Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

"oh, he was begotten not made!" ?

No. You're getting your trinity in a twist. Jesus was begotten not made (being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made).

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

In nature and in life, the creator is more complicated then the created. That's just the natural order of things.

Evolution purports that less complicated matter begat more complicated matter, including the creation of life itself. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If you stop and really think about it, not only should nothing logically exist, but not even nothing should exist. But that's obviously not the case. So the question simply becomes, what was the starting point for all that exists in the universe? A something, or a nothing. I feel it's easier to believe that a something created everything, then a nothing. And for a something to create something as incredible as the universe, it'd have to be far beyond incredible.

That's how I break it down anyway...all the other stuff like how old the universe is, how old the earth is, how animals or man came into being is all just window dressing.

Oh BTW, FUCK Pat Robertson...he might be more dispicable then Benny Hinn.

But then who created that something? The problem with using that argument to try and show that a God should exist is that it requires an infinite regression. Most that subsrcibe to the theory prefer to beleive that God created everything, and he had existed always. If you try to use the idea that if it exists now, it must have been created, then you are requiring that god was in turn created by something. If you deny that God was created by something, then you deny the necessity that all that exists now was created by God. It's a self defeating proof, essentially.

That's not to say it's impossible that it's right. I suppose it is possible that god has existed always and created the earth and those that inhabit it. Just the idea itself can't be used to show that it must, or even should, be correct, ya know?

 

[Phoenix]

Lets just take Roberts at his word and examine the heresy in what he's saying:


"God will smite you because you voted to remove some people from office, and if he does - turn from him"


And this is supposed to be a 'man of God'....


Even the Bible says to beware false prophets, and this guy is most certainly showing himself to be one.

 

[Shinobi]

But then who created that something? The problem with using that argument to try and show that a God should exist is that it requires an infinite regression. Most that subsrcibe to the theory prefer to beleive that God created everything, and he had existed always. If you try to use the idea that if it exists now, it must have been created, then you are requiring that god was in turn created by something. If you deny that God was created by something, then you deny the necessity that all that exists now was created by God. It's a self defeating proof, essentially.

That's not to say it's impossible that it's right. I suppose it is possible that god has existed always and created the earth and those that inhabit it. Just the idea itself can't be used to show that it must, or even should, be correct, ya know?

Yeah, but now you're turning it around and saying "well shit, since the idea of that something being created or always being around is nonsense, I'll just cut out the middle man!".

Something has always been around...that's an indisputable fact. If it was a creator, it's something. If it was nothing, it was something. So what was that something that kicked everything off? That's all it comes down to in my eyes, and I see something as being a more reasonable answer then nothing.

Even the Bible says to beware false prophets, and this guy is most certainly showing himself to be one.

Yep...no doubt about that in my mind. Benny Hinn's another one. In fact I'd say anyone who preaches tithing or exerts any sort of pressure on people towards giving them money are false prophets.

 

[Pellham]

haha Benny Hinn. i'm still surprised that people think his magic tricks are real.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Yeah, but now you're turning it around and saying "well shit, since the idea of that something being created or always being around is nonsense, I'll just cut out the middle man!".

Something has always been around...that's an indisputable fact. If it was a creator, it's something. If it was nothing, it was something. So what was that something that kicked everything off? That's all it comes down to in my eyes, and I see something as being a more reasonable answer then nothing.
.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say your position is unreasonable (I'm not even sure I was really trying to argue your main point to begin with), but I was just sortof venting on the people that use the "first creator" theory as a reason you should beleive in and of itself. The theory works of the assumption that if something exists, it must have been created. Thus if the world exists, it must have been created by some god. It cuts itself short though right there, by saying that god wasn't created by anything. If you assume one thing HAD to have been created, then you can't just turn around and say another could've always been there, ya know? It's not a matter of starting from the assumption that something always having been around is nonsense...that's actually what the theory YOU are endorcing says, only instead of about a god, it says it about the universe as we know it.

Also I should remind you that it's really not known what the conditions at the beggining of the universe were. We have a pretty good idea what it was like almost immediately AFTER the big bang, but the fractions of a second we don't know about are EXTREMELY important. We can't just say it was "caused by nothing" yet.

