Intelligent Design vs Theistic evolution

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-06-07 09:04pm

How much difference is there?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-06-07 09:07pm

In the grand scheme of things, none whatsoever. They should both be destroyed for harming science in the US.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2005-06-07 09:07pm

Intelligent Design: God...um, I mean, some Designer...created the universe in 6 days, which is in no way a reference to Genesis. Really.

Theistic Evolution: God set up the laws of the universe, said "Let's see what happens if I do this," and pushes the Big Red Start Button. Life evolves from there.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 09:11pm

ID is people too stupid to understand evolution saying that evolution isn't reasonable, and that something instead created the world and everything in it in a short amount of time...

Theistic evolution is people who look at evolutionary theory, think it's brilliant, and make the mistake of believing that such a process is too brilliant to be random, despite the fact that randomness is actually part of the theory.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2005-06-07 09:12pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:In the grand scheme of things, none whatsoever. They should both be destroyed for harming science in the US.

AFAIK theistic evolution says God works through evolution, whether it's true or not has no bearing whatsoever on science, so how is it "harmful"?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-07 09:15pm

Theistic evolution is the least harmful of all the religious attempts to produce a competitor to science, because it does not specifically claim to refute any of the tenets of evolution theory at all. Because it is so vague about how much God interferes, if at all, it is really more of a "bolt-on" religious interpretation rather than a true competitor.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, as codified by Behe and others, argues very specifically that evolution cannot occur as described by science. It argues that God had to specifically and consciously "design" each and every species of life on Earth because all of the mechanisms of evolution are false. It's much worse, in addition to being horrifically stupid and/or deceptive.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-06-07 09:22pm

Junghalli wrote: AFAIK theistic evolution says God works through evolution, whether it's true or not has no bearing whatsoever on science, so how is it "harmful"?

It still leads to nuts purporting claims of God dealing with many things that science can readily explain. Again, while it isn't as bad as full blown Creationism 2.0, it isn't science either, and as such, should not get time in a science class like some would like. Though naturally they prefer to teach anything that goes against evolutionary theory in the end.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 09:38pm

Theistic evolution, in my experience, is really just a way for people to justify their faith in a way that isn't harmfull to society, or entirely impossible. the way I see it, you won't convert many out of christianity, so trying to get them to agree with theistic evolution is CERTAINLY the lesser of two evils. People who believe this often are against the kind of bigotry that many fundies go for.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-07 09:49pm

Junghalli wrote:AFAIK theistic evolution says God works through evolution (...)

Bingo.

Zero132132 wrote:Theistic evolution, in my experience, is really just a way for people to justify their faith in a way that isn't harmfull to society, or entirely impossible. the way I see it, you won't convert many out of christianity, so trying to get them to agree with theistic evolution is CERTAINLY the lesser of two evils. People who believe this often are against the kind of bigotry that many fundies go for.

Theistic evolution is generally managed by the reasonable believers who see just how ridiculous the Genesis account is. It shouldn't be seen as a justication, persay, but rather a way for them to feel God is relevant to the process, that humans aren't just the product of accidents. In the end, it relies on the same arguments from ignorance as any faith, but it's harmless in the same respect moderate to liberal christianity is harmless: it's been defanged by realism.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-06-07 10:21pm

We should just ban them both, there both blights upon science and humanity.

Shadow WarChief · Post by **Shadow WarChief** » 2005-06-07 10:25pm

As I said to an ID guy with which I was arguing,

"There's a difference between saying evolution is a tool of God and saying evolution requires God."

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 10:32pm

Drunk Monkey wrote:We should just ban them both, there both blights upon science and humanity.

Yeah, let's all impinge on the freedom to believe whatever we want, even if it is harmless. That's really gonna help.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-06-07 10:34pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Drunk Monkey wrote:We should just ban them both, there both blights upon science and humanity.
Yeah, let's all impinge on the freedom to believe whatever we want, even if it is harmless. That's really gonna help.

Ban them from schools not ban them altogether.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-07 10:37pm

Theistic evolution isn't even taught in schools, because that'd be blatant imposing of one religion in a federally funded institution. The people who support theistic evolution aren't the kind of folk who like to do that.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-06-07 10:39pm

Drunk Monkey wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:
Drunk Monkey wrote:We should just ban them both, there both blights upon science and humanity.
Yeah, let's all impinge on the freedom to believe whatever we want, even if it is harmless. That's really gonna help.
Ban them from schools not ban them altogether.

Easier said than done. The fundies feel exactly the opposite way: ban "EVILution" and promote this instead, well, ID anyways. That's why there's so much controversy surrounding it, like last month when they had the hearings in Kansas to determine whether or not to include ID in the textbooks and downplay evolution.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-06-07 10:41pm

wolveraptor wrote:Theistic evolution isn't even taught in schools, because that'd be blatant imposing of one religion in a federally funded institution. The people who support theistic evolution aren't the kind of folk who like to do that.

You’d be surprised just how many stupid fuckers that believe in evolution, but think god did it, and want religion in schools. And since when did these types care about not starting a state religion.

Drunk Monkey · Post by **Drunk Monkey** » 2005-06-07 10:42pm

The Spartan wrote:
Drunk Monkey wrote:
wolveraptor wrote: Yeah, let's all impinge on the freedom to believe whatever we want, even if it is harmless. That's really gonna help.
Ban them from schools not ban them altogether.
Easier said than done. The fundies feel exactly the opposite way: ban "EVILution" and promote this instead, well, ID anyways. That's why there's so much controversy surrounding it, like last month when they had the hearings in Kansas to determine whether or not to include ID in the textbooks and downplay evolution.

Those fucking inquisitions in Kansas just boil my blood!!!

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2005-06-07 11:23pm

OK, so lets look at the following religious statement on the matter:

Life is the way it is through evolution but God interfered by tweaking the environment and genetics to eventually produce humans "in his image". Which would that fall under? I'm thinking T.E.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-07 11:47pm

Darth Servo wrote:OK, so lets look at the following religious statement on the matter:

Life is the way it is through evolution but God interfered by tweaking the environment and genetics to eventually produce humans "in his image". Which would that fall under? I'm thinking T.E.

Yes. That's textbook T.E. It says, "Okay, so evolution is all good, but I like to think we were created in God's image. What God looks like, I don't know, but he presumably looks like us. We don't have a video of history up to this point, so there's no real harm in believing God interfered a little bit to push evolution toward humanity, its peak."

There are, of course, more liberal variants, and more conservative variants.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 11:49pm

The version I've often seen of TE is closest to "Evolution is right, but it's such a brilliant process that I can't help but attribute it to God."

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-07 11:54pm

Zero132132 wrote:The version I've often seen of TE is closest to "Evolution is right, but it's such a brilliant process that I can't help but attribute it to God."

That's just another way of saying, "God uses evolution as a tool". They both imply the same thing.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-07 11:58pm

Yes, but one doesn't actively fight science, while the other does. TE DEFINATELY inhibits progress much less then ID.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-06-08 12:33am

Zero132132 wrote:Yes, but one doesn't actively fight science, while the other does. TE DEFINATELY inhibits progress much less then ID.

Exactly. That's the point.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-08 09:21am

Drunk Monkey wrote:
wolveraptor wrote:Theistic evolution isn't even taught in schools, because that'd be blatant imposing of one religion in a federally funded institution. The people who support theistic evolution aren't the kind of folk who like to do that.
You’d be surprised just how many stupid fuckers that believe in evolution, but think god did it, and want religion in schools. And since when did these types care about not starting a state religion.

Because they realize that evolution is right, genius. They don't harm ANYONE. Atheism is more logical, but it isn't any better than the more liberal variants of any religion. So you can't make the bullshit claim that liberal Christianity harms anyone, because it doesn't. You obviously don't know what the average Theistic Evolutionist is like.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-08 10:04am

How many are there, i would be willing to become an Evangelist concerning an intelligent bible heresy