belief that all creation shares one common ancestor. That being one single-celled organism.)
- Creationism- The doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
- Intelligent Design- A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance.
Definitions come from www.dictionary.com unless marked with an *
*my own brief definitionAgain, let me stress the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism is the belief that God created the heavens and the earth. This is biblical Judaism, biblical Christianity, and consistent with the Koranic Islam.
Unlike Creationism, Intelligent Design is not limited to the biblical or koranic story of creation. The belief is that something(s) or someone whom is far greater in intelligence than man created everything that is known and unknown. Sounds a lot like the Christian worldview of creationism, right? That's true, however Creationism is just a category of Intelligent Design. There are many other views that fit in the category of Intelligent Design- including the story of creation taught in Scientology, similar to how Darwinism is a category branching from Evolutionism. There are many other theories taught- Darwin's is just the basic- but most modern day, evolutionistic scientists don't agree completely with Darwinism. Just its founding components.
With this said, is Intelligent Design science?
My opinion is, of course it is. But scientists don't look at my opinion. They want the opinion of highly credentialed scientists. The problem here is that once a scientist mentions Intelligent Design (Not Creationism) being a possibility of the beginning of the universe, hell raises over the scientific community- no matter how highly credentialed that scientist may be. There have been countless instances where many scientists and professors didn't keep their mouth shut about their belief in intelligent design, and they ended up getting ridiculed or fired because of their view... or even mentioning it- not necessarily believing it.
So even many scientists believe in some sort of intelligent design, however, will not speak out due to the threat of unemployment and ridicule hanging over their heads. Could this be the reason why Intelligent Design theories are often times denied to be taught in schools? I think it has a lot to do with it. Science is not a democratic issue. Funding should be put into Intelligent Design theories just as much as it should be put into evolutionistic theories.
The point of science is to find out our past, present and future. It is a very philosophical subject, however, it can never beat the ultimate philosophical question, "WHY?" Sure, it can get so far in answering that question... but it eventually gives up and says, "well we don't know why yet." or "we don't know how, yet." Intelligent Design actually gives answers to the whys and hows. Even though they are theories.
I find it interesting that we (science) can trace back our entire ancestry to a single-celled organism, but can't figure out what gave that organism life and what caused it to multiply. I also find it interesting that we (science) can't find out how emotions and thought evolved or came around.
There are theories saying that this single-celled organism could have been implanted on this earth from something else- To me, that sounds a lot like intelligent design. Something with greater knowledge or something that was always there, or maybe both, created life. Either way, something would have always had to have been there... Something...
Are there holes in the evolution theory? ...Yes
Are there holes in every form of Intelligent Design theory? ...Yes
Can we prove that either of these actually happened? ...No. The problem is, we weren't there. We would have to trust one expert of the matter over another... But no expert can give you the most important part of belief... That is your faith. You have to have faith to believe in both of these theories of the origins of life.
I know what is going to happen. People will read this... they will get all upset and call Christians idiotic... They will blame them for the dumbing down of our nation and the many wars in the name of God and try to prove evolution is the right way to believe. Likewise, the Christians will blame evolutionists for eugenics and the genocide of the Jewish people from the Nazis. And then the Christians will try to prove that Creationism is true.
The truth is, neither of these can be proven true. There is ample evidence for both... on both sides. It is all a matter of faith. Choose what you will. Just remember the point of this entry. Intelligent Design should be considered a science and NOT a religion, and both, intelligent design and evolution are theories and should be treated and taught as such.
-
recommend
- recs 2
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to jmallory's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in jmallory's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (30)
Hi there, Jimmy. I'm Sarah, and I thought I'd check out your site after seeing a xanga plug and some of your comments on Datingish.
Very interesting post. My faith lies with the Genesis version, but similar to what you've pointed out, that doesn't mean I'm at war with science. It's a shame how there's been such a great divide between all the scientific theories and faith-based beliefs. The whole earth is full of God's glory, and I love that, especially today, there is so so much we can learn about the earth and how it works and what sort of stuff happened throughout its history. . .but God definitely got the ball rolling...or spinning, in this case.