 

[Shinobi]

Well that depends on what you believe is possible. I don't buy the idea that the universe came from a non-intelligent source. Shit is just too complex for nothing but time to develop over billions of years.

But yeah, I'm doing nothing but making assumptions, cause I wasn't there either. I'm simply using my own logic and understanding to categorize what I believe is more plausible, even if some of it (how God could've always been around) appears laughably contradictory to it.

 

[Rlan]

The thing I don't get about Intelligent Design is that it ignores a lot of Evolutionary bits which we clearly see every day. Different coloured skins [Different parts of the world burnt or lightened our skin over time, similar to the Finch theroy], different heights [ie; Smaller living space, you will only grow to a small size. Like a Tortise in a fish tank], accents, useless body bits [Appendix, Wisdom Teeth], etc. Isn't this all sorts of types of evolving around your surroundings?

And with all the Skeleton remains of ancient man-like animals, and all the Dinosaurs, surely the world MUST have existed for longer than the Bible describes?

 

[Diablos]

Someone wrote into Lou Dobbs last night and said (not exact quote): "If such a thing as Intelligent Design was actually true, then jackasses like Pat Robertson would not be allowed to exist." :lol :lol :lol

+1 Lou Dobbs for reading that.

 

[Shinobi]

The thing I don't get about Intelligent Design is that it ignores a lot of Evolutionary bits which we clearly see every day. Different coloured skins [Different parts of the world burnt or lightened our skin over time, similar to the Finch theroy], different heights [ie; Smaller living space, you will only grow to a small size. Like a Tortise in a fish tank], accents, useless body bits [Appendix, Wisdom Teeth], etc. Isn't this all sorts of types of evolving around your surroundings?

And with all the Skeleton remains of ancient man-like animals, and all the Dinosaurs, surely the world MUST have existed for longer than the Bible describes?

What you seem to be saying is that someone (or something) intelligent can't design something that's random, which doesn't make much sense to me. It seems logical to me that adaptability would be something that's coded into all living things.

As a simple example, we adapt to the weather...when it rains we use umbrellas, when it's sunny we strip down to t-shirts, when it's cold we put on winter coats. That adaptability isn't based on randomness, it's based on fucking common sense. :lol

 

[Rlan]

We didn't just decide to go "Hey, remember that Appendix thing? Fuck that thing. Let's make it a ticking time bomb instead!" though Plus, other skeletal things like how a Baby Human originally has a tail while in the womb, and things just end up dissapearing.

Maybe I watch too many nature documentaries . Claims of Bats originally being land rodents which gained wings over time, and some bat in New Zealand actually flies AND crawls along the ground. Stuff like how Horse's actually have a set of fingers while they develop, which moulds into part of the leg..

 

[bob_arctor]

How? A novel about a supreme being

Spoiler

which turns out to be a satellite, basically

seems to be the complete opposite of someone who believes in a real and vengeful Old Testament God who will punish the heathens.

Just as an aside, I feel that the 1st chapter of Valis stands as one of the most tragic and touching pieces of writing I've ever read.

 

[genjiZERO]

Evolution purports that less complicated matter begat more complicated matter, including the creation of life itself. That doesn't make any sense to me.

no it doesn't. Evolution is simply "progressive change in gene frequency". People who think evolution is about becoming "more complicated" don't really understand evolution. Evolution exists because a populatin of organisms is not able to compete for a specific niche and as a result those members of that population who show traits that allow them to compete successfully for that same niche or another niche will be differentially more reproductively successful. Hence the change in gene frequency. Furthermore evolution doesn't try to define how life began, and I would argue that that would be unscientific anyway because it's an untestable hypothesis.

 

[teh_pwn]

Well that depends on what you believe is possible. I don't buy the idea that the universe came from a non-intelligent source. Shit is just too complex for nothing but time to develop over billions of years.

But yeah, I'm doing nothing but making assumptions, cause I wasn't there either. I'm simply using my own logic and understanding to categorize what I believe is more plausible, even if some of it (how God could've always been around) appears laughably contradictory to it.

This belief requires you to assume there was a beginning.




