In case you’re ever in an argument and want to prove “intelligent design” is creationism in disguise, here’s the proof from within the religious right:
“And creation versus evolution or intelligent design versus evolution, it’s been nuanced, it’s changed a little bit, but it’s the same basic issue.”
-James Dobson, Focus On The Family radio broadcast, +25:18 into the program, Sept 27, 2005.
I realize this has absolutely nothing to do with exgays but this one was too good to ignore. I encourage all of you to share this with all the cultural/political bloggers you know and see if this can’t get some traction.
I always thought Intelligent Design meant that God created the world by means of evolution. The distinction being that rather than purely survival of the fittest, God nudged the process.
As a side point, if you ever want to have something to think about, ask yourself how you would describe the evolution of the world to a nomadic tribe in a desert 4,000 years ago.
How would you describe outer space and that before our solar system came to be there was a vacuum? I might start out with “In the beginning… the world was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep…” (Genesis 1:1-2)
It’s actually pretty amazing how closely the genesis story matches with evolutionary theory. Life begins in the oceans. Even Adam in the garden of Eden is a pretty good description of pre-historic man. And Eden as located in the Bible is in the area which is considered to be the birthplace of civilization.
As far oral storytelling traditions go (which was the source of the Genesis story), it’s not too bad. It’s more consistent with what we know about the origins of the world than most cultural creation stories.
Timothy,As a person of faith, I would agree with you that the Biblical account of creation is essentially Judeo-Christian mythology — the mythological oral tradition account of the origins of the world and of the human race. It does not diminish my personal belief that there is a God, that the universe as we know it was created, and that God is the root of the creation. (Don’t flame me, these are my personal beliefs and I do not insist that the gentle readers here accept it as the only way to understand The Ultimate Question.)The problem is that Intelligent Design is not sold as mythology, it is sold as science. It is not science. It is NOT science. To teach it alongside science is a sham. Now I personally would support the teaching, in public schools, of creation accounts of world religions, in that context. But proven science, or scientific conjecture in process of argument, needs to adhere to scientific process. The charge that Intelligent Design is Creationism Warmed Over is valid, and those who seek to “dumb down” our children in order to promote a Christian Right agenda and gain political power are an abomination to a God who is much bigger than they comprehend.
Now you see Timothy, this is why such ideas have no place in a science class.(That you hold particular religious views or integrate info. about the World into those views is neither here nor there. This isn’t what I’m talking about…)
While fascinating you should read it as such, the Biblical Eden is not located where humans evolved. Civilization, yes, arguably. Humanity as a species, no.On that one twist — the scientific, biological search for human ancestors dating back millions of years has suddenly turned into talk about the emergence of an identifiably modern “civilization” in Mesopotamia about 5,000 or so years ago. I’m not even going to compare what we know about early human ancestors to the picture of the fully-formed modern man presented in Genesis.I’m not suggesting you made those twists on purpose etc, but it does clearly point out why the two discussions should not be mixed in a science class.Science, as always, remains silent on theological questions; but it’s always made me ponder… If the World is so complex that it must be explained by an even more complex Intelligent Designer… who designed the Designer? An Even-More-Intelligent Designer??? :)(Again, I’m not trying to poke holes in your faith or whatever. Just pointing out why it, or anyones, isn’t meant for a biology class.)
Well… you’re a little right and a little ignorant of ID as well.
Yes… Creationists are piggybacking on the findings of Intelligent Design Theorists. Primarily, because their findings do open the door to an intelligent design theory and more importantly, an “intelligent designer” entering the classroom. Mr. Dobson is apparently unaware of the debates between those in the Creationist and ID theorist communities. The reality is ID is NOT biblical creationism. The LITERAL account in Genesis and the scientific theory that is ID are not the same.
Yes… there is some science to ID. I was shocked too. It touches upon genetic protein make-ups, fossil records (which really isn’t ID but more of an evolutionary critique), biological information studies, and the study of irreducibly complex systems in the human body.
