Domestic Policy
Advocates Of Intelligent Design Continue On For Creationism
The argument between teaching the intelligent design theory and Darwins Theory of Evolution will rage on for years. What are our schools to do with this argument, should they state a position or leave it up to legislature? The battle between Creationists and Evolutionists will rage on for years to come. However, one must ask, why can’t they both just get along?
Most religious individuals do not object to the theory of biological evolution, it has even been discussed and accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Once you educate yourself on what evolutionists actually believe it is not so offensive to religious individuals. The Catholic Church in acknowledging evolutions truisms stated that, “the evolution process does occur but the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to the evolutionary process.”
This is an easy enough concept to grasp, so where does all the animosity come from. It comes from the far right and far left sides of the argument, the Atheist Scientists and the Religious Fundamentalists. Both sides of these two groups hold the other in contempt so strongly that they refuse to listen to neither rhyme nor reason. It is virtually impossible to have intelligible discussion between representatives from these two extremist groups.
The major issue that causes a great divide between the two groups is the basis on which they present their side of their argument.
Atheist Evolutionists believe we have evolved from single cell Amoeba into the evolved people we are now, they try to use biological evidence as the panacea to any questions. They feel we have always been, they do not provide an answer to how or why we initially began, they only provide an ‘almost’ complete map of our supposed evolutionary trip detailing how we got to the here and now.
Religious Fundamentalists on the other hand state their claim based on belief, and belief cannot be discredited or disproved, it can only be questioned. Religious Fundamentalists believe we were put here by a creator, they ask, “how else could something be formed if there was not a former to create it?” It is a good argument and one scientist cannot disprove.
We have been through the Scopes Monkey trial, we have heard the first amendment arguments in our courts, why can’t we just accept that maybe both sides are correct and acknowledge we do not have any absolute truths; we only have a belief in our faith. Our faith is something that should not have to be tried in courts, or discussed in congress. You believe one thing I may believe another, isn’t that what makes America great?
Advocates of ‘Intelligent Design’ Vow to Continue Despite Ruling
Related Posts
» Intelligent design ‘not science’ ?» Globalization Is Destroying Mother Earth
» Sharkey Vamps In Advance Of Governor Campaign
» Bush And The Civil War In Iraq
» Are Idiots More Active Than Intelligent People?
Discussion
4 comments for “Advocates Of Intelligent Design Continue On For Creationism”
Post a comment
Categories
Recent Comments
- Wealth Building on American Concerns Over Chinese Sovereign-Wealth Fund
- Success on American Concerns Over Chinese Sovereign-Wealth Fund
- Rambr on Olympic Hypocrisy In Olympic Country
- Pwhndvve on Chinese Pimps Try To Goon Hand America
- Mike on Oil Drilling And Clean Coal In America
Most Emailed
- Bush Policy with Asia - 16 emails
- Retired Soldier: Iraq Troops Deserve Media Fairness - 8 emails
- Murtha Explains Method To His Perceived Madness - 8 emails
- Revisiting Immigration Reform…from 1907 - 8 emails
- Barack Obama Announces Run For President - 5 emails
You wrote:
Evolutionists are not by definition atheist or agnostic, nor do they “try to use biological evidence as the panacea to any questions”. Singling out a particular group that describe themselves as non-believers simply isn’t helpful.
Instead science builds a body of evidence, mainly through the application of empiricism and rationalism. This body of evidence is similar to what is required to prove a defendant’s guilt in court, “beyond reasonable doubt”. Absolute proof isn’t something these methods can provide, nor is it their goal. Only incompetent scientists forget the scientific method helps build, often a very strong, case for certain hypotheses, without however being able to provide absolute and irrevocable proof.
You wrote:
Complete poppycock. Evolution puts quite a clear time-line on the evolution of the species, including Homo Sapiens, so they very clearly DO NOT “feel we have always been”. Science has addressed quite successfully the question of the start of “life on Earth”. Again, absolute proof cannot be provided but the hypotheses that are postulated are in good agreement with observations and other parts of the body of scientific evidence.
You wrote:
Belief systems cannot be questioned, that’s their whole point: you either believe or you don’t. Scientists (whether they are religious or not) don’t like to include God in their models because that can’t be done with a being that shows no physical manifestations. We’re sceptical about own observations, let alone about observations we cannot make. The fact that God’s existence cannot be proven or disproved does not mean scientists cannot, or are not allowed to, believe in a Deity. Many in fact do.
In summary:
Creationism is a belief-system that does not rely on evidence but cannot be refuted because of its very nature. It can only be believed or not.
Evolution is a scientific theory that cannot prove its claims with absolute certainty but that is built on empirical and rational evidence. Science doesn’t seek to refute the existence of God, as it couldn’t do that. It doesn’t rely on the existence of God either, because what can not be sensed cannot be part of an evidence-based theory.
You seem to want to defuse this argument of “intelligent design” v. “evolution”, yet by common misconceptions and over-simplifications you’re making matters worse.
Developing your Web presence
The debate will hopefully not rage on for years; it was settled this week, and science won. For those of you interested, a posting via Boing Boing covers the ruling:
“A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that the Dover Area school board violated the Constitution when it required that Intelligent Design be taught as part of the biology curriculum.”
I by no means call myself a religious individual, but I am not opposed to the idea of Intelligent Design. What I am opposed to is the notion that Intelligent Design be included in Science Courses.
Intelligent Design cannot be proved by scientific means, therefore should not be included in public school science curriculum.
If public schools feel they should include Intelligent Design in their curriculum, they sould create new courses on the subject and give students the choice to enrole, not force the religious subject in typical science classes.
Gert:
You make good points and I appreciate your opinion. However, I was referring to the subculture of Athiest Evolutionists, I was not classifying all Evolutionists as Athiests. I don’t want to diffuse the arguement I merely want to point out that most likely we will never prove the other 100% wrong, I rather we try to better understand each others position and respect individuality.
Steve:
I have been watching the court case in Pennsylvania, it is similar to other discussions on the same topic, most of the time these rulings get challenged regardless of which side wins.
Jason:
Your opinion is a popular opinion and is sharedby alot of individuals.
I appreicate all of your opinions, I feel good open and honest discussion is the best way to understand and deal with this issue.
Thanks.