Oooo! Christmas!!!!
I figured out where the gaps were in Creationists ages ago, LOL.
Faithfull Doubter
I also fail to see why a Creationist, and/or Intelligent Designer, can not come to believe in the use of Evolution as a mechanism for creation, unless of course, you are discussing only those strange people that believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days....
Happy to hear you say so.
Creationism does not supply a mechanism, only a maker.
Actually, no. Creationism postulates a creator. It doesn't supply it. That is, one might say, the entire problem. Of course, you can still believe in a Creator, but to say supply seems to imply demonstrates and proves.
Room 215
Nice artwork; but you're mistaken if you think that all proponents of ID -- or even a majority of them -- subscribe to the notion of the Bible's literal inerrancy. Do you really believe that the notion of a vegetarian T-Rex is in the mainstream of ID hypotheses?
You're right, and I think Reluctant Buddha knows this. However, I think he subscribes to the same opinion as me on this one;
- If it looks like a duck,
- quacks like a duck and
- walks like a duck,
- it is a duck.
ID is a different colour of duck to Creationism, but at the end of the day, it is still a duck.
I suggest you look at who have spearheaded the ID movement. This will prove the 'genetic' link between Creationism and ID. The 'functional' (cladistic one might say, or morphological) links are all too obvious. Don't be fooled by a Trojan Horse for the religious right.
Creationism (as in YEC and OEC beliefs in direct creation of 'kinds'), as any reasonable person knows, is utter nonsense. As the general level of education rises to the point where such god-dishonouring theories as Creationism lose credibility, unsuprisingly (and completely in line with the laws of natural selection as applied to memes, which I find hilarious). ID evolved to 'take its place'. However both in the lab and in the courthouse it is correctly identified as what it is both functionaly and historically.
Directed theistic evolution (which essentially means scientists are right but somehow god is behind it all albeit using mechanistic means of reaching an intended goal), unlike ID, doesn't require one subscribe to ignorance and falsehood as contained in main ID theories such as irreducable compexity. Of course, it does (as with ID) become recursive, but is far more credible than ID as its lack of insistence upon anything other than that supported by facts relieve it of constantly fighting impossible battles with reality.
Spectrum
However your challenge goes a bit wonky when you start attributing these absurdities to ID. You can attribute them to all religious zealots but not to all IDers which I am one.
Above comments to room 215 apply. ID is re-warmed Creationism that still contains absurd and false doctrines. You can believe god was behind it all - but why shackle yourself to a belief system (such as ID) which ignores the fact its fundamental principles (like ireducable complexity) were shown to be nonsense years ago?
I believe that an Intelligent Creator created us possibly by a process of evolution but certainly not that it was a blind mainly random process.
And if you are describing evolution as "a blind mainly random process", you know nothing about evolution.
Ya know how blind it is? Take RNA that infects bacteria. Stick a small amount in a test tube filled with suitable raw ingredients for RNA duplication. When the population expands to fill the tube, take a sample and place it in a new tube. Repeat. After 74 test tubes a 'wild' RNA very good at infecting bacteria, 3,600 units long will evolve into 'tame' RNA 550 units long that is very good at 'infecting' test tubes.
Each time you repeat the experiement you will get almost the same result (in terms of what the 'tame' RNA is like).
That is how non-random the process is.
If you add in a contaminent of some sort, then the end result will change - the 'tame' RNA will end up resistent to that contaminent.
The problem with that argument is you haven't seen evolution either.
And you've seen intelligent design in process? Of course, you haven't... unlike evolution, as tetrapod points out, which can be observed.
When you show me a single celled organism evolve into a complex multicellular millipede then I'll believe.
Even if the theory of evolution is 100% right, the required proof you specify is impossible due to the shortness of human life and the length of evolutionary processes. Of course, anyone can request a proof that is impossible to provide, for example; show me an intelligent designer intelligently design an organism.
Oh what's that, you can't show me because it happens over millions of years. Oh well, I'll just take it on faith. Oops we can't do that it's not science it's religion.
'Scuse me. Your beliefs are just as flawed in that respect. And your beliefs are not the only beliefs that allow the existence of a god, so please don't make out that the ID/Creationism vs Evolution discussion is about god, as it isn't.
Do you believe it is impossible to show something happened using evidence? You seem to imply only eye witness evidence would be good enough for you, in which case a enjoyable discussion is not likely.
It's all creationism to you. So is evolution. It created the most complex things from a bucket of sea water. Did you know that chemists know that you can't make sustainable sophisticated polymer reactions in sea water? Too much water - sends the reaction scurrying the other way.
Sea water? Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water? Creating straw men arguments will just make it look like you don't want to have a proper discussion, or illustrates you have decided a theory you show you know little about is false. For now, let's keep abiogenesis for a rainy day and concentrate on evolution.
hooberus
Does that piece of religious propoganda tell people that there were trees growing in California, a day or twos drive from the Grand Canyon, that were TOTALLY unaffected by the Flood (because THERE WASN'T A GLOBAL FLOOD)? Does that book explain how the Egyptians failed to notice their civilisation had been destroyed by the Flood ('cause it wasn't) , or how the Great Pyramid (amongst other ancient buildings) would have had to survived the Flood undamaged if the Flood was indeed global?
Does it? Or does it deceieve by concealing information that would make its claims look fanciful?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