It actually is very interesting and is testable (to an extent). Darwinists and ID theorists have responded to each others’ responses for the past ten years.
A five minute google search should clear up misconceptions about Creationism and ID being the same thing. Fortunately for Darwinists, and unfortunately for ID Theorists, the creationists piggybacking on ID findings will probably hinder the ID movements theories from ever being accepted as legit.
No Dave, a 5 minute google does no such thing.Please provide a reference. Who has said this? What is the “irreducibly complex” human system that required a god? Which tests exist?And nice try, but I am aware of the history… Creationists are not piggy-backing. Rather, Intelligent Design was invented by Creationists after they lost a 1987 Supreme Court ruling.
I’m inclined to agree with Dave insofar as ID is not at all biblical.
Separated from God (with a capital G), a six-day creation, flat-earth heavens-and-firmaments, let-there-be-light, and-man-was-alone, Eve and the snake, Noah’s Ark, and so on, ID is just New Age warm fuzzies, and conservative Christians who advocate ID should be ashamed of their idolatry.
I’m inclined to disagree with Mike insofar that Intelligent Design can be (biblical) Creationism. :)I.D. doesn’t actually say how or why it was done. Merely that a god did it. This is how they hope to evade the 1987 ruling — I.D. doesn’t have to be the 6-day Genesis version.Timothy’s mention of a “God caused evolution” view is one end of the I.D. spectrum. The (former) Pope roughly held that view. The other end, or somewhere, is the biblical 6-day account. If you check the wording used by I.D. when it hits the schools you’ll find either of these views can be accomodated. But they all have one thing in common — God did It.
Well, grantdale, if you were to ask an ID person, they might tell you that bacterial flagella, the human eye, the blood clotting system, are all irreducibly complex. Which has consistently been proven to be utter nonsense by scientists who know what they’re talking about (for links, see this post).
Coincidentally enough, I ran across an article today that actually poses the question of “what tests” to an ID person:
Which is a ludicrous ‘test’ to put forth. There’s no way of proving it wrong–they can just say “No, you just haven’t figured out what its purpose is yet!”
Oh, by the way Dave: we’re not “Darwinists”. We’re people who have glimpsed at the staggering evidence and come to accept the fact of evolution.
Yep, thanks Skemono — that’s why I asked.I was hoping we’d get the obvious I.D. answers. It was a trap question 🙂 There have been no “irreducibly complex systems” (which is I.D. Behe’s invention) yet put forward that do not eventually get answered.And you’re quite right to point it out — none of us are “Darwinists”. For heavens sake, the man’s been dead for 120 years and science has advanced to the point where we now understand the mechanism and not just the witness. Next one who suggests that… I’m accusing of being a Paleyist!And the I.D. “arguament” is not one on it’s own merit. It argues by trying to find an (as yet unexplained) gap in the evidence for evolution and then saying “See, evolution doesn’t have the answer. Therefore, God did it.” Whenever each example is answered — such as the flagella (the recent popular one), or eyes (the one before that, BTW the human eye is a poor design) — they simply scrabble around for another one. Whenever an intermediary in the fossil record is found, they stop talking about one gap and claim there are now two gaps. You cannot win.I always come back to a telling point: the majority of biological scientists completely support evolutionary theory and believe in God. The I.D. people, on the other hand, hold to a faith that prevents them from supporting evolution.Unlike Daniel, who started this post, I think that the Evolution v. I.D. debate has a great deal to do with the exgay movement. Both are driven by a refusal to accept because of the same basic reasoning… “Damn the evidence, I believe it!”
HOLD ON HERE, FOLKS.
Somehow the idea has developed that I propose teaching creation or intelligent design in schools. Go back and read my post. I am not an apologist for ID.
All I was commenting on was the thought provoking notion that the Genesis story, which I personally believe to be an allegory, has remarkable parallels in what science has revealed to be the origins of our planet (as best we currently know).
