ID can exist with evolution (help needed in debate)

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-10-02 04:26pm

Could you help me with a debate? It was another ID vs evolution topic but it turned out that a lot people are saying they can stand next to eachother. I said it was not, but I lack the debating skills

I particulary would like to know how I can reply this:

Gypsy wrote:
smiffler wrote:
Gypsy wrote: And you have proof that they are flat out lies and distorted facts of course?
For one thing, it's not a scientific theory as it says it is. It's creationism in a cheap tuxedo and should therefore stay the **** away out of science classes

By the way, if ID can get in the poll, so should the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory
Whether it was a scientific theory or not is beside the point. I was hoping you might be able to back your claims more than you apparently are able to.

I am "Smiffler". I know most people defending ID are either ignorant or lying sacks or shit, but saying ID itself is full of lies or halftruths might not have been the smartest move by me. (actually, I think it is but I can't back up my claim well). Could you help me out?

link in case you want to check it out yourself

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-10-02 04:32pm

They're trying to shift the burden of proof. You should try asking them to back up claims that there is any legitimacy to ID whatsoever, then explain exactly what this "mysterious creator" is, and ask him to explain the technology and processes used to create the world.

Further, demand they provide an explanation why a creator is necessary as opposed to simple evolution, as a creator blatantly violates occams razor. Then point out that instead of attempting to actually explain everything, ID basically states "We know life is really complex, but science can't explain everything. therefore "blank" did it."

There was also a really excellent article on the subject posted here a few weeks back, might still be in the first two or three pages on SLAM if you want to look for it. Bugger if I can remember the title though.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-10-02 04:39pm

I just skimmed through the debate, but it appears as though Gypsy is a proponent of thestic evolution, NOT intelligent design. He probably has no idea what the difference is.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-10-02 04:51pm

Galvatron wrote:I just skimmed through the debate, but it appears as though Gypsy is a proponent of thestic evolution, NOT intelligent design. He probably has no idea what the difference is.

Is that the theory of God setting up the rules (Laws of physics, creating the mass for the big bang etc...) and not interfering?

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2005-10-02 04:53pm

Well yeah, claiming that ID is full of lies and distortion of facts without proving such would threaten your credibility a bit. You could try saying that advocates of ID distort facts with their "teach the controversy" attitude - they talk about the controversy of evolution (for example, Alabama biology textbooks say evolution is "a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. . . .No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact") when there's really no controversy there. It's a weak start, but you might be able to get something going on it.

The info about Alabama textbooks is from the Skeptic's Dictionary's page on intelligent design. You can get some great stuff there. Skepdic is awesome.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-10-02 04:56pm

Found it. Here's the article in question. Very, very well done material.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-02 05:01pm

Theistic evolution isn't actually where God creates the rules and lets it rip. That's rather deistic. TE deals with God guiding evolution by Unexplained Mechanism v2.0 tm

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2005-10-02 05:02pm

General Zod wrote:Found it. Here's the article in question. Very, very well done material.

And once again I am reminded very, very strongly of why I absolutely love Richard Dawkins. His books are brilliant, his articles equally so.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-10-02 06:07pm

I would say very simply that legitimate questions require legitimate answers. 'God did it' is not a legitimate answer.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-02 07:09pm

Theistic evolution is "God created a really clever way of making species develop by themselves. It's called evolution". Intelligent design is "evolution doesn't work; God, er ... I mean ... an intelligent designer must have done it ... somehow."

Lucifer · Post by **Lucifer** » 2005-10-02 07:17pm

This sounds like one of those "It's just a theory" arguments. You can tell him the significance of a scientific theory. Tell him that a scientific theory means it is an idea based on an observation that has, or is going through repeated experiments and tests to see if the theory can be disproved. It is very real, unlike ID or creationism. That is why ID or creationism cannot be scientific theories. They cannot be observed, and therefore, cannot be considered "real".

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-10-02 10:07pm

Since Creationism and Intelligent Design bills themselves as a science, their "theory" must meet the criteria for a scientific one. It is very much the point, as these claim to be sciences.

Explain to dumbass that science works from observations, and from there testing, and then formulation of a theory to explain the observations. Creationism and ID, are pseudosciences, who work from the opposite direction, is assume their "theory" is correct and ignore observations which disagree with it, even explaining it away as a mass conspiracy of scientist with the ulterior motive to show religion as the bullshit it is. Do not let him off the hook with his "it doens't matter if its not a scientific theory" since they claim to be sciences.

Note that Creationism is a theory in that it makes predictions (just false ones which can be shown to be bullshit - eg age of the Earth. ID isn't even a theory. As Mike as explained, it merely says an Intelligent Designer did it, somehow (with no explanation of how the designer did it, there is no way we can test it).

