Just doing some reading when I came across this statistic

catch22

mammasan wrote:

in a 2001 gallop poll 45% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

it's not a majority, but still... wow. i am embarrassed.

YieldInHiding

mammasan wrote:

Is it really true that the majority of American believe that our planet is only 10,000 years old?

Isn't that what Mike Huckabee said as well?

OffHeGoes29

meistereder wrote:

No wonder why the Europeans on this board make fun of us. Pretty sad.

They are just like us.

Cosmo

That whole 'Intelligent Design' thing is the evolutionary process. 'Intelligent Design' evolved from 'Creationism' in order to survive in the hostile environment of Public Education in America. In that process... they dropped all that utter nonsense about the 6,000 year old Earth and adopted the scientific understanding of our planet's origin (although, instead of the solar system being created by random order... it was created by 'Design'... which indicates a 'Creator'... whom remains nameless in their text... but, we all know who we're talking about, here. **wink** **wink**
So, I can see people saying, "Yup... there were Dinosaurs. but, then, God created Us... as we are... 10,000 years ago... long after the Dinosaurs went belly up". It allows you to shoehorn in the Bible into the Sciences without all of that cumbersome scientific testing protocol. It is basically a theory because i say it is, thing.

Thorns2010

tybird wrote:

Don't understand it either...as one can believe in one with out throwing out the other.....Moses, who wrote down Genesis, was a smart man for this time....but knew nothing about DNA, RNA, mutations etc....so he didn't include them in the account that he wrote down.......and what is a day to God? 24 hours? 1 million years? ....and I was raised as a Southern Baptist....but have received an extensive education in the sciences.

Wait what?? Moses wrote down Genesis?? This is the first I've ever heard of that.

mbangel10

mammasan wrote:

Actually you are wrong my friend. There are two branches of Creationism, Young Earth Creationism and Gap Creationism. Young earth creationist believe that the world, universe and humanity are about 10,000 years old. They believe in a strict interpretation of the story of Genesis and do not believe that man evolved from another species but we where in fact created as we are today. Gap Creationist believe that the universe and earth are far older than 10,000 years. They generally believe in the scientifically accepted age of both, but much like Young Earth Creationist they do not believe they we evolved from another species and that we where in fact created as we are today. Supports of Intelligent Design generally believe in the scientifically accepted age of the universe and earth but believe that they where created by God. many also believe that we evolved but only became man through God's intervention. So as you can see Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing and many strict Creationist actually criticize Intelligent Design because it does not adhere to the teachings of the Bible.

Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design text book, was edited in 1987 to replace the word creationism with ID. This text book conveniently leaves out the age of the earth, or any other geology time lines. The simple answer to why FTE would leave this out is because their religious belief is that the earth was created 6,000-10,000 years ago. However, instead of printing those beliefs in their skewed science book, they left all time lines out so it would be one less thing school boards could argue about.

Whether there are one or one hundred different branches of creationism is irrelevant, because it's all still creationism, and so is ID.

mammasan

mbangel10 wrote:

Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design text book, was edited in 1987 to replace the word creationism with ID. This text book conveniently leaves out the age of the earth, or any other geology time lines. The simple answer to why FTE would leave this out is because their religious belief is that the earth was created 6,000-10,000 years ago. However, instead of printing those beliefs in their skewed science book, they left all time lines out so it would be one less thing school boards could argue about.

Whether there are one or one hundred different branches of creationism is irrelevant, because it's all still creationism, and so is ID.

Again I disagree. ID at the very least always for the acceptance of scientific data while Young Earth Creationism does not and Gap Creationism, while accepting scientific data on the age of the universe and planets, does not accept the theory of evolution. Id developed from Creationist theories but does not simply ignore mountains of scientific data that points to man's evolution and the evolution of our universe and planet. That would be like saying that football and rugby are the same sport simply because they have some similarities.

catch22

mammasan wrote:

Again I disagree. ID at the very least always for the acceptance of scientific data while Young Earth Creationism does not and Gap Creationism, while accepting scientific data on the age of the universe and planets, does not accept the theory of evolution. Id developed from Creationist theories but does not simply ignore mountains of scientific data that points to man's evolution and the evolution of our universe and planet. That would be like saying that football and rugby are the same sport simply because they have some similarities.

nope. because ID is still not science. it still has that god thing and has no place in a science classroom. a better analogy is to say that just because rugby isn't football, its rules should be used in baseball. just because ID has some differences from creationism (arbitrary and political ones, i did a huge research project on this last semester) does not make it a legit scientific theory that belongs in a science curriculum.

