FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why the big change from Creationism to Intelligent Design?





S3nd K3ys
I've always thought "Creationism" sounded very, well... unbelievable.

Does Intelligent Design sound like a more attainable goal in the quest to justify the existence of something which can't be proven to exists? Is that why the big change from Creationism to ID??

Question

While we're on the subject, would you even consider the idea that, back in the day, with the lack of science and information about how things really work, that they made up Creationism because they really didn't know how they came to be, and felt they had to somehow justify their existance?

I think, more likely, they are just trying to take a more scientific approach.

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.
SunburnedCactus
I guess the creationist explanation sounds somewhat simplistic compared to modern evolution theory, so the church had to invent something with a bit more zing to it. For the "thinking christian" (whoever they may be)...
S3nd K3ys
SunburnedCactus wrote:
I guess the creationist explanation sounds somewhat simplistic compared to modern evolution theory, so the church had to invent something with a bit more zing to it. For the "thinking christian" (whoever they may be)...


After a bit of research... The phrase Intelligent design was brought in immediately following the 1987 Supreme court decision that ruled creationism could not be taught in schools. The ID text book, of Panda's and People was being written before this trial. All transcripts prior to the decision had the word creation exclusively in the book. Immediately following the decision, creation was switched to intelligent design.

Coincidence?
SunburnedCactus
How very convenient indeed.
Jayfarer
Intelligent Design basically is Creationism, they just don't specify the creator. It's still backed and founded by religious groups trying to sneak it into schools, though.
Davidgr1200
One of the (many) weak points of Intelligent Design is that it does not specify a creator (or should that be designer), thus the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" idea has appeared which is quite good fun. I have nothing against the idea of ID as theology but it does not have anything to do with science, so why do some people want it taught in science lessons? Do they also want Physics and chemistry to be taught in religion lessons?
gonzo
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Is that why the big change from Creationism to ID??
.


"creationism" and "intelligent design" are NOT synonymous
vahishta
gonzo wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Is that why the big change from Creationism to ID??
.


"creationism" and "intelligent design" are NOT synonymous


Creationism states that everything was created by god. ID states that everything was created by 'a higher power'. I do not see much difference. It certainly isn't scientific.
gonzo
vahishta wrote:
scientific.


Please define that term. Then tell me if the question of the origin of the universe CAN be PROPERLY addressed by science.

uh oh. you let the cat out of the bag... and it doesn't belong to Schrodinger
vahishta
Why, certainly.

Scientific: Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.

Naturally, the question of the origin of the universe CAN therefore be PROPERLY addressed by science. In fact, there is no other way. One must ONLY scientifically address that question. To not use scientific methods to find out the answer is sheer folly.
Xipha
Ok, so they switched from the term creation to intelligent design. Like you said it was immediately following the decision that creation could not be taught in schools. Perhaps because they were being censored they were forced to change terminology. What really irks me is that they teach evolution in schools as if it is proven when it is just as much a theory as anything else, yet they are not even allowed to mention creation as a theory.

As for looking at things scientifically, science is just trying to explain observations to understand the universe. So I could scientifically observe that the universe exists, and speculate either that an intelligent creator designed it, or that in came into existence all by itself through random chance. Because we cannot actually go back in time and make an observation of how the universe began there is no scientific way of proving what happened. We can only make scientific speculations based on the things we observe as a result of the beginning of the universe. And really those speculations are all in the interpretation of the data that we have found.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
Ok, so they switched from the term creation to intelligent design. Like you said it was immediately following the decision that creation could not be taught in schools. Perhaps because they were being censored they were forced to change terminology. What really irks me is that they teach evolution in schools as if it is proven when it is just as much a theory as anything else, yet they are not even allowed to mention creation as a theory.

Nothing is completely proven.

Take a look at gravity. Should we teach Newtons or Einsteins theory in schools as a fact? Or should we teach the theory that god wants us to walk on the ground? This might seem funny, but it's completely the same discussion. Gravity isn΄t absolutely proven either.

