Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. The very term "intelligent design" first appeared in creationist literature (Wikipedia). It is a philosophical argument derived from the "teleological argument", which is an argument for the existence of God, not specifically related to evolution. The basic teleological argument goes as follows: On the CSC website they are honest about some things... clearly stating that their first goal is changing public education policy... and secondly debunking evolutionary science: Why would the primary goal of a scientific institution be changing public policy? It is because they are not a scientific institution... they are a political and religious organization. That is the DEFINITION of a political organization. Here is additional information from Wikipedia on "The Wedge Document", which was a leaked internal document: There is a published response to this on the CSC website titled, "The Wedge Document; So What" but it seems to be corrupted. This does seem to at least confirm it's existence. There also seems to be some major confusion in this thread between SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, and THEOLOGY... all three of which look at similar problems, but address them in entirely different ways. There is no reason to mix these HUMAN disciplines. If you aren't satisfied with science, then you need to abandon science and the scientific method... you don't need to change science into theology or philosophy. I would much prefer to add a required theology class to public schools than to ruin science classes. At least the United States might stop it's slide into scientific and mathmatical mediocrity among industrialized nations. In the scientific method, when a hypothesis is not successful, a new hypothesis is proposed. The alternative to a failed scientific hypothesis is not a philosophical argument or a theological explanation.
It isn't like someone is suggesting that you throw some organic compounds into a jar and shake them up to make a baby. If you look at the entire spectrum of living organisms we have reasonable evidence of many steps on the evolutionary ladder. Look at viruses, bacteria, algae, amoeba, insects, plants, parasites, fish, birds, mammals, amphibians.... there are a lot of steps in between that we can see. It took 3 billion years of incremental changes.
Religon is Complete. Where science is always changing. Remember we believed that if we sailed past a certain point on earth we would fall off into space. science will always be incomplete...religon stays the same. (depending on which religon you follow most of the major religons don't change.
Doctor Robert, Shaking chemicals would mean coming up with something by accident. So no I surely wasn't talking about shaking anything. I am asking you to consider the intelligence needed to create a baby. Just consider that one. Try thinking of how to do it on purpose. You know give life and all. Evolution maintains that at some point by chance that step was acheived (not me). I would like for you to explain that step to me. You know the one where cheminals produced the first DNA helix with the mapping precise and intelligent enough to be considered organic and living. Maybe just explain how the first living cell was created by time and chance. You are assuming evolution when you say the word 'steps'. As if we have evidence that transition took place. If you have a theory based upon an assumption there is nothing scientific about that. viruses, bacteria, algae, amoeba, insects, plants, parasites, fish, birds, mammals, amphibians.... In fact your list debunks evolution because there is not one transitional link that is observable in the fossil record or in the organic living record that would provide evidence of a step. You have listed several distinct organism without giving me evidence of the trillions of transitional organisms that MUST exist if evolution is indeed taking place. And I assume it hasn't quit so we should still see trillions of transitional species walking aroung- but there are none. Dr. Robert, I ask you to think about this, take a slice of evolutionary history say 10 million years ago and over the slow process of evolution reptiles are becoming birds, now suppose this process is taking 7,000,000 years (for discussion sake) Over such a long period of time (claimed by evolutionist) there would be millions of transitional steps, organisms that are not reptiles and are not birds. This would hold true for every living species we can name today. Yet every evolutionary scientist I have read has not come up with even one example in the fossil record or in the animal kingdom. One missing link wouldn't be sufficient to validate evolution. But literally trillions are needed to validate the evolutionary theory. Scientists have used many explanations to account for the lack of transitional organisms but they are grossly insufficient and this is only one small reason that so many evolutionary scientists are abandoning macro evolution. Don't get me wrong I am not saying they are embracing God, but many are becoming staunch advocates of intelligent design. Could you explain how these incremental changes take place. I have read and read textbooks trying to get this answer and all I ever get that can't be disproven is millions and millions of years. I don't believe anyone has to except 'God created the world' just because macro evolution is full of holes. But I don't think we ought to raise evolution to the status of a religion (I guess it is a religion today, the religion that say No God). Unless you are just determined to reject any alternative. It is more reasonable to say that aliens came from another planet and populated the earth with every living thing and just not know how the earth even got here or where the aliens came from. At least the scientific evidence would support the premise.