Kel Varnsen

mbangel10 wrote:

Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design text book, was edited in 1987 to replace the word creationism with ID. This text book conveniently leaves out the age of the earth, or any other geology time lines. The simple answer to why FTE would leave this out is because their religious belief is that the earth was created 6,000-10,000 years ago. However, instead of printing those beliefs in their skewed science book, they left all time lines out so it would be one less thing school boards could argue about.

Whether there are one or one hundred different branches of creationism is irrelevant, because it's all still creationism, and so is ID.

I saw an amazing PBS/Nova documentary on one of the recent "evolution in school's trials". One people on the evolution team did some digging into this book and they found an early maunscript, where the word creation had been replaced by the word intelligent design, in all but a couple of spots. I think the author basically did a "find/replace" with Word and missed a couple of occurances. You can read about it hear (search for "Cdesign proponentsists")
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html

The best part of the show was when they did a recreation of the trial and got one of the main supporters of intelligent design to admit that under his definition of a scientific theory that astrology would also be considered scientific.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not scientific.They don't use a real scienfic method where a researcher will wonder how something works, come up with a possible hypothisis, then experiment and research to see if thier hypthesis holds true (and if it doesn't they report their findings either way). Instead they start with the exact answer they want and then look for evidence that supports the answer they wanted in the first place.

mammasan

catch22 wrote:

nope. because ID is still not science. it still has that god thing and has no place in a science classroom. a better analogy is to say that just because rugby isn't football, its rules should be used in baseball. just because ID has some differences from creationism (arbitrary and political ones, i did a huge research project on this last semester) does not make it a legit scientific theory that belongs in a science curriculum.

I never said that ID is a legit science. I was merely pointing out that ID and Creationism are two different psuedo-sciences.

catch22

mammasan wrote:

I never said that ID is a legit science. I was merely pointing out that ID and Creationism are two different psuedo-sciences.

gotcha. the differences are all just pretense though. ID would not exist if creationism hadn't been bitch slapped into oblivion. it's just an attempt to sneak creationism in without seeming as hopelessly moronic as they are.

Kel Varnsen

tybird wrote:

and what is a day to God? 24 hours? 1 million years?

Yea, if the sun is what humans use to measure days and the sun wasn't created until day 4 according to the Genesis story, how can anyone be so sure that the things that happened on days 1-3 actually only took a day each?

mbangel10

mammasan wrote:

Again I disagree. ID at the very least always for the acceptance of scientific data while Young Earth Creationism does not and Gap Creationism, while accepting scientific data on the age of the universe and planets, does not accept the theory of evolution. Id developed from Creationist theories but does not simply ignore mountains of scientific data that points to man's evolution and the evolution of our universe and planet. That would be like saying that football and rugby are the same sport simply because they have some similarities.

All of ID's theories (and I use that word very loosely) were made up to fit the story of the bible, there is no fact in it. The amusing thing is FTE had to use parts of actual evolution to make their sudo-scientific data seem legit. However, they turned micro evolution into macro evolution but within the same species for all living things instead of how real evolution works. The need for them to speed up the evolutionary process and keep it within the species is because they think the earth just isn't that old and that God created man in his own image.

There is no science in how they altered evolution, but it sounds real good to the bible belters. ID is just another way creationists are trying to dumb down America and make the believers keep believing that "God did it", instead of ever having to digest the idea that we may have actually come from apes.

mbangel10

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw an amazing PBS/Nova documentary on one of the recent "evolution in school's trials". One people on the evolution team did some digging into this book and they found an early maunscript, where the word creation had been replaced by the word intelligent design, in all but a couple of spots. I think the author basically did a "find/replace" with Word and missed a couple of occurances. You can read about it hear (search for "Cdesign proponentsists")
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html

