Welcome to Gaia! ::

First off, I'm somewhere in the middle (this should surprise no one who knows me). I'd call myself a believer in Intelligent Design, but that label has been taken by people who use it very differently than I do. stare

I tend to believe that something this complex couldn't possibly be the work of random chance. God had to be involved somehow, whether it was setting the natural laws of the universe that led inexorably to our current setup or whether it was directly creating, or something in between.

I am a Christian, but I don't believe the world was created 4,004 years before Christ. The bible has a lot of metaphors in it; the Jews loved metaphors. Much of the Old Testament is based on Jewish culture, and errors have crept in over the millennia. One example is that Genesis has two, separate creation stories, where a few details are different. Very odd.

But that doesn't mean we should discount it entirely. Science and religion aren't opposites, as much as many people wish they were. I know quite a few scientists who have told me that the more they learn about the universe, history, or biology, the more they believe in God. Western culture has a lot to do with religion, and a lot to do with science, and it would be cruel to detach either from the education system (note: I am aware you weren't suggesting this).

Personally, I figure that if God really was speaking to the Israelis (or Adam and Eve, or whomever), he probably had a hard time making them understand how things worked.

God: "LO, I HAVE CREATED ALL THAT IS AROUND YOU."
Adam: "What, God? The hill?"
God: "THE HILL, THE TREES, THE AIR YOU BREATHE, AND BEYOND."
Eve: "Beyond the hill? Like...that other hill?"
God: "AND BEYOND EVEN THAT. THE STARS THEMSELVES...AND OTHER GALAXIES."
Adam: "Gal-whats? Is that like the moon?"
God: "IT IS TO THE MOON AS THE MOON IS TO A SPECK OF DUST."
Adam: "So...it's...yellow? Dusty? Big?"
God: "SUFFICE IT TO SAY IT IS IMMENSE."
Adam: "Right. So when did you create the universe, God?"
God: "IT HAS TAKEN SIX BILLION YEARS TO REACH ITS CURRENT FORM."
Eve: "What's a billion?"
God: "A THOUSAND MILLIONS."
Eve: "What's a--"
God: "A THOUSAND THOUSANDS. MORE BLADES OF GRASS THAN ARE ON THIS HILL."
Eve: "Right, right, and what's a year again?"
God: "OH, FOR *MY* SAKE!"

Anyway, I find it interesting that when you read Genesis, the order of the days is very similar to the order in which scientists claim Evolution to have taken place. This to me suggests that both have their points.

I remember a joke once where a fellow prayed to God, saying "Lord, to you a million years is a second...and a million miles is an inch, right? Well, can I have a penny?" and God replied: "SURE. IN A SECOND."

Well - what if the days in Genesis were not literal days, but 'the length of time needed'? Then the two theories would have very few differences.

Now, as to whether or not evolution should be taught alongside creationism, or whether creationism should be left in social studies class (a class, might I add, not available when I went to high school): I think it would be doing a disservice if we taught them in separate classes.

When I studied psychology in university, we often dealt with competing theories by presenting both (all) of them at once, presenting both proofs and criticisms, and letting students make up their own minds. In fact, on exams, students were forced to choose a theory and defend it against the others!

To me, this would be far more educational to the students than simply presenting one (or the other) as truth, and the other as a 'theory'.

Since both secularists and creationists are certain of their theories, I suggest that neither should be worried about letting people make up their own minds: they should be willing to let students judge each theory on their own right, knowing the criticisms and proofs others have suggested, and making an informed decision on their own.

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded. Then it became the universe. Then rocks got wet, the water got shocked, and life came into existence. The life grew. The life happened to find a similar life of an opposite gender that had also conveniently come into existence at the same time frame and in the same area. Both lifeforms happened to have perfectly compatible reproductive systems, and both inherently, through the result of random jolts of electricity, knew exactly how to make use of those systems. Then life mutated, gaining and losing qualities depending on its mood.

This is supposed to be science?

Best short summary of Intelligent Design (and why it's not science): somewhere, somehow, something is wrong with evolution.

Best counter-example of why Intelligent Design isn't a scientific theory: Relativity specifically said what was wrong with Newtonian Mechanics (no speed limit in formulas), specifically explained why Newtonian Mechanics seemed correct (slow-enough speeds collapse into simpler equations), and Relativity introduced new tests that would be false under Newtonian Mechanics but true under Relativity. One can't help but notice that Intelligent Design (with respect to Evolution) fails to do any of these.