Pat Robertson is a lunatic, and I don't consider him as a Christian.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

no it doesn't. Evolution is simply "progressive change in gene frequency". People who think evolution is about becoming "more complicated" don't really understand evolution. Evolution exists because a populatin of organisms is not able to compete for a specific niche and as a result those members of that population who show traits that allow them to compete successfully for that same niche or another niche will be differentially more reproductively successful. Hence the change in gene frequency. Furthermore evolution doesn't try to define how life began, and I would argue that that would be unscientific anyway because it's an untestable hypothesis.

Hit the nail on the head. The reason most scientists don't consider ID to be science is exactly what you said in your last sentence. It's my understanding that Evolution and ID run more or less parallel until in terms of sequence of events you get to what started everything. Evolution doesn't make any claims to higher powers, ID claims that everything was started and it's progression inlfuenced by another being we can't see smell taste or touch. Thus it lies outside our ability to directly observe it. Once you start talking about un-observable causes such as that, that's not science, it's philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make it science. Alot of people seem to miss that point.

 

[Incognito]

Well that depends on what you believe is possible. I don't buy the idea that the universe came from a non-intelligent source. Shit is just too complex for nothing but time to develop over billions of years.

But yeah, I'm doing nothing but making assumptions, cause I wasn't there either. I'm simply using my own logic and understanding to categorize what I believe is more plausible, even if some of it (how God could've always been around) appears laughably contradictory to it.

wtf? shinobi's a god-fearing, rapture-awaiting lock and stock evangelical????? :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Hitokage]

Furthermore evolution doesn't try to define how life began, and I would argue that that would be unscientific anyway because it's an untestable hypothesis.

Proof of concepts are testable.

Hit the nail on the head. The reason most scientists don't consider ID to be science is exactly what you said in your last sentence. It's my understanding that Evolution and ID run more or less parallel until in terms of sequence of events you get to what started everything. Evolution doesn't make any claims to higher powers, ID claims that everything was started and it's progression inlfuenced by another being we can't see smell taste or touch. Thus it lies outside our ability to directly observe it. Once you start talking about un-observable causes such as that, that's not science, it's philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't make it science. Alot of people seem to miss that point.

Um, you're incorrect on several points here. Indirect observation is a valid form of observation; however, the reason scientists don't consider ID to be science is because it isn't. It's a hollow explanation of life with a preconceived conclusion that fails to bring with it any supporting evidence. It utterly fails as a scientific theory on all counts, and this is for ALL of that sequence of events you speak of. It reduces Biology to an A to Z book of animals, prelabeling many of nature's mysteries to be inherently unknowable.

 

[genjiZERO]

Proof of concepts are testable.


Um, you're incorrect on several points here. Indirect observation is a valid form of observation; however, the reason scientists don't consider ID to be science is because it isn't. It's a hollow explanation of life with a preconceived conclusion that fails to bring with it any supporting evidence. It utterly fails as a scientific theory on all counts, and this is for ALL of that sequence of events you speak of. It reduces Biology to an A to Z book of animals, prelabeling many of nature's mysteries to be inherently unknowable.

Can you me one experiment that could be performed that could show statistically how life began? The experiment where you take amino acids, water, ATP and a bunch of other molecules, reflux it for a couple of days and then shock it to produce RNA doesn’t count because all it shows is that genetic information can spontaneously arise in the environment not how it actually happened. Besides I said I’d “argue that [discussing how life began] would be unscientific” not that it actually was, based on my assertion that discussing how life began is an untestable hypothesis. I’m sure others in the scientific community believe otherwise. If there are experiments to hypotheses available and if they overwhelmingly show to statistically prove the validity of a hypothesis then I’ll change my mind. But as far as I know there are not any experiments that do this. Also scientists don’t consider ID valid because, as I’ve said all along, it’s an untestable hypothesis. It’s not a theory and never will be because no experiments can be designed around it; a theory has a wealth of experimental data to back it up.

