NEWSFLASH: Evolution, ID, NOT Opposing Theories!

Published on November 27, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Pure Technology

So, here's the setup, kiddies.

I was skimming through the forums and noticed the 5,673rd article on evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Something in the title rattled loose a bearing that had been stuck in my head for a week (see, I get these killer blog ideas when I'm walking along, but once I get to the library, they get stuck in the ether up there somewheres and I'm lucky to get them back...but I digress).

You see, evolution and intelligent design are NOT competing theories, nor should they be presented as such. Evolution can exist with or without ID, and ID can exist with or without evolution. Comparing them would be lie comparing apples and steak.

Because, you see, evolution deals with the process of change within the species over the years. Darwin's missive was entitled "On the Origin of SPECIES by natural selection", and dealt with his theory on how species evolved over time from simpler organisms. It is entirely possible to hold to Darwin's theory and still hold to the theory of an earth constructed by a creator.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, deals with the creation of the universe. The most commonly held theory that it opposes would be the "big bang" theory, which many scientists would readily concede as being as reliant on faith as ID.

Realizing this, I have to say that this whole debate's rather silly. I think I'll sit this one out and get back to devouring Thanksgiving leftovers.

Comments

bakerstreet

on Nov 27, 2005

Well, Intelligent Design is more often focused on genetic evolution as well. The problem is, it isnt' Dietic design, it is Intelligent Design. The only real requirement is that genetic change is at least in part intelligently directed, not solely directed by trial and error and chance. People assume you mean God by the intelligence, but it could also mean anything from little green men to self-adjusting systems, like an intelligent genetic network with no overseer at all.

All people who call ID "supernatural" do is create a "the world is flat, duh" environment that prevents people from looking in other, valid directions. There's nothing scientific or open minded about offhandedly branding any effort that diverges from yours "supernatural". The current gripe about ID has a lot to blame on the Pat Robertsons of the world, granted, but the stolid scientific establishment also uses them as an excuse to wrongly brand anyone who validly disagrees.

Dr Guy

on Nov 27, 2005

Wish I had answered first, but Baker beat me to my answer!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!