Also, creationism is a religious theory based on the bible, while evolution is a scientific theory based on observation.
PatTheGreat42
Look: The ONLY difference between creationism and intelligent design is that they went through with an auto-replace and switched out "God" with "Intelligent Designer."

It's not an attempt at a scientific approach. All the creationists out there know they've been beat with creationism, so they thought they'd try something a little different in their quest to spread dark age ideals.
PatTheGreat42
gonzo wrote:
vahishta wrote:
scientific.

uh oh. you let the cat out of the bag... and it doesn't belong to Schrodinger


Schrodinger's cat is dead. If it's been in that box all this time with no one feeding it, it's dead.
SNES350
gonzo wrote:
vahishta wrote:
scientific.


Please define that term. Then tell me if the question of the origin of the universe CAN be PROPERLY addressed by science.

Can you address it properly through religion? What if the universe was always in existence? Stating that God created the universe is no arguement because then what about God? If God has always existed then why could the universe not have always existed? Something must always have existed, as it is not possible (or so we think) that something can be created fro'm nothing. God, the universe, a massive amount of energy (energy could have theoretically been converted to matter, use e=mc^2 but for converting mass, as m=e/(c^2)), or whatever else it may have been, something must have existed to create what now exists.
Shade of Blue
S3nd K3ys wrote:
While we're on the subject, would you even consider the idea that, back in the day, with the lack of science and information about how things really work, that they made up Creationism because they really didn't know how they came to be, and felt they had to somehow justify their existance?


Obviously.

Anything that could not be explained through the science of the day was attributed God and given an in-depth religious explanation.
Aiz
religion itself was created so that humans would feel a sense of being, and a reason for them to believe they were of higher "status" than other living things. Of course, also to quinch the fear people had of what happens when they die and such. I admit though, most religions set standards and morals to be followed when living and it's actually a pretty good thing. But like everything else that is involved with humans, there are always those out there who use, or rather abuse, it to their advantages, and yet most people don't think before falling in the flock to support it.

Like the whole "intelligent design" thing and all that fight over bringing it into schools, people who say "why not?" really didn't think about why churches are so set on it, what really is their objective?

But yeah just calling it "intelligent design" is sorta going like "oh we didn't mention god, we didn't mention any religious thing" >.> it's like calling humans "humans" when we are just mammals.
Xipha
Quote:
Can you address it properly through religion? What if the universe was always in existence? Stating that God created the universe is no arguement because then what about God? If God has always existed then why could the universe not have always existed? Something must always have existed, as it is not possible (or so we think) that something can be created fro'm nothing. God, the universe, a massive amount of energy (energy could have theoretically been converted to matter, use e=mc^2 but for converting mass, as m=e/(c^2)), or whatever else it may have been, something must have existed to create what now exists.


The universe and God are fundamentaly different in nature. The universe is finite and must therefore have an end and a beginning. God is outside of space and time, and therefore has neither.

Quote:
It's not an attempt at a scientific approach. All the creationists out there know they've been beat with creationism, so they thought they'd try something a little different in their quest to spread dark age ideals.


If you think that creationists don't have any scientific resaerch of there own, check out Answers In Genesis, an organization that works with credited and well known scientists.
CrimsonStrange
Eh, I think it's all just manipulation of language as a means to manipulate opinion & thought.
The terminology for a concept or thing changes every few years.

(like shell-shock now being referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder or suspect now being called a person of interest.)
David_Pardy
You know... if Intelligent Design, or Creationism wasn't such a THREAT to Evolution, then they would have no problem teaching it in schools.

The truth behind why they don't want it taught is because the bigwigs don't want the students questioning Evolution. They're worried that people will start to research from a non-Evolutionist bias and will uncover facts and information that will ultimately show the extent to which Evolution is flawed.

I say give Intelligent Design (or belief in literal biblical Creation) a fair share of the syllabus in ALL schools in countries such as the UK, US and Australia - give the students the CHOICE to learn both points of view instead of sheltering them which is EXACTLY what the schools are doing. Ever heard of censorship? This sounds like a case of double-standards to me.
Jack_Hammer
I believe in the most likely events and the most believale (because that is what they are, they make sence and you can see how it would work) and if there is any other higher being/ beings then I would have to bring uo the 'You made me like this (not to believe in you)' argument.
frozenhead
Wow!, we have good points here eh!?