Ask Gypsy to show that ID is true. If he is advocating ID, the burden of proof is on him. If he is one of these hecklers who don't actually advocate something, call him out on it. Either come out and say he supports or doesn't support ID, and stop with this insinuation.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-10-02 10:14pm

ID proponent lies and distortions:

1 Evolution and the big bang are the same thing

2 Abiuogenesis and evolution are the same thing

3 Evolution says modern organisms sprang from the mud

4 Evolution says modern animals mutate into other modern animals within a single lifetime

5 Evolution is totally random

6 Evolution only exists so "godless heathens" won't need to worry about answering to a higher authority.

7 All the rest of science is in a grand conspiracy to make its conclusiosn conform with evolution

There are more but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-02 10:21pm

The most common ID lie is that evolution theory requires free-floating amino acids to suddenly assemble into a modern bacterium, with no intermediate steps.

The most common ID fallacy is the idea that "gaps" in the fossil record mean that the evolutionary pattern is not present. Of course, they seek to capitalize on the fact that intact fossilization is quite rare in nature, so the fossil record will NEVER be complete. And the hope to distract from the fact that every single piece of the fossil record that we HAVE found is completely consistent with evolutionary predictions. It's a variant of Johnnie Cochrane's "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" tactic.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-10-02 11:04pm

Galvatron wrote:I just skimmed through the debate, but it appears as though Gypsy is a proponent of thestic evolution, NOT intelligent design. He probably has no idea what the difference is.

His/her sig pic is hilarious. Stonerbear:

++http://live.quizilla.com/user_images/L/ ... erbear.jpg

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-10-03 02:12am

Intelligent design is wholly incompatible with evolutionary theory. The basic tenet of evolution is that it is not a goal-driven process. Intelligent design is the direct antithesis of that idea.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-10-03 02:28am

Darth Servo wrote:ID proponent lies and distortions:

1 Evolution and the big bang are the same thing

2 Abiuogenesis and evolution are the same thing

3 Evolution says modern organisms sprang from the mud

4 Evolution says modern animals mutate into other modern animals within a single lifetime

5 Evolution is totally random

6 Evolution only exists so "godless heathens" won't need to worry about answering to a higher authority.

7 All the rest of science is in a grand conspiracy to make its conclusiosn conform with evolution
There are more but those are the ones off the top of my head.

Darth Wong wrote:The most common ID lie is that evolution theory requires free-floating amino acids to suddenly assemble into a modern bacterium, with no intermediate steps.

The most common ID fallacy is the idea that "gaps" in the fossil record mean that the evolutionary pattern is not present. Of course, they seek to capitalize on the fact that intact fossilization is quite rare in nature, so the fossil record will NEVER be complete. And the hope to distract from the fact that every single piece of the fossil record that we HAVE found is completely consistent with evolutionary predictions. It's a variant of Johnnie Cochrane's "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" tactic.

So these examples would be actually taught in an ID course? If so, those would be perfect to answer his question

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-10-03 02:29am

Darth Servo wrote:
Galvatron wrote:I just skimmed through the debate, but it appears as though Gypsy is a proponent of thestic evolution, NOT intelligent design. He probably has no idea what the difference is.
His/her sig pic is hilarious. Stonerbear:

++http://live.quizilla.com/user_images/L/ ... erbear.jpg

there are more like that. IIRC there is also the pink Gay Bear from LordBorg

(Might be more but I've been inactive for a long time on that board)

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-10-03 10:16am

Oh yeah, before I forget. According to ID, life shows an irreducible complexity that points to a creator.
What were all the examples of the human body again it isnt near perfect? I remember something about the human eye but there were a lot more

Does ID clearly says that we did not evolved from apes but that we were created just as we are?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2005-10-03 10:18am

What were all the examples of the human body again it isnt near perfect? I remember something about the human eye but there were a lot more

Jury-rigged design

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-03 10:27am

wautd wrote:Oh yeah, before I forget. According to ID, life shows an irreducible complexity that points to a creator.

Yes, because apparently, more primitive precursors of every single biological system in the human body do not bother their worldview. So they look for obscure low-level organisms which have not undergone anywhere near the scientific study and scrutiny of the human body and triumphantly declare that our relative lack of knowledge means that they are irreducibly complex. It's the same fallacy they use with the fossil record: rather than looking at very well-studied parts of the evidence to see if they contradict predictions, they look at poorly studied or poorly known areas and say "Aha! We don't know everything about this one, so it proves creationism!" And with millions of species out there, they can play this game forever.

Does ID clearly says that we did not evolved from apes but that we were created just as we are?

ID moves the goalposts every time you score. That's the beauty of having a completely undefined theory.

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2005-10-03 11:26am

Darth Wong wrote:ID moves the goalposts every time you score. That's the beauty of having a completely undefined theory.

Debating an ID fundie is much like debating Darkstar, as I'm sure DW can atest. Complete with the 'Wall of ignorance' tm