I find it amazing that Moses got it so right (Moses is believed to be the author of Genesis).
Yes, there are differences. The Genesis story makes no mention of species evolving. There’s the six day creation idea. Eden was located at the start of civilization, not the start of humanity, etc.
But setting aside the nit-picking differences, you have to admit that for a leader of a large nomadic tribe 4000 years ago without any modern instrumentation, his description of evolution certainly beats the Greeks, the Romans, and most other creation myths.
If you haven’t read it in a while, go back and read the Genesis story, this time thinking of it as an ancient description of evolution. Try not to dismiss it solely because it is told as a religious tale.
Of course (if the stories are close to true) Moses was raised by Egyptian royalty so perhaps the Egyptians had some pretty advanced notions.
* * *
Grantdale, just to address one specific: “I’m not even going to compare what we know about early human ancestors to the picture of the fully-formed modern man presented in Genesis.”
Here’s what the Genesis story tells us about Man before the change that happened in the Garden:
Man did not wear clothes and had no concept of “nakedness”
Man lived instinctually and did not distinguish between “good” and “evil”
Man did not till ground or harvest food but ate what was readily available
Childbirth was less painful (I wonder if this is literal or more related to memory)
Of course, there’s a great story about a tree and a talking snake and an angel with a flaming sword, but what tale doesn’t need fun details.
One thing I learned a few years ago that surprised me is that anthropologists believe there was an original “Eve”. The idea is that all of humanity traces back to one woman who passed her genes to her daughters and they to theirs. I think I had sort of assumed that evolution was general across the species, not realizing that (obviously) the genetic mutation had to occur in one person first.
https://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/feature/feature.html
It’s OK Timothy — I wasn’t suggesting you were and ID advocate. I also didn’t ask/don’t care how your faith fits in :)What I suggested was how an accidental mention of the two together (or, maybe just idle musing), whatever, raises the very clear reason why they must be carefully kept apart in a science class.And Moses may well have written Genesis, or lived, or had his burning bush experience (which is v. different to the bushuru experience of Kiichi Miyazawa) or any of the other things mentioned from time to time. However, I do know that Genesis appears to be rely on far older Babylonian creation texts with the addition of a long list of Jews. The story is a common one in that region, actually, so I’m reasonably sure Genesis wasn’t the first version. Not a bad story but, of course, I wasn’t there.And yes, there would have been “the first human” at some point. Deciding who exactly that was is the tricky part. Was it “Eve”, or her slightly more simian mother, or her slightly more human daughter? Again, I wasn’t there — but I bet they were all hairy.Eww, flashback… as was everyone in that bar we were dragged off to the other night.
Well thats what you get for going to a lesbian bar!! (just kidding, ladies… I know, bad joke)
Interesting about the Babylonians. To my way of thinking, someone (be it Babylonians, Egyptian, or delivered straight to Moses by Jehovah) had a pretty decent concept of the beginning of things.
What amazes (and amuses) me is that the Christian right misses an opportunity to gloat and instead argues over the minutia.
If they were smart, they’d say “Oh, evolution? Yeah, our God told us about that thousands of years ago. Science is just now catching up.”
Instead they are all caught up in six day timespans and talking snakes. They are insisting that man was created exactly as he is today without even seeing that their holy book tells them otherwise.
What’s really sad is that ID advocates haven’t realized this is even worse theology than it is science. It’s just “God of the gaps” all over again. Unfortunately, gaps have a way of being filled, and if they’re successful in encouraging people to associate God with the gaps (most of which have already been filled anyway) they’ll end up encouraging the view that science can somehow squeeze God out.
“Somehow the idea has developed that I propose teaching creation or intelligent design in schools. Go back and read my post. I am not an apologist for ID.”
Nor did I think that you were. If you assumed that from my posts or otherwise took offense, I apologize.