The best part of the show was when they did a recreation of the trial and got one of the main supporters of intelligent design to admit that under his definition of a scientific theory that astrology would also be considered scientific.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not scientific.They don't use a real scienfic method where a researcher will wonder how something works, come up with a possible hypothisis, then experiment and research to see if thier hypthesis holds true (and if it doesn't they report their findings either way). Instead they start with the exact answer they want and then look for evidence that supports the answer they wanted in the first place.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

This vid is very informative also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Cosmo

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw an amazing PBS/Nova documentary on one of the recent "evolution in school's trials". One people on the evolution team did some digging into this book and they found an early maunscript, where the word creation had been replaced by the word intelligent design, in all but a couple of spots. I think the author basically did a "find/replace" with Word and missed a couple of occurances. You can read about it hear (search for "Cdesign proponentsists")
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html

The best part of the show was when they did a recreation of the trial and got one of the main supporters of intelligent design to admit that under his definition of a scientific theory that astrology would also be considered scientific.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not scientific.They don't use a real scienfic method where a researcher will wonder how something works, come up with a possible hypothisis, then experiment and research to see if thier hypthesis holds true (and if it doesn't they report their findings either way). Instead they start with the exact answer they want and then look for evidence that supports the answer they wanted in the first place.

...
You know.. if I want to learn about Creatio... er... Intelligent Design, I should be able to go down to my local CHURCH and learn all I want about it.
...
And 'NOVA:Intelligent Design on Trial' went a long way in explaining WHY and HOW Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.
I thought the Flagellar Bacterium part was also interesting.

tybird

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Yea, if the sun is what humans use to measure days and the sun wasn't created until day 4 according to the Genesis story, how can anyone be so sure that the things that happened on days 1-3 actually only took a day each?

Another excellent point....and 24 hour days are not the norm on other planets.

GeorgeMcFly

tybird wrote:

Another excellent point....and 24 hour days are not the norm on other planets.

This is the sort of thing that bothers me about religion. I was raised in a Lutheran home, and went to church and Sunday school every week where I was told that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD and it is all true. We can be sure that Jesus died to save us because it's in the Bible, and since it's the word of God, it must be true.

Then all the stuff that is totally ridiculous such as making the Earth in a few days, and Noah and his arc get all sort of leniency. Oh a day meant something different back then, etc. If the Bible is the word of God, and it is all true, why is some of the stuff clearly not true?

Kel Varnsen

Cosmo wrote:

...
You know.. if I want to learn about Creatio... er... Intelligent Design, I should be able to go down to my local CHURCH and learn all I want about it.

Exactly and if a school wants to teach kids that there is a debate going on in the world between creation and evolution (which was a reason some people on the NOVA show thought that intelligent design should be taught) then teachers and students can discuss it in social studies class. Because it is not a science.

Cosmo wrote:

...
And 'NOVA:Intelligent Design on Trial' went a long way in explaining WHY and HOW Intelligent Design is a re-packaging of Creationism.
I thought the Flagellar Bacterium part was also interesting.

The explination they gave of intelligent design was quite well done. Before that I always thought intelligent design was basically the scientific view of evolution, but god did it all the way along (which is fine, not science but fine makes sense as a belief). But they pretty clearly explained that it is not really the case at all.

tybird

Thorns2010 wrote:

Wait what?? Moses wrote down Genesis?? This is the first I've ever heard of that.

"Genesis is the first book of a larger work, the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Pentateuch, the authorship of which has traditionally been ascribed to Moses."
"The Ryrie Study Bible King James Version" Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Th.D, Ph.D

mammasan

mbangel10 wrote:

All of ID's theories (and I use that word very loosely) were made up to fit the story of the bible, there is no fact in it. The amusing thing is FTE had to use parts of actual evolution to make their sudo-scientific data seem legit. However, they turned micro evolution into macro evolution but within the same species for all living things instead of how real evolution works. The need for them to speed up the evolutionary process and keep it within the species is because they think the earth just isn't that old and that God created man in his own image.

There is no science in how they altered evolution, but it sounds real good to the bible belters. ID is just another way creationists are trying to dumb down America and make the believers keep believing that "God did it", instead of ever having to digest the idea that we may have actually come from apes.

I never said that ID was a science I merely stated that there was a difference between Creationism and ID. I think that both are pretty much bullshit but that's just me.