Funniest Intelligent Design blunder: it is well recognized that Intelligent Design is the same old Scientific Creationism with blatant attempts to hide the religious purposes by removing religious references (including removing references to God) in order to sound more scientific, yet Intelligent Design's greatest weakness is that in order for it to actually be more scientific it needs to make assumptions about the designer in order to explain specifically why something that we claim is designed actually is so. Oops.

Greatest parody of this Intelligent Design blunder: Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodly appendages. Ramen!


Payne-sempai: The scenario you've typed out sounds like it could be either making fun of creationism or trolling using a terrible terrible terrible understanding of what science actually says. Ambiguity does not a good argument make. Please seek more coherent and better worded posts, no matter which position you're arguing for or against.

If it's supposed to be suggesting problems with Evolution there are two things to note:

1) Cosmology, Geology, and Abiogenesis are not a part of Evolution and trying to lump them in with Evolution would demonstrate that the arguer really has malicious intentions towards ALL of science. (Evolution only deals with the origin of species, not the origins of life, the planet, or the universe.)

2) Like dboyzero has said, it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of all these aspects of science.

(However, if your post wasn't trying to make a point about science then these don't really apply to you but they're good things to know anyways.)

Edit: Darn it! This post ended up much longer than I intended... >.<

In science nothing can be "proven" ... only made much more likely by further evidence. The Theory of Evolution has been around for, what, 150 years? Although the details have been refined and changed the core ideas are more or less the same. It is one of the better established scientific theories around. In other words, it's one of the stronger scientific theories around and probably more true than Newtonian Mechanics (which was a very good approximation but fails many common cases.)

Neither is a proven "theory" but only creationism/Intelligent Design sits in the same pot as "last thursdayism", IE while there's mountains of PHYSICAL evidence for evolution, creationism by its very nature could be true but is as likely to be true as saying "the world was created last thursday and your memories and the evidence around you was also created at that time but the world was really created then."

In other words, your post does betray some ignorance of science, but the good news is that you were definitely better (by far) than the most retarded anti-evolution argument ever: It is only a THEORY (hint: it's the most retarded because it demonstrates that the arguer doesn't know what a theory really is)

It is clear that your intention here was to distort (and in a very crude way) dboyzero's argument for the simple reason that you disagree with it. Your religiously provoked disgust is not a reason valid enough to put words in his mouth. This mock, this fictional tale to which you have resorted in order to discredit science (for the mere fact that you find it heretical), can only be considered an insult. If your idea of civilized discussion is to post a fanatical provocation and then disguise it as an argument, then you're completely wrong. Perhaps you should seek more believable arguments before posting. Next time be sure that your intention is to defend your argument without having the need to alter something to your convenience. You don't have to base yourself on facts or scientific explanations, it will suffice to hear your personal opinion and the opinion of those whom you highly respect. I may sound rough, but I'm just saying the same thing that you said in a more direct way, without the need of a mocking and humiliating disguise.

Side note- Sorry for reviving this dead topic, but I was unable to control myself. Once again, I'm sorry.

Guys, I hate to break it to you, but I very much doubt that he still visits this guild, much less this forum, as he hasn't made a post in quite some time. There's no need to bring back back dead threads with repetitive arguments.

I see no fault in teaching evolution in schools. In a way I think it might cause some form of unity among youngsters who learn it. It may stave off racism and ethnic stereotyping because they may look and say to each other "we all came from the same apes, so why are we fighting?" The problem with creation stories is that it says "our race was created this way, and the other races were created differently. Because they weren't created the same as us, we have to treat them as lower life forms."

This is why the Japanese are (speaking generally, mind) very nationalistic and stuck-up, for example. The creation story of shintoism states that the island of Nippon came from a part of the gods themselves, and that it was the first island to emerge. Everything else came later.


I'm a pantheist agnostic. I find truth and fault in every belief system, and that by understanding every religion and anti-religion's point of view, rather than just writing it off as naivity or "wrong", we learn more about ourselves and our world. This way of thinking applies to pretty much every faith. Sikhism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Islam, hell even beliefs that would not be considered religions like atheism and agnosticism.

SIDE NOTE: I heard a scientist once say "you don't have to be either a creationist or an evolutionist. Evolutionists are not always atheists. Some hold onto their belief systems strongly yet believe in evolution." I found that nice.


If we teach the Christian creation story in schools, I say we have to teach OTHER creation stories in schools as well. We have to teach what the Hindus, Aboriginals, and other races/cultures believe. It presents us with options, yes, but also it presents people with the other views of those people so they don't seem entirely alien to us.