 

[Dilbert]

Can you me one experiment that could be performed that could show statistically how life began? The experiment where you take amino acids, water, ATP and a bunch of other molecules, reflux it for a couple of days and then shock it to produce RNA doesn’t count because all it shows is that genetic information can spontaneously arise in the environment not how it actually happened. Besides I said I’d “argue that [discussing how life began] would be unscientific” not that it actually was, based on my assertion that discussing how life began is an untestable hypothesis. I’m sure others in the scientific community believe otherwise. If there are experiments to hypotheses available and if they overwhelmingly show to statistically prove the validity of a hypothesis then I’ll change my mind. But as far as I know there are not any experiments that do this. Also scientists don’t consider ID valid because, as I’ve said all along, it’s an untestable hypothesis. It’s not a theory and never will be because no experiments can be designed around it; a theory has a wealth of experimental data to back it up.

I don't understand why you appealed to "statistics" twice in your post.

If you proposed a theory which said that X, Y, and Z could lead to a particular result, got some of X, Y, and Z, and then observed the expected result, you would have some evidence that your theory was valid. When others repeated it independently and got the same result, you would have even more confidence that it was a likely theory. But there isn't any threshold which says "after you get the same results n times, the theory is 'proven.'"

Ultimately, THE origin of life on earth was a singular event, and without a time machine, no one will know the exact sequence of events which led to its occurrence. But if we, through a sequence of scientific investigations, can assert with high confidence that X, Y, and Z were present at the right moment in earth's past, then it's a reasonable conclusion that they were the cause of the origin of life here.

 

[genjiZERO]

I don't understand why you appealed to "statistics" twice in your post.

If you proposed a theory which said that X, Y, and Z could lead to a particular result, got some of X, Y, and Z, and then observed the expected result, you would have some evidence that your theory was valid. When others repeated it independently and got the same result, you would have even more confidence that it was a likely theory. But there isn't any threshold which says "after you get the same results n times, the theory is 'proven.'"

Ultimately, THE origin of life on earth was a singular event, and without a time machine, no one will know the exact sequence of events which led to its occurrence. But if we, through a sequence of scientific investigations, can assert with high confidence that X, Y, and Z were present at the right moment in earth's past, then it's a reasonable conclusion that they were the cause of the origin of life here.

What you just said is exactly what I meant by saying "statistically prove"... I never said there was a threshold, that's why I used statistics because that's exactly what increased liklihood is, a statistical function.

 

[Shinobi]

This belief requires you to assume there was a beginning.




Pat Robertson is a lunatic, and I don't consider him as a Christian.

I don't believe there was a beginning.

And I agree about Robertson...I'd go as far saying he's one of Christianity's biggest enemies.

wtf? shinobi's a god-fearing, rapture-awaiting lock and stock evangelical????? :lol :lol :lol :lol

Not quite...but, more or less. I trust that won't change our relationship.

 

[MrAngryFace]

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-toc.htm

 

[NotMSRP]

Assuming the universe is a looping/pulsing universe, explain that Christians!

The topic statement is a two extremes logical fallacy so Pat Robertson sucks.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

WTF?! I won't even bother to comment on the stupid comments of the old reverand. I didn't know he had a direct line to heaven. [/sarcasm].

 

[Monk]

In nature and in life, the creator is more complicated then the created. That's just the natural order of things.

Evolution purports that less complicated matter begat more complicated matter, including the creation of life itself. That doesn't make any sense to me.

If you stop and really think about it, not only should nothing logically exist, but not even nothing should exist. But that's obviously not the case. So the question simply becomes, what was the starting point for all that exists in the universe? A something, or a nothing. I feel it's easier to believe that a something created everything, then a nothing. And for a something to create something as incredible as the universe, it'd have to be far beyond incredible.

That's how I break it down anyway...all the other stuff like how old the universe is, how old the earth is, how animals or man came into being is all just window dressing.

Oh BTW, FUCK Pat Robertson...he might be more dispicable then Benny Hinn.

I have got to say that this is a great response, I couldn't have said it better myself.

In fact I'd say anyone who preaches tithing or exerts any sort of pressure on people towards giving them money are false prophets.

In general this is the case, and definite in the case of "back tithing", but tithing is important and has saved us a lot of money.

 

[Monk]

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-toc.htm

I love how things are taken out of context.

 

[Mumbles]

In nature and in life, the creator is more complicated then the created. That's just the natural order of things.

Well, there's your first problem. I know of no scientific principle or logical proof showing this to be correct. And actually, mathematical models stand against you in this regard, showing that complex structures can easily arise from an iterative process, which is what evolution is.