It's really a broad discussion if we consider every details here I must say. I think what more important here is either religious or scientific aspect of something that is made are samely "appreciated".

Look:

thing + creativity = something good
thing + intelligent design = something good

So, I must say both are something good and what is important the appreciation. Well, it's not solid and good enough point in here though it's only an opinion. Wink

Afterall, there a lot of things in this world that exists that religion or science can't explain. Idea
Xipha
David_Pardy wrote:
You know... if Intelligent Design, or Creationism wasn't such a THREAT to Evolution, then they would have no problem teaching it in schools.

The truth behind why they don't want it taught is because the bigwigs don't want the students questioning Evolution. They're worried that people will start to research from a non-Evolutionist bias and will uncover facts and information that will ultimately show the extent to which Evolution is flawed.

I say give Intelligent Design (or belief in literal biblical Creation) a fair share of the syllabus in ALL schools in countries such as the UK, US and Australia - give the students the CHOICE to learn both points of view instead of sheltering them which is EXACTLY what the schools are doing. Ever heard of censorship? This sounds like a case of double-standards to me.


I agree whole heartedly

Both evolutionism and creationism are not objective sciences. They are both theories that are made from observations in the present about the past. However we cannot actually go back into the past and observe. So assumptions are made about starting conditions, and from those assumptions and present day observations these theories come into existence. So why not give everyone both sides of the story and let them decide for themselves? Overall this would result in much better educated people, who have a better understanding of both sides, and may not be so blindly biased. Because there are things that are not known in both theories and many explanations still to be discovered. By censoring creationism you get people following evolutionism on blind faith, without really understanding why they are following it. People would have a much better foundation if they were exposed to both sides, and allowed to reason out for themselves which one makes more sense to them.
S3nd K3ys
David_Pardy wrote:
You know... if Intelligent Design, or Creationism wasn't such a THREAT to Evolution, then they would have no problem teaching it in schools.


Actually, you have it backwards. Evolution is a threat to ID/Creationism.

The knowledge of Creationism was around before Evolution was a scientific fact. It has only become contested in recent decades since the scientific community has proven again and again that evolution exists.

BTW, did you know that approximately 99% of all species that ever existed on the planet are now extinct?
benwhite
Creationism and Intelligent design are often used synonymously, but there are in fact different.

Creationism is the original. It defined our world as described in the bible.

Intelligent Design, as a 'scientific' theory, avoid the bible. It simply says that God has a hand in the world. It does not say evolution is incorrect, it says that God was a first step. The argument says that if evolution is the natural selection of advantageous traits, those traits must have functional precursors in order to be selected for in the first place. Some traits, like flagella in bacteria or salt-glands in avian birds are 'irreducibly' complex and must have been created by God. While people (even proponents of intelligent design) tend to use the creationism definition, ID is actually a different theory. It adopts science in order to co-opt it with religion. Sneaky stuff.

Although the idea that you need to have a function precursor to have something maintain in a population is intrinsically flawed. There are millions of junk base pairs in our genome, yet those haven't dissapeared. The absence of the answer doesn't point necessarily to God, it begs more research.

We don't teach Creationism in public schools because we're supposed to have separation of church and state. Public schools are state entitites and Creationism is a product of the church. Not so difficult to understand.

And creationism is not a threat to evolution. Over half this country still believes in it, so stop lamenting. It came first and has been replaced among those who were unsatisfied with it. The kiddies can learn it in church and decide for themselves that way. There are times and places for religious education. It's called Sunday, in Church.
S3nd K3ys
benwhite wrote:
separation of church and state.


Not to nit-pick, your points are quite valid and well written. But no-where in the Constitution does it say "seperation of church and state". It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (And let's not imply that it says Freedom FROM Religion, either.)
David_Pardy
Send Keys, Evolution is NOT a fact and it will NEVER be proven to be. For every argument supporting Evolution, there is another argument showing why the first cannot be a fact.

There is no constitutional law about separation of Church and State in either Australia or the US. I don't know about the UK.

