Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
In many traditions, creationism is the theory that espouses active acceptance of an origin belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being or by supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge). As such, creationists hold to additional beliefs that go beyond scientific descriptions of nature and often specifically oppose scientific consensus on natural origins. Various forms of creationism are found principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths and in Hinduism, although such beliefs can in theory be found in many other religious traditions. In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Through the course of time, this process results in the origin of new species from existing ones (speciation). All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is the source of the vast diversity of extant and extinct life on Earth.
The basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. If those traits are heritable, they are passed to succeeding generations, with the result that beneficial heritable traits become more common in the next generation. Given enough time, this passive process can result in varied adaptations to changing environmental conditions.
The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
2006-09-13 15:30:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Fredric Cohen (1959 ad- ) said that, had the egg come first, there might want to were no rooster (fowl) to position it, take a seat on it and save it warmth, so a stay chick might want to under no circumstances have hatched from it. So the egg needs a rooster. The question now might want to be the position did that first rooster come from? If in basic terms an egg it fairly is laid by employing a rooster and which will hatch right into a rooster might want to be considered a rooster egg: Then the first rooster got here from a quite some style of egg (not a rooster egg) and laid the first rooster egg. for this reason eggs (commonly) got here first, the rooster got here after, and the rooster egg got here very last.
2016-11-26 22:19:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The chicken or the egg is a reference to the causality dilemma which arises from the expression "which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Since both the chicken and the egg create the other in certain circumstances (a chicken emerges from an egg; an egg is laid by a chicken) it is ambiguous which originally gave rise to the other. Purely logical attempts to resolve the dilemma result in an infinite regress, since an egg was caused by a chicken, which was caused by an egg, etc. Since every chicken originates from its egg, it seems obvious the egg came first. Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life. The solution may require an examination of syntax and may rely on verification from advances in modern genetic science. When used in reference to difficult problems of causality, the chicken and egg dilemma is often used to appeal to the futility of debate and lay it to rest.
History of the problem
The earliest reference to the dilemma is found in Plutarch's Moralia, in the books titled "Table Talk," in a series of arguments based on questions posed in a symposium. Under the section entitled, "Whether the hen or the egg came first," the discussion is introduced in such a way as to suggest that the origin of the dilemma was even older:
"...the problem about the egg and the hen, which of them came first, was dragged into our talk, a difficult problem which gives investigators much trouble. And Sulla my comrade said that with a small problem, as with a tool, we were rocking loose a great and heavy one, that of the creation of the world..."
Various answers have been formulated in response to the question, many of them humorous.
2006-09-16 20:14:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Creationism is strict belief in the genisis account of creation
Intelligent design is the belief that a supernatural being (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) created the world and let it run its natural course.
Evolution by Natural Selection states that species develop mutations, and those that are favorable get passed on to the next generation.
2006-09-13 15:33:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sparkiplasma 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
E-evolving to meet the climate conditions so that you may survive each day.
C-all life is created by a Divine God--Genesis chapter 1
ID-something that man creates from the intelligence given him from God.
2006-09-13 15:36:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by boilermakersnoopy433 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the egg.
(evolutionism)
(something unchicken, had to adapt. so *BAM* chickens look like chickens* *but still had the egg trait from the unchicken )
2006-09-13 15:35:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by uhohspaghettiohohs 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute,[2] say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.[3]
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific,[4] as pseudoscience[5][6] or as junk science.[7][8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[9]
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. United States District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. This stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on experimentation to explain the natural world through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection.
The stated[11] purpose is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[12]
Evolutionism, from the Latin evolutio, unrolling, refers to theories that certain things develop or change as natural (unplanned) outgrowths of those that existed before, in contrast to beliefs that these things are fixed and immutable. An Evolutionist is a proponent of such a theory. Theories of change have been developed across several fields of study.
In anthropology and biology, the term Evolutionism is nowadays used specifically for historical theories or beliefs of early sociocultural evolutionism developed in the 18th and 19th century that organisms are intrinsically bound to improve themselves through progressive changes that are heritable. This idea was applied to cultures and societies as well as to living organisms. The term evolutionist is still used more widely and can refer to proponents of the theory of evolution through natural selection which has superseded the earlier biological theories, but particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a science. The term is rarely used in the scientific community, as evolution is overwhelmingly accepted there. The terms are still used for theories about the development of cultures and civilisations.