The latest issue of National Geographic magazine has a fascinating article about Neanderthals....but it kind of drives me crazy wondering, "Ok, God, what's the deal with those guys?? Did any Bible characters look more like them than like us?" ....I really hope I can take "True History of the World 101" when I get to heaven. ;]
Regarding your comments that I saw on a post on Datingish about abstinence and stuff...your suggestion to marry and the reply war that ensued....I just wanted to say: God bless you, man. A couple people gave you a lot of grief, but you stood your ground with what seemed like a lot of patience, grace, and respect. Integrity in the face of...much of the opposite, lol.
I've met Stephen Hawking at a lecture in Seattle.
He is Atheist.
So is Einstein.
And I'd like to make note.
They are not supporters of ID in any way. Einstein and Hawking held no theistic beliefs.
And you misrepresent what a science is. To become a science, you must be able to fall under the scientific method.
Evolution does this. You cannot test and observe ID. It's a belief.
ID is not science. Can you cite scientific sources that provide evidence of ID? Key word, "scientific." If you're claiming that it's science, there should be scientific literature that we can look into.
@uraniaiscool - @In_Reason_I_Trust - H, how do you always beat me here? But you guys took the words out of my mouth.
ID is just a belief. Who would be the designers of the designers? How far back can it go? You have to take ID on faith which more often than not constitutes BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Hawking definitely doesn't subscribe to ID in any way. That's ludicrious.
Your picture is AWESOME. :)
@blueyedreamer84 - Thank you for your support. :) And you are right- we will never truely know about the origins of life and if we actually evolved until we die.
@uraniaiscool @GodAintGood - - "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."
That is a quote from Steven Hawking, himself. He is totally not an atheist considering he acknowledges the existence of "a" god. Maybe agnostic... but not atheist. Just because you met him doesn't mean you actually know the man. I am sure he would be offended by you saying he is an atheist.
Einstein on the other hand considered the Laws of Nature to be God. Again- not a Christian- but not an atheist either- thus- believing in some sort of being creating the universe whether it is physical or an idea- thus- his belief in Intelligent Design.
For the record- ID is NOT theism. Creationism... that is theism. ID just goes a step further- Ok... we know we have life somehow, but what put that life their- ID believes something. Not exactly God all the time. Just something.
The evidence for ID is in the lack of evidence in evolution. The question still remains- how did life start? That is the evidence of something bigger.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately, "scientific" sources are there, but few and far between because of reasons that I have stated in my entry. Sounds like a nut-cased conspiracy theory, but I've looked into it. And according to many people in the scientific community, those who speak out against evolutionism and darwinism will be shunned and/or ridiculed for not going to the beat of the same drum. And these are highly credentialed scientists.
@CanadianConspiracy - Thank you very much :)
This is as shoddy an argument as all the others I've ever heard supporting ID. ID isn't science - not because scientists don't like your opinions, but rather because science is supported by data and replicable study. There isn't a single experiment demonstrating Intelligent Design (not that there ever could be, of course, since the control for such an experiment would have to involve a universe where God doesn't exist - pretty hard to come by), therefore it isn't funded, taught, or taken seriously by anyone with the humility to call themselves "scientist".
There's more clinical evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. Get with it.
@uraniaiscool - Einstein was Jewish, though he didn't practice.
@jmallory - Actually no. He is an open Atheist. You misrepresent what Atheism is. He's de facto Atheist, meaning he recognises the possibility of there being a God just as he recognises the possibility of Santa Claus existing. I just feel rather personally offended that you're using my hero (since I am an astrophysicist myself) as an example of someone who had theistic roots. I'd just like to point out that he is a de facto Atheist. And don't even get me started on Einstein. He believed in none of those things. At best, you'd be able to say he's pantheistic which is just watered down Atheism (it states that nature is God. Not intelligent in any way. Just that God is energy.) Einstein believed that the notion of it being an intelligent deity (hence INTELLIGENT DESIGN) was quite frankly, to put it blunt: ridiculous.
We already have ideas how life started. Scientists were able to create life via autocatalytic set and another method of just taking basic substances needed for life such as carbon and ammonia, mixing it together, and producing life. Phospholipids grouped together to create this membrane protection that began the first cell.
@eclipse_the_dawn - There's a difference between being of the Jewish race and following the actual religion. One of my best friends is Jewish, she follows the culture etc. But as for religious beliefs she is Atheist.
In conclusion, you know nothing about science.
Read a book before you misrepresent these brilliant minds.
And ID is the belief that something INTELLIGENT designed us.
That's pretty much a god. It doesn't have to be limited to Genesis, only something intelligent designing the Earth or the Universe if you want to go further. Both Hawking and Einstein did not believe in intelligent design.
