What is your view on Creationism, Intelligent Design and Darwinism?

Question

And the statement 'If life is the result of intelligent design, then giving up on trying to find a purely naturalistic explanation is like giving up on trying to turn lead into gold. It's progress, not defeat.'

I am a biology student, so I have a vast knowledge of evolution, however I believe 'evolution' and to an extent 'creationism' are too vast to describe. There are other factors that come with both

For example, with evolution comes the things with the theory of things like a belief that has unguided, unpurposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
With creationism,there are things in the world that are so complex that it seems more likely there was designer than that they arose by chance. But with this comes the fact that you're defending a geologically young earth and that the idea the universe and all wihtin it was created in under a week.

Because of this, the terms evolution and creationism are too broad

For the record, I am a Christian, and studying biology, but I am still unsure about 'life' and its origins, but at the moment I am swayed to believe in Intelligent Design and micro- evolution.

Answer 1

Study of all three is very important before you really make up your mind. Unfortunately we are only taught one model at school from low to high, and because of this we think we know it all before looking at the others. Basis and what it is, is the most important thing.

Answer 2

As I understand it

Creation is wonderful and we should be in awe of it - whatever was behind it. By creation I mean 'life'. we can't make it - can't mix carbon, oxygen and other stuff in a test tube and make it come to life - that took something greater than us.

Intelligent Design - well there has been a good few years to get it right and practice makes perfect. No super power did this - just life doing what life does.

Evolution - says nothing about creation - only how life perpetuates and changes accordingly to fit its own surroundings. It happens everyday - I feed a tame robin - nothing divine or spooky is going on - he is a visitor to an area occupied by other not so tame robins, they chase him away at every opportunity - except when I am around. He knows it and comes if I call him because he's safe from other birds - its only about his survival. He has made the change necessary to ensure it.

Answer 3

My view on creationism is this: I don't think it is science. I don't believe it is true. But, because we live in the glorious nation of America, you can believe in creationism. You have the free speech to lambast evolution all you want. I can't tell you what to believe.

Intelligent Design is essentially creationism without directly mentioning the Judeo-Christian and Islamic god. ID advocates oftenly state that "certain processes of the universe are too complex to have been the result of evolutionary change; these functions and features are best explained by an intelligent designer.

Darwinism is really a perjorative term for Darwinian evolution. I think evolution is true. In my opinion, the physical evidence supports evolution. I wouldn't accept evolution if you showed me evidence which I couldn't refute.

Answer 4

"Creationism", by which I would mean a "young earth" stance, is bunk. It has no redeeming features whatsoever.

Darwinism is a reasonable theory/metaphysical research project ( copyright Popper)/paradigm (copyright Kuhn).

"Intelligent Design" is difficult. On the one hand it can be "creationism" with the word "creation" removed and "intelligent design" put in by an edit-find and replace function (as demonstrated in the Kitzmiller trial). This form of ID would be just as much bunk as Creationism per se.

Behe however says more and argues for more. He does not hold to a "young earth" hypothesis and he agrees that the animals and plants on earth have evolved. He argues that:
1. Life is too complex for Darwinism to account for its development
2. Only an intelligent designing agent can account for life's development.
I think it's important to appreciate that these two arguments should NOT be conflated. If one established the first you do not, thereby, establish the second. Life is too complex for a session of drinking beer to account for its development - the "beer theory" doesn't work: this does not support either Darwinism or Intelligent Design. Behe has some good points on "1" and certainly there is much room for improvement in Darwinism. It may be ripe for replacement by another theory that none of us have thought of yet. But, again, this has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of "2".

Now Behe rests much of his argument for "2" on a modern day equivalent of Paley's Watch. How many watches have you seen that weren't designed? Just as we can see "design features" in a watch we can see "design features" in a living organism. Thus we should conclude that living organisms were designed. The problem with Paley's Watch is that it is demonstrably false.

How many watches arise by natural means? None. They are all built by human hand. In fact it is the SAME FEATURES in the watch which enable us to conclude that it was designed that also enable us to conclude that it was manufactured.

How many living organisms arise by natural means? Well, at the very least the ones who are reading this answer. Yet the SAME FEATURES that Behe claims show a designer are present. From the features that we see we cannot conclude that living organisms did not arise by natural means - they do not need to be made: there is a natural explanation.

Now, as anyone who has held their new born child will be able to tell you, it is easy to hold BOTH that you have witnessed a miracle and that the miricle arose by natural means. We need not have any conflict between ID and a natural explanation of the development of animals. BUT BEHE SAYS THIS IS NOT WHAT HE MEANS. And following from this it is difficult to understand just what he does mean. Given that an ID agent had a hand in the development of living organisms we are entitled to ask how the ID agent worked. This would be a natural description, it may not be "Darwinism", but it would still be a natural, scientific explanation. Behe says this cannot be, and for the life of me I cannot think why not. Behe doesn't say why not: he just says "no". He doesn't prove "no" or even demonstrate "no": he just says "no". It appears that Behe means "stop looking for an explanation". Such a command cannot possibly be held to be "scientific" (it's a command rather than a description) and any self respecting scientist's answer should be "**** of".

Say we didn't have a naturalistic explanantion for pregnancy and childbirth. Should we stop looking for one? Should Behe2 who says "children are a gift from God and we should not look beyond that for answers" be listened to? If Behe2 used Paley's watch to support his argument (and this time he wouldn't have the falsifying situation) would we accept it? If we did so we would be wrong - and we are wrong with ID.