Rather than explaining the evolutionary process to me I found a Biology teacher, Dr. Kent Hovin who will award $250,000.00 to the first scientist or layman who can prove evolution scientifically. Dr. Hovind travels debating evolutionist in colleges and other public forums. So far no scientist has been able to offer empirical evidence for evolution. He is very religious so it appears his offer is also an attempt to challenge the teaching of evolution as absolute truth in the public school system. Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990 I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief. Observed phenomena: Most thinking people will agree that.. A highly ordered universe exists. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet. Known options: Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being.. The universe was created by God. The universe always existed. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed. Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena. Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that: Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.) Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution). Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution). People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment. How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented. If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following: The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught). No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. My suggestion: Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin. *NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God: Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. Planets and stars formed from space dust. Matter created life by itself. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals). Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds. Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense. Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching. This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1. Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions. The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good. The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples. Anonymous letters will be ignored. Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time. Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine. Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous. Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory. I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory. I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend. Sincerely, Kent Hovind
Dr. Robert -- all fair points. i was merely trying to say that these subjects are discussed, and not merely dismissed, among scientists who work everyday in various fields at the university level and otherwise. thanks for taking the time to explore the link!
Of course they do. I don't think any major religion is the same today as it was 2000 years ago. When religion doesn't change is when you run into big problems. It becomes stale, people don't relate to it anymore. It might even become oppressive. I think culture is changing so fast these days religion is having a hard time keeping up...
Rhester; I've only had a chance to skim your posts again so I apologize if I miss something. Again you are trying to argue against evolution using faith. Belief in evolution doesn't require faith because its not faith based. Evolution doesn't require us to believe whether things happened by design or by chance. It only lays out a mechanism for the route that things took to happen. I'll repeat it again evolution isn't in opposition to a general view of intelligent design. The issue of whether there is a higher power is moot to science because it isn't a scientific issue. You're trying to argue against evolution because you can't make the leap of faith to BELIEVE that the world we see could've have come about purely random. Well evolution strictly doesn't say it came out random or if it was a guided process. All it says was that species and life differentiated from basic forms to more varied forms over a process of mutation and adaptation over a long period of time. It says nothing about that this was all random. It could be read that it wasn't random but that there was reasoning for it. No offense I think that you're continually misunderstanding the scientific method. Darwin didn't formulate this out of nothing and didn't start with evolution and then sought to prove it. He observed then he hypothesized then observed some more and formulated tests then tested and observed some more and then compared that information with his hypothesis and found that it logically fit. Since then others have done the same thing and so far evolution stands up. Does it mean that it will always stand up? No it doesn't but so far its proven durable enough that it represents our best knowledge of the mechanism not reason for the differentation of species.
Yes religion is complete but its untestable. The strength of science is because it is testable and subject to change. That's why airplanes aren't based on faith but based on science.
This is the primary problem with politicizing this issue. Nothing about evolution denies the existence of God. There are evolutionists who believe in God and are good Christians such as Darwin himself. Why is it so hard to accept that you can believe in God and accept evolurtion?
Sishir Chang, I can see by your response that our discussion is on two levels. I am not concerned about whether we believe evolution or creation, I am questioning the mechanism that things took to happen. I find that evolution fails miserably as a mechanism, explanation or truth concerning origins. Oh yes it is. It is an assumed position. There is no empirical scientific evidence for evolution. That is what I am looking for. You believe in evolution because you had faith in those who taught evolution to you. You need to think critically and look at both the flaws of the theory of evolution and the flaws of the theory of creation.