I don't know where you're getting this whole " but can't figure out what gave that organism life and what caused it to multiply". You might want to look up "abiogenesis" on wikipedia for several theories, testable in a lab, and falsifiable (unlike intelligent design or God theory), that explain how that life could get there. From there, you might want to do a little research about RNA and pyrite and similar geologic materials that are actually capible of replacing amino acids in the process or RNA reproduction. It is perfectly possible for life to spontaneously arise.
You might want to check this index out, as well:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
The fact of the matter is, science works in a particular way where if you propose a hypothesis (which is different than a theory, by the way), it has to be testable and falsifiable. Because the concept of an unmeasurable creator who guides along the processes of nature is untestable (for starters, try to quantify this creator...), it cannot be falsified. It is a paradigmatic world view. Science is not about proving or disproving a paradigm, it is about testing hypotheses. It should be further noted that every single Intelligent Design scientist you listed was NOT a biologist - their expert of study had NOTHING to do with understanding the natural world or the way in which it came about.
Most scientists who talk about intelligent design are trying to stir up controversy to make a quick buck.
Give me some ample, scientific evidence that there is a Creator who is moving along the universe before you talk about "ample evidence" on both sides.
I agree with most of your points mentioned and I really like how you presented it.
However, I really don't see how you can call ID a science. Using scientific method, you can't justify faith. Faith and science are two different things. How can you use science to support that a supernatural being has a hand in helping evolution along? How can you use science to support a supernatural being at all? There's just no way.
"The evidence for ID is in the lack of evidence for evolution."
You do realize that this is a spectacularly ANTI-scientific thing to say, right? No, you don't, and that's what's sad. A theory is not confirmed because an opposing theory lacks evidence. Try saying that, face to face, to a respected scientist, and see what kind of reaction you get. Imagine evolutionists claiming that "the evidence for evolution is the lack of evidence for ID." They do not do that, obviously. They have evidence that supports evolution. Pointing a finger at a different theory, and saying "it lacks evidence" does NOT confirm another theory. Please, PLEASE stop making a fool of yourself like this.
recommend!
@yumixpeach - it takes alot of determination to write all this..I know I have alot to say, but I'm not eloquent enough to do so sometimes, my mind's a mess right now. People just don't question what they see or hear enough! We are not robots!!very nice post ~_~
"Intelligent Design actually gives answers to the whys and hows. "
It's very easy to say that "we don't know so therefore there must be a creator!". It's a weak argument.
ID is veiled creationism. If something were to create the entire universe that thing would be a god to all.
I couldn't concentrate on your blog. I was too busy staring at your profile pic.
people are so cynical on subjects like these. any time a person so much as mentions intelligent design as believable in anyway, that person will be ridiculed without mercy. nobody seems to be able to handle the fact that there is not, and never will be an absolute truth about the origin of life. until someone invents a time machine, of course. so it's valid for someone to believe something other than what you do.
Good points for the most part, but there is no scientific evidence that all life can be traced back to a common ancestor. All the actual observation we have only shows life forms giving birth to more of the same.
And most of these evolutionists commenting here are foolish, they make broad sweeping claims without substantiating any of them with proof. That sort of behavior belongs on an elementary school playground rather than any kind of rational debate.
Honey, you obviously have never seriously studied theories of evolution, or even intelligent design for that matter. I was half expecting you to pull out the old hat "bacterial flagellum" all you ID proponents seem to reference, but you didn't even do that.
I dislike to say it, but your argument is rather weak. It would be great to argue with you, because I think the topic in itself naturally fosters educational discourse, but you gave little substance to work with in your entry. The material you listed is overstated and might I add unreferenced.
Try again.
I found you through the Xanga plug thing, and read this blog. This is a tough subject to write on, so I commend you for it. I've had to deal with this for a while now, as some of my friends have been trying to convince me to believe that evolution is the explanation for life. I've found however, that the arguments are futile if both sides are firm believers in their theories. It all comes down to this, God has told us that we live in a depraved generation, and all of these theories (that are relatively new to the world compared to Creation) are man's attempt at justifying why he should not believe in God. By eliminating God, man is free to do as he pleases. I always laugh at my friends who trash talk me for having "faith," when they have to have just as much faith to believe in what they believe.
Good post, I enjoyed reading it.
'nough said.