Aug
15
why is creationism / intelligent design inconsistent with physical evidence?
Filed Under Physical Chemistry
the first people who worked on the origins of man were religious men who set out to prove the biblical fairy tale of creationism. to their despair, they found no such supporting evidence, and instead found evolution. why is physical evidence from thousands of different groups working in totally different fields — archaeology, physics, physical and organic chemistry, genetics, and biochemistry — consistent with evolution and wholly inconsistent with creationism / intelligent design?
a. because religion is made up
b. because religion is made up
c. because religion is made up
d. because religion is made up
e. all of the above
if you want to attack evolution i will just refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
a. because religion is made up
b. because religion is made up
c. because religion is made up
d. because religion is made up
e. all of the above
if you want to attack evolution i will just refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
i am more interested in proof of religion. for instance, does anybody have proof that noah made a big boat and put all the animals in the entire world onto it, like maybe evidence of the boat, or his master list of all the animals that have ever existed, how he kept them in captivity, and what he fed them, etc.?
By: darwkins
Comments
8 Responses to “why is creationism / intelligent design inconsistent with physical evidence?”
Leave a Reply
I’d choose f. It is not inconsistent.
I wonder how someone like yourself can be so full of anger and malice? What do you care what anyone else believes? It’s not like we are killing babies or anything…
E for $100 Alex lol
facetious
Because Francis Collins is a creationist!
/facetious
Check the DNA scientists they not only have found that we are NOT related to Neandertals but infact the species is FAR younger than originaly estimated. In addition it has been found that the decay of carbon atoms is exponential rather than linear as a result carbon dating is WAY off. Seems science is proving itself wrong once again… Oh and by the way only bigots judge other people’s relgious beliefs.
The question you posed is stated in terms that expose bias rather than an open mind. Actually, there is not physical fossil evidence of evolution. The THEORY of evolution is a subject for scientific inquiery. The concept of creationism is a subject for faith. However, as of now, neither can be proved nor disproved. A person with a scientific approach would keep an open mind and consider any evidence that might be made known in the future. A person of faith need not look beyond their faith for confirmation of their beliefs.
You may not be a person of faith, but be careful that you do not become one of those people who makes up science.
It isn’t inconsistent. That view is the result of inside-the-box thinking, black or white but no grey or colors thinking. The Theory of Evolution is just that - a theory. While it has a great deal of support from the various sciences, there are still big gaps as well as situations with several possible explanations, some of which are rejected because they don’t fit neatly into the Theory at is present stage of development.
As a former science educator, I’m comfortable with the essence of evolution, both biological and physical, but after much reflection, I’m also comfortable with the concept of intelligent intervention at critical points in that evolution, in order to bring about sudden, dramatic changes. I believe that one of our purposes here on Earth is to attempt to understand the nature of both the evolutionary and the intelligent intervention processes. The latter, of course, will be more difficult.
We just haven’t found any direct evidence of Intelligent Design or Creationism, nor of Intelligent Designer(s) nor Creator(s).
Indeed, there’s no consensus for when Designer(s) performed their alleged actions, nor what it was they did at those times.
One big problem with ID is that it isn’t testable. It made no predictions for what the physical world, its life forms, etc. would look like or how they would develop. (Actually, yes it did… the Bible poses all species as having been made perfectly, and instantly, and the fossil record and other lines of evidence seem to indicate that this was not the case). ID advocates are essentially arguing for the existence and biological influence of a magical force (that is, from God) - and what evidence would there be of such an idea?
ID’s big problem seems to be with the blind watchmaker concept, which is that unguided, blind physical processes can in great stretches of time give rise to great complexity of design. ID adherents believe that the only way you could get some terrific biological results (like human brains, or eyes) is if an intelligence were there to guide it along.
BTW, don’t fall for the only a theory line. Evolution is as proven (or more so) as any fact of biology. It’s just that scientists no longer go about naming their findings Law etc, as we must admit the mathematical possibility that someone will eventually prove our ideas wrong or incomplete. A theory is a set of related inferences, and it has the power to predict what will be found in given situation. This particular set of inferences has been studied and backed up worldwide for at least a century.
Lastly, if you have faith, evolution should not threaten your faith. Is your faith based upon evidence? If so, perhaps it is not really faith at all, but a line of reasoning.