Sorry, I am a terrible typist, I don't think you can debate evolution based upon faith, I have to disagree. Quoting the bible or my creed of faith has no bearing on the scientific evidence that debunks evolution. I see no rational reason for anyone to reject evolution solely on the basis of faith. There is too much scientific evidence to refute the theory of evolution. I agree it is way too huge a leap of faith for me to believe that the world we see came about purely at random. Couldn't have said it better myself. I have to disagree with your statement, evolution strictly is taught that the process was not guided. Chance and time are the pillars of evolution. The word differentiated is an oversimplification of the process necessary for one species to evolve into a new species. Adaptation happens all the time within species and has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation has been proven over and over to work against evolution. Every mutation experiment ever tested produced less complex and more damaged organisms. Not one case of mutation ever evolved anything of a higher order. All you have to really rest on is "a long period of time" If you could just provide some scientific evidence. That would satisfy me. And I am not talking about micro evolution which is the variation and adaptation between species. I am talking about macro evolution that hypothesises that simple species evolved into more complex and intelligent species. If you can give this evidence you will soon be a millionaire and on the cover of National Geographic.
Sishir Chang...religon is not something you test with experiments.... its about what appeals to you... you study and learn... there is no testing...it is impossible....thats why it requires faith.... i think it is silly when people try to relate science to religon.... science is a wordly thing that will NEVER explain religon.... it is impossible thats why religon has survived so long....or else we would all BE ATHEISTS.. and Mr.Meowgi the fudementals never change..... its not the religon that changes.... its the people who follow it that change.... the religon remains the same....there are the exceptions ofcourse....a few religons are trying to change with SOCIETY....but the "basics" remain the same for every religon.
Rhester; I have neither the time or inclination to go through a long exposition on the empiracal data behind evolution and would suggest you read through the other evolution related threads here where a lot of that is disccussed with links to other resources. I will say that you are unimformed if you believe there is no empiracal scientific evidence for evolution. There is overwhelming evidence which is why its so widely accepted. Not only fossil evidence, there is comparative anatomy and these days genetic studies. There are experiments showing mutation, adaption and selective survival of simple fast reproducing organisms over time and there are sophisticated simulations of evolutionary processes. In regards to my belief in evolution being faith based I will agree that I'm not an evolutionary scientist and haven't spent much time researching evolution on my own. That said I've conducted research on other things and understand the scientific method. My "faith" is based upon that I know that the same methodology to formulate and test evolution is the same methodology that developed the mechanisms for planes to fly and for me to be able to chat with you though we are hundreds of miles apart and do it wirelessly. Are their flaws in theory? Of course which is why they are theories. Much of aerodynamics is still theory and we don't fully understand what makes jet planes or bumblebees fly but we understand enough that our best theories seem to work in application. You're asking for a situation where we can't accept something if don't know everything about it which is unrealistic and would r****d any learning. The most we can is observe, hypothesize, test and theorize which is what science about. So again while to some it may seem like evolution is faith based it it isn't. Its not the simplest thing to understand and their are still a lot of question but it is based upon empiracal evidence and testing rather than something that was just made up. If you're unwilling to accept it then I would say read more or I suspect you're unwilling to accept most of science since evolution was formulated using the same methodology.
OK enough is enough. Science is man trying to understand things as they really exist. Religion is just making **** up. There ain't no Sasquatch. There ain't no aliens flying across millions of light years of empty space to obscure speck on the corner of an indescript galaxy to make pretty designs in corn fields. There aren't any such thing as ghosts. There isn't any Santa Claus. The shroud of Turin is a fake Wrestling isn't real. Human beings are so damn gullable, what the f*ck are they thinking? How in the world do you think the consciousness afforded you by your organic neural network could extend beyond it ceasing to funtion? Face it, all there is is what you can experience. We don't know why, the human race will probably never know why. Pain, suffering and sickness make a lot of life and lives miserable during their experience but death ends that since it is the end of all experience; nothing positive, nothing negative...just nothing. The life you have is all you get...don't waste it, try to have a little pleasure. Or do waste it because once your dead it does not matter. Once I am dead nothing matters Geezus. All the mumbo jumbo, semantic hair splitting, psuedo intellectualzation , freaking all out warfare over whose version of bull**** is right when nobody can offer a shred of credible evidence. I feel like I'm stuck in a bad episode of The Twilight Zone...but at least I know how it ends.