In many traditions, creationism is the theory that espouses active acceptance of an origin belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being or by supernatural intervention. The intervention may be seen either as an act of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) or the (re)-emergence of order from pre-existing chaos (demiurge). As such, creationists hold to additional beliefs that go beyond scientific descriptions of nature and often specifically oppose scientific consensus on natural origins. Various forms of creationism are found principally in religions of the Abrahamic faiths and in Hinduism, although such beliefs can in theory be found in many other religious traditions. In modern usage, the term creationism has come to be specifically associated with the brand of conservative Christian fundamentalism which conflicts with various aspects of evolution, cosmology, and other natural sciences that address the origins of the natural world.
Many who believe in a supernatural creation consider the idea to be an aspect of religious faith compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by, scientific descriptions. However, "creationism" in common usage typically connotes a religious, political, and social campaign—for instance, in education—to assert the dominance or widespread acceptance of a spiritual view of nature and of humanity's place in it. This view is in direct conflict with certain interpretations of the scientific method or naturalism that are rejected by such creationists as materialistic, secular, or even antireligious.
Those who hold creationist views reject scientific theories which they feel contradict their religious texts. Most notable is the rejection of evolution and common descent by many creationists, who, like Bishop Wilberforce find the idea of humans being "ascended from lesser creatures" offensive or blasphemous. Such creationists often also reject the current scientific consensus regarding the origin of life, origin of the human species, geologic history of the Earth, formation of the solar system, and origin of the universe. Such Creationism is also separate from, and should not be confused with the separate Christian tradition of "Creation Spirituality" which draws upon the theology of Matthew Fox.
The term creationism is most often used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians); the Qur'an (for Muslims); or the views of the Bhaktivedanta Institute for consciousness studies, of the Hindu texts referring to a divine creation. The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs conflicting with the theory of evolution by mechanisms acting on genetic variation. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained creation-evolution controversy in the public arena. Many who consider themselves adherents of the Abrahamic denominations, however, believe in divine creation but accept evolution by natural selection, as well as, to a greater or lesser extent, scientific explanations of the origins and development of the universe, the Earth, and life – such beliefs have been given the name "theistic evolution","evolutionary creationism" or "progressive creationism".
In a Christian context, many creationists adopt a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation narratives, and say that the Bible provides a factual account, given from the perspective of the only one who was there at the time to witness it: God. They seek to harmonize science with what they believe to be an eye-witness account of the origin of things (see Young Earth Creationism, for example). Opponents argue that this throws doubt upon scientific evidence as an empirical source for information on natural history, questioning the scientific nature of the literalistic Biblical view. Creationists take the position that neither theory is verifiable in the scientific sense, and that the scientific evidence conforms more closely to the creation model of origins than it does to the evolutionary model.
Almost all churches teach that God created the cosmos. Many contemporary Christian scholars (Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran) taking issue with the longstanding consensus of their forebearers, reject reading the Bible as though it could shed light on the physics of creation instead of the spiritual meaning of creation. For instance, French Jesuit priest and geologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, saw evolution as confirmation of his Christian beliefs, despite condemnation from Church authorities for those beliefs. Another example is that of Liberal theology, which assumes that Genesis is a poetic work, and that just as human understanding of God increases gradually over time, so does the understanding of His creation. In fact, both Jews and Christians have been considering the idea of the creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution. Two notable examples are Saint Augustine (4th century) that, on theological grounds, argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, (and not in seven days as a plain account of Genesis would require) [1]; and the 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days, or in any set amount of time. [2]
However, many believers in a literal interpretation argue that once a poetic view of the creation account in Genesis is adopted, one begins to question the historicity of other central topics of that book. Furthermore, the liberal approach suggests, sometimes outright, that Jesus as seen in the New Testament, or the writers of the Bible, had a mistaken understanding of the reliability of the Bible, and erroneously believed the book of Genesis to be literal history: a proposition that, if adopted, could have radical implications for Christian faith and the reliability of the Bible.
2006-09-13 15:43:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by pooh bear 4
·
0⤊
0⤋