If you stop and really think about it, not only should nothing logically exist, but not even nothing should exist.

Could you step through this one? I don't see any reason to agree with you here, either.

 

[Phoenix]

Assuming the universe is a looping/pulsing universe, explain that Christians!

How could someone explain as assumption? Explain that

 

[Incognito]

Not quite...but, more or less. I trust that won't change our relationship.

nah, it wont. but i can start calling you shinobibush? :lol

 

[Shinobi]

Well, there's your first problem. I know of no scientific principle or logical proof showing this to be correct. And actually, mathematical models stand against you in this regard, showing that complex structures can easily arise from an iterative process, which is what evolution is.

So math shows that phyiscal matter is devrived from nothing?

Could you step through this one? I don't see any reason to agree with you here, either.

Not sure I could make this any clearer. If the universe wasn't formed, and if nothing exists in it's place (and nothing can be whatever you envision it to be...black, white, grey, whatever), it would still be something, which would still mean that the nothing had to come from somewhere. Or the nothing was always around. Still, that nothing would be something.

Really, the formation of the universe and all that's in it is only half the question...the other question is answering what was around to begin with before. If we went back in time ten trillion years, we'd still be no closer to figuring that out.

 

[heavenly]

Where did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? I want evolutionists to explaint that?

 

[ronito]

Where did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? I want evolutionists to explaint that?

Where did God come from? Don't get me wrong. I don't believe man came from apes. But this is a weak agrument at best.

 

[SteveMeister]

Where did SOMETHING come from NOTHING? I want evolutionists to explaint that?

Evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life, only how life changes and adapts, and new species are developed. That's why Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life."

 

[ronito]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life, only how life changes and adapts, and new species are developed. That's why Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life."

Well played!

 

[Hitokage]

The origin of life is, however, discussed by Abiogenesis... but that isn't quite the same thing nor is it the extremely robust, verified, important and fundamental theory that Evolution is.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

Cyan - Philosophy has a lot to do with physics and science. Just nitpicking

 

[Instigator]

Where did God come from? Don't get me wrong. I don't believe man came from apes. But this is a weak agrument at best.

Where did man come from?

Evolution doesn't say man comes from apes, at least not from today's apes. But both the human species and apes are closely related (something confirmed by genetics) and share a common ancestor. Who is that ancestor? Another ape, long extinct.

 

[mrkgoo]

why do I not see the word THURSDAYTON in here?

 

[Mumbles]

So math shows that phyiscal matter is devrived from nothing?

That's really got nothing to do with more complex objects arising from simpler ones, but...

You're discussing "nothing" as if it's a thing in it's own right. It's not. It's a concept denoting the lack of things. Therefore, the notion of "nothing" existing, or of something arising from nothing, is a misuse of the word. For example...

Not sure I could make this any clearer. If the universe wasn't formed, and if nothing exists in it's place (and nothing can be whatever you envision it to be...black, white, grey, whatever), it would still be something, which would still mean that the nothing had to come from somewhere. Or the nothing was always around. Still, that nothing would be something.

simply makes no sense. Perhaps you meant some type of empty spacetime - but that's not at all the same.

And regardless, I don't see why this shows that things should logically not exist.

Really, the formation of the universe and all that's in it is only half the question...the other question is answering what was around to begin with before. If we went back in time ten trillion years, we'd still be no closer to figuring that out.

Well, there's also the question of what the word "before" even means in the context of the universe.

And really, this is a huge aside from evolution vs. ID.

 

[Dilbert]

Cyan - Philosophy has a lot to do with physics and science. Just nitpicking

"Science" and "philosophy" are not synonyms.

 

[Phoenix]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life, only how life changes and adapts, and new species are developed. That's why Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life."

This is actually why religion and evolutionary science aren't in competition with each other in any way despite being constantly drawn at each other. Religion doesn't attempt to explain how life changes and adapts, it attempts to explain the origin of life. The only ones who would try to bring the two into conflict are nut jobs who don't realize that each is trying to resolve a different issue.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

"Science" and "philosophy" are not synonyms.

