The major difference between creationism and intelligent design

[picnic]

Sure they can. The concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The concept of a god that deliberately creates humans cannot coexist with evolution - unless humans are an inevitable result of evolution. A theist might imagine a creator god that sets up some initial conditions and billions of years later notices the existence of intelligent apes and decides to interact with them. I don't think that god can claim to have purposefully created humans as the Abrahamic religions believe.

 

[YmirGF]

Intelligent Design is merely creationism in modern language.

 

[Father Heathen]

The concept of a god that deliberately creates humans cannot coexist with evolution - unless humans are an inevitable result of evolution.

There you go, although why would it have to be humans specifically and not intelligence in general?

A theist might imagine a creator god that sets up some initial conditions and billions of years later notices the existence of intelligent apes and decides to interact with them. I don't think that god can claim to have purposefully created humans as the Abrahamic religions believe.

God wouldn't necessarily have to conform to the Abrahamic perception/portrayal, or even be anthropomorphic at all.

 

[picnic]

There you go, although why would it have to be humans specifically and not intelligence in general?

It probably isn't inevitable that evolution produced intelligent life of any kind on Earth. Probably we will have a better idea about the inevitability of intelligent life if we send probes to other star systems some day (or if they introduce themselves after stepping out of their flying saucer )

God wouldn't necessarily have to conform to the Abrahamic perception/portrayal, or even be anthropomorphic at all.

That's true, but humans are pretty central to the Abrahamic religions.

 

[viole]

Do you think there is a difference, or not? If so, what are the differences?

No difference. Just a "scientific" deodorant added for PR. There is no difference either with liberal Christians who think God tweaked/tuned with Evolution or the Universe, or intervened in any way. All creationists. Not necessarily a bad thing, but we should be intellectually honest about that. If an achemist uses modern atom theory for her beliefs, she is still an alchemist, no matter how sophisticated and modern she might sound.

I believe it is impossible to be a theist and not a creationist.

Now, feel free to fire at will

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Intelligent design merges with no science.
It's well established that ID is just a rebranding. See skwim's post.
ID is creationism with glasses and a lab coat.

and a nice pair of shoes?

more like the experiment in the garden....
chosen specimen, petri dish, anesthesia and surgery, cloning, genetic alterations

a quick test to see if the results really took hold.

release the specimens into the environment.

See Genesis

 

[Sapiens]

Creation is very general.

Intelligent design means, God made things with processes of reation AND guidance-at-each-step-of-evolution.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad may be a great and wise Islamic scholar, but he should stick to what he knows; and he clearly doesn't know jack about biology. Let’s look at “guidance-at-each-step-of-evolution” for a moment. Each and every cell in your body undergoes about 10^6 mutations every day. Your body has about 10^14 cells in in it. There are 7.2 x 10^8 people on earth, so there are, on the order of 10^29 potential evolutionary events every day. To scale this number for you there are about 10^19 grains of sand on Earth, and about 10^20 stars in the universe. Remember, that 10^29 is just for one day, now … let’s assume that life on Earth goes back 3.5 x 10^9 years which is about 10^12 days … that’s potentially 10^31 evolutionary events (also known as ten nonillion) a number so large that there is not a applicable physical representation for scale available. That is how many “guidance-at-each-step-of-evolution” events your God would have had to process if your construct were creditable.

According to the Darwinian theory of the origin of species, one should expect a wide variety of polar bears and foxes with a host of different features, to have been created by chance before natural selection could come into play. The fossil record of the arctic region should testify to the earlier chance creation of red bears, blue bears, saffron bears and pink bears. But evolution, in relation to its effect on polar bears, seems to be colour-blind, capable only of recognizing black or white.

Mirza Tahir Ahmad fails to grasp the two processes of Natural Selection, mutations occur at random and then Natural Selection culls through the mutations with a fever. Perhaps there once were red bears, blue bears, saffron bears and pink bears; but they would not have survived long enough to reproduce, or even to reach maturity and the fossil record does not preserve the pelage in any case; at the same time … white bears would have prospered.

Moreover, the bears should also come in all shapes and sizes. There should be tiny polar bears, giant polar bears, heavyweights, middle weights, lightweights, flyweights, bantamweights and featherweights etc. Some should be born with taller forequarters and shorter hindquarters, some with dim vision and diminished sense of smell. Why should the creative factors, whatever they were, provide only single options in the polar habitat and let natural selection sit idly by? There was nothing for it to choose from.

Like the thought problem rainbow bears posited by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, bears of a less fit sized would quickly die. Fitness in an extremely cold environment is closely related to the ratio of surface area (a square function of size) to volume (a cubic function of size). Tiny polar bears, giant polar bears, heavyweights, middle weights, lightweights, flyweights, bantamweights and featherweights would not do well.


There are three well know rules in biology:

a zoological rule which states that within a species of endotherms, more heavily pigmented forms tend to be found in more humid environments, e.g. near the equator. It was named after the zoologist Constantin Wilhelm Lambert Gloger, who first remarked upon this phenomenon in 1833 in a review of covariation of climate and avianplumage color.[1] (Erwin Stresemann notes that the idea was already expressed by Pallas in Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica (1811)[2]) Gloger found that birds in more humid habitats tended to be darker than their relatives from regions with higher aridity. Over 90% of the 52 North American bird species researched conform to this rule.[3]


One explanation of Gloger's rule in the case of birds appears to be the increased resistance of dark feathers to feather- or hair-degrading bacteria such as Bacillus licheniformis. Feathers in humid environments have a greater bacterial load, and humid environments are more suitable for microbial growth; dark feathers or hair are more difficult to break down.[4] More resilient eumelanins – dark brown to black – are deposited in hot and humid regions, whereas in arid regions, pheomelanins – reddish to sandy color – predominate due to the benefit of crypsis.


Among mammals, there is a marked tendency in equatorial and tropical regions to have a darker skin color than poleward relatives. In this case, the underlying cause is probably the need to better protect against excessive solar UV radiation at lower latitudes. However absorption of a certain amount of UV radiation is necessary for the production of certain vitamins, notably vitamin D (see also Osteomalacia).

is an ecogeographic principle that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions. Although originally formulated in terms of species within a genus, it has often been recast in terms of populations within a species. It is also often cast in terms of latitude. The rule is named after nineteenth century German biologist Carl Bergmann, who described the pattern in 1847, although he was not the first to notice it. Bergmann's rule is most often applied to mammals and birds which are endotherms, but some researchers have also found evidence for the rule in studies of ectothermic species[2][3] such as the ant Leptothorax acervorum. While Bergmann's rule appears to hold true for many mammals and birds, there are exceptions.[4][5][6]


There seems to be a tendency for larger-bodied animals to conform more closely than smaller-bodied animals, at least up to certain latitudes, perhaps reflecting a reduced ability to avoid stressful environments by burrowing or other means.[7] In addition to being a general pattern across space, Bergmann’s rule has been reported in populations over historical and evolutionary time when exposed to varying thermal regimes.[8][9][10] In particular, reversible dwarfing of mammals has been noted during two relatively brief upward excursions in temperature during the Paleogene: the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum[11] and the Eocene Thermal Maximum 2.[12]

 

[Sapiens]

is a biological rule posited by Joel Asaph Allen in 1877.[1][2] The rule says that the body shapes and proportions of endotherms vary by climatic temperature by either minimizing exposed surface area to minimize heat loss in cold climates or maximizing exposed surface area to maximize heat loss in hot climates. The rule predicts that endotherms from hot climates usually have ears, tails, limbs, snouts, etc. that are long and thin, whereas equivalent endotherms from cold climates usually have shorter and thicker versions of those body parts.

Allen's rule predicts that endothermic animals with the same body volume should have different surface areas that will either aid or impede their heat dissipation.

So, as you can see, Mirza Tahir Ahmad is woefully ignorant of the three primary rules that can be derived from Natural Selection and used as near perfect predictors of animals' color, size, and extremeties as a function of latitude.

This principle is also vividly demonstrated among human populations.[5] Populations that evolved in sunnier environments closer to the equator tend to be darker-pigmented than populations originating farther from the equator. There are exceptions, however; among the most well known are the Tibetans and Inuit, who have darker skin than might be expected from their native latitudes. In the first case, this is apparently an adaptation to the extremely high UV irradiation on the Tibetan Plateau, whereas in the second case, the necessity to absorb UV radiation is alleviated by the Inuit's diet naturally rich in vitamin D.

Some polar bears should again, have been accidentally born with a sense of utter distaste for the flesh of seals, and abhor it to the degree that they would rather die of starvation than to venture upon a mouthful of it. The very sight of it should have made them vomit and retch miserably for hours. It should be of no surprise if some among them were shabby swimmers and tardy runners.

Clearly bears that could not eat seal, or where poor swimmers or slow on their paws went quickly the way of their (theorized) pink cousins.

If so, the Darwinian naturalist would have some right to make us believe that it was only random creation which took care of the evolutionary processes in that specific region.

Once again, the random part is mutation the non-random part is Natural Selection, why is this so hard to grasp?

Subsequently however, the inevitable law of the survival of the fittest and natural selection must have wiped out the unwanted and incompatible specimens of polar bears. All that was left to survive was the polar bear in its present form.

Quite right.

But where did those polar bears, whom survival of the fittest had condemned to extinction, disappear? We are not talking of a tropical environment. What we are talking about is the extremely cold habitat of the arctic. In a climate such as this, some of the corpses of different polar bears which became extinct must have been perfectly preserved as fossil records. One should remember that some animals which existed hundreds of thousands of years ago have been found buried in the arctic deep freeze, so completely unchanged that their flesh was edible, as if they had been buried yesterday; such is the case of