Nice try with the alchemy comparison: but no cigar. Alchemy was all about turning lead into gold. When they gave up on that they gave up on alchemy. Science is all about trying to find naturalistic explanations. If you give up on that you give up on science. Now you're not trying to tell me that giving up on science would be progress are you?

Answer 5

My view is we're never going to know so why go on about it. I don't believe in Genesis (that's just a fairytale and rules out many proved things like dinosaurs and evolution) but I don't believe we can 100% prove the big bang theory either.
Either way I believe in God and either way I think he can be responsible for creating either (if there was a big bang someone had to cause it right?).
I'm not 100% convnced about evolution either, in some ways it looks totally feasible and others just bizarre. I think we've got to keep open minds. No-one knows everything and I doubt we ever will (mankind is not that intelligent). I'll accept almost anything as possibilities but until someone can actually provide 100% accurate, concrete proof then I'm happy with just being here. It's one subject I'm happy to be ignorant about.

The way I see it it doesn't affect me and my life in any way, I'll find out eventually if I'm right about God and he wants to share that information. Otherwise I'll be dead anyway and won't care.

Answer 6

Yes creationism is compatible with evolution. Evolution is how God creates. You can believe in intelligent design and find a naturalistic explanation. God speaks and creates in the language of natural science.

Answer 7

I think people can believe whatever they want but when it gets in the way of rational proven facts then there needs to be rules to protect fact from being destroyed by idiocracy.
For example some schools want to teach intelligent design in our schools. I have several problems with this the first being that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the constitution this means all religions not just Cristians and Jews. Second false unproveable ideas should not be put in front of fact when it comes to educating people, people who believe in intelligent design need to get it threw their head that conservatism is bad for our country and they need to realise that just because they wish for something to be true doesn't mean it is. However much I don't like religion I think the law is the law and people can believe whatever they want but when it is forcec on other people that is just wrong.

Answer 8

The age of the earth is a much debated hotbed of ideas and accusations from primarily those who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Astrophysicists vary on the age of the earth to be anywhere from 2 Billion to 15 Billion years old.
Even with the extreme age of 15 years old there is a general consensus that the belief in a universe with a beginning negates the naturalistic explanations for the origins of life due to the fact that the age of the earth in order for naturalistic explanations to be credible end up being so mathematically unfathomable that it defies logic. The existence of certain behavioral properties in the elements forgo the conclusions of random processes and a steady state universe requirement for evolutionary processes is just not there as can be seen in the discovery of the uniform microwave background radiation and the COBE satellites measurements of the entropic properties in the fabric of space and time which is the evidence predicted by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity which when his cosmological constant (what he called the biggest blunder of his career and dubbed his "fudge factor.") was removed from the equation and the observation of the redshift in distant galaxies by Edwin Hubble gave science and the rest of the world the empirical evidence that pointed to a singularity of origins for space, time, matter and energy later refered to as the "Big Bang" which should have outed Darwinian Naturalism as a credible science. The implications drawn from a universe with a beginning are that a beginning neccessitates a beginner and the general bias amoung the bulk of academia has created a cognitive dissonance which should be an embarrassment and a cause for shame for those who claim to be lovers of truth and allegedly champion a faith in the scientific methodology regardless of its outcome.

If you have some familiararity with the conclusions of some of our leading researchers who do not come to the table with a religious bias you will notice the following:

Austrailian Microbiologist Michael Denton: Contrary to what is commonly taught we still do not have a clue as to how the first living thing formed from inorganic matter.

Physicist, Freeman Dyson "the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."

Stephen Hawking, theoritical physicist,"the discoveries of a beginning by the COBE satellite are the most important discoveries of the century if not of all time."

George Ellis Associate Physicist along with Roger Penrose, "To make sense of this evidence (Big Bang Cosmology) one must accept the idea of transcedence; that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the universe itself."

David Chalmers, cognitive scientist, "the existence of consciousness does not seem to be dirivable from physical laws."

How do we explain in evolutionary terms our species ability to write great literature, compose symphonies, create fine art, carry out scientific experiments and do abstract, advanced mathematics? We don't need these things to survive.

Answer 9

Have some good Input.
You alright, but, if Life as you say is the result purely of Intelligent design?, isn't totally so, because Life was in God, even before HIM (God), will begin to create, not just the material world but also the heavens and the Ethereal world. this remark is to alert you, about extracting Gold from lead/, which it will need more than just Darwin it self, to try to stop you from falling in such practices, at least literally?, So, take this in consideration just a clue, The so call Gold, is nothing but Blood, or the substances of Life, and Life is God's Business. With all do respect
Word's.

Answer 10

What if the universe was created by the Divine in order to evolve to experience itself as the Divine. What if the Divine is all that there is and therefore unchanging and the Universe her tool to experience herself as All that there is by constantly evolving and becoming the All....would creationism and evolution need to be opposites or could they be the experience of the whole things. the whole of creation in the palm of your hand, the Macro and the Micro? What then?

Answer 11

My "view" is irrelevant. So is yours. So is everybody else's.
What *is* relevant is what evidence there is for each of those things. That doesn't rely on anybody's "view." And it's very straightforward:

Creationism -- no evidence at all to support it.
ID -- no evidence at all to support it.
Evolution (NOT "Darwinism") -- hundreds of thousands of independent, verified proofs from all branches of science over 200+ years.

See, pretty straightforward :)

The statement is nonsense. It starts with a proposition for which there is no evidence of any kind ("if life is the result of intelligent design"), so the conclusion is meaningless. Since there is no evidence of any kind to show that life IS the result of intelligent design, there's no point to the rest of it.

Peace.