I did not say they were. I am just saying that many philosophers - Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, also studied physics and applied their physics into their philosophy.

 

[heavenly]

Where did God come from? Don't get me wrong. I don't believe man came from apes. But this is a weak agrument at best.

I don't know. You tell me, aren't you a Christian?

 

[heavenly]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the ORIGIN of life, only how life changes and adapts, and new species are developed. That's why Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life."

So, what's this Big Bang Theory all about?

 

[SteveMeister]

This is actually why religion and evolutionary science aren't in competition with each other in any way despite being constantly drawn at each other. Religion doesn't attempt to explain how life changes and adapts, it attempts to explain the origin of life. The only ones who would try to bring the two into conflict are nut jobs who don't realize that each is trying to resolve a different issue.

Actually, "Intelligent" Design DOES try to explain how life changes and adapts. It posits that Someone is controlling those changes. That's why it's such a complete crock -- it completely ignores all the scientific evidence. It completely ignores with over a century of research, experimentation, and observation.

And it all comes down to two things, this debate over Evolution: Some people are offended at the thought that Man may have descended from a lower being, and others are offended that evolution contradicts the Bible's creation myth (which of course says that all living things were pretty much created at the same time). As to the latter, well, that's as much a crock as the ID hypothesis. The former? Well, get over yourselves.

 

[Phoenix]

Actually, "Intelligent" Design DOES try to explain how life changes and adapts.

Common misconception. Religion != intelligent design.

 

[Raven.]

My thoughts:

RNA's turned out to be a super-duper-uber-duber nougaty molecule. Capable of basically carrying about all the necessary fluffiness for life to've started out primarily of such.(storing information, performing enzymatic like functions, self-replicating, etc.). Recent data, suggests using only such sufficient information can be amassed in such molecules(rna) to reach a degree similar to the simplest lifeforms of today's world.

The new ribozyme, generated by David Bartel and his colleagues at the Whitehead, can carry out a remarkably complicated and challenging reaction, especially given that it was not isolated from nature but created from scratch in the laboratory. This ribozyme can use information from a template RNA to make a third, new RNA. It can do so with more than 95 percent accuracy, and most importantly, its ability is not restricted by the length or the exact sequence of letters in the original template. The ribozyme can extend an RNA strand, adding up to 14 nucleotides, or letters, to make up more than a complete turn of an RNA helix.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010518083259.htm

An international team of scientists, leaded by Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona researchers, has discovered that RNA early molecules were much more resistant than was thought until now. According to the conclusions of the study, they may have developed enough to contain around 100 genes, which is considered to be the minimum quantity required for the most basic forms of primitive life, similar to the bacteria we have today. The research was published in Nature Genetics.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050916075214.htm

As for the nature of the world, as for it's origin. I've said it in the past and I'll say it again, it's probably relative. I believe that the abstract and the concrete are relative. That there are an infinite number of concepts, ideas, amongst which stand the mathematical truths that we observe and that exist independent of this reality, and amongst this there are many conceivable ones. That there are multiple possible potential solutions / outcomes / developments, and that while within one such outcome we may feel it to be concrete and the rest abstract, such is the case within each and every possibility[concrete within.].

The world is information, and if information can exist independent of all, as has been seen, and if it is infinite, then the world is but one of many extant possibilities.

In sum
An infinite amount of abstract possibilities / concepts / truths, of information that to us may seem abstract within this world leads to some of such forever having existed in arrangements such as our world.

 

[SteveMeister]

So, what's this Big Bang Theory all about?

Nothing to do with evolution. Darwin never heard of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is an astrophysics theory based on the observation that the universe (what we can see of it) appears to be expanding. It has nothing to do with biology.

 

[SteveMeister]

Common misconception. Religion != intelligent design.

No -- but ID is a thin veneer over the creation myth. Its proponents are trying to sneak a religious idea into science classrooms, where it most decidedly does not belong.

 

[Phoenix]

No -- but ID is a thin veneer over the creation myth. Its proponents are trying to sneak a religious idea into science classrooms, where it most decidedly does not belong.

Intelligent design claims that the universe is so complicated and varied that there must be some intelligent force involved in evolution, that is not the same thing as religion. The side diatribe about science classrooms is 'out of scope'.