But my first point still stands. If Creation isn't a threat to the 'validity' of Evolution, then teach them alongside each other and let the students decide what to believe. After all, if Evolutionists are right then you guys have nothing to worry about, right?
Bondings
David_Pardy wrote:
Send Keys, Evolution is NOT a fact and it will NEVER be proven to be. For every argument supporting Evolution, there is another argument showing why the first cannot be a fact.

It's not a fact just like gravity isn't a fact. Why don't you hear about other gravity theories? Because they are very very unlikely. It's the same thing with evolution vs creationism, with the difference that creationism is a religious theory.
David_Pardy wrote:
But my first point still stands. If Creation isn't a threat to the 'validity' of Evolution, then teach them alongside each other and let the students decide what to believe. After all, if Evolutionists are right then you guys have nothing to worry about, right?

Why teach a theory that is rejected by 99,9% of the scientists and obvious christian propaganda of a literal interpretation of the bible no matter how much proof there is against it?
Xipha
Quote:
Why teach a theory that is rejected by 99,9% of the scientists and obvious christian propaganda of a literal interpretation of the bible no matter how much proof there is against it?


And they used to teach that the world was flat. Popular opinion even among scientists does not always constitute truth. And there is no proof of evolution. They have interpreted the data and observations based on a set of starting assumptions which are not necessarily correct. And the same data that scientists use to "prove" evolution can also be used to support creation. It all depends which "glasses" you are wearing when you look at the data. But they go and teach evolution is schools as if it is fact, and then when faced with the question whether it is or not, people just regurgitate what was told to them without really understanding it. If evolution and creationism were taught along side, it would provide grounds for questioning both of them and encourage people to think for themselves instead of following blindly whatever happens to be in the curriculum. It would result in a better understanding of both theories, and therefore more educated people who could better defend their belief, whether it be creation or evolution. So they should stop censoring one side of the question, and give students a chance to think for themselves.
S3nd K3ys
No proof of evolution? No proof of GRAVITY??



That's funny shit right there! Laughing Laughing

Methinks you've been watching the Matrix too much... Wink

Seriously, while what you claim is not false, it's not correct either. Evolution AND gravity have not been disproven, which is the method most commonly used to provide scientific facts. Therefore, if you fail to 'disprove' it until the end of time, you could argue that it wasn't 'true'.

For an example, are you aware that 99% of all species on this planet are now extinct? Is that God still making 'adjustments' or is it evolution?



I can't 'prove' there's gravity, but if you go step off that cliff over there, I'm fairly certain you'll fall...
Xipha
True there is no proof of gravity. But the observations that are made are objective, repeatable experiments in the present. The difference with evolution is it is not truely observable the way most scientific theorys and laws are. Physics, Chemistry, Biology (when looked at in terms of how organisms work in the present), are all readily observable through series of repeatable, controlled, documented experiments. On the other hand when looking at evolution it is not objective by nature. It is looking at observations made in the present to explain what happened in the past. They are not repeatable, controlled, documented experiments (the experiments scientists have done in the present to try and observe genetic data changing have only shown results of loss of genetic information, not gain and so no concrete explantion exists for this. Genetic engineering is no proof for evolution because it is conducted under highly controlled conditions that do not simulate natural conditions and it demonstrates applied creativity and intelligence, hardly organisms becoming more complex all by themselves), because the past events are not repeatable. Scientists are using hindsight to come up with possible explanations, making assumptions about the starting conditions that causes their beliefs to fit the data as they interpret it. These assumptions are not necessarily valid, as they have no way of actually observing what the starting conditions were. So really they are making at best an educated guess using their interpretation of the data and what they think it should be. Therefore it is not really applicable to compare evolution to gravity.
Related topics
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
Intelligent Design in Schools?
Another religions
Creationism in School?
Evolution or Intelligent Design?
How is religion harmful to society?
DOES GOD EXIST?-- the grand old debate
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
Tolerence in Science ??
Proof god exists
[Official] God - NO LONGER A STICKY
Things only a Republican could believe
Please Read This before posting any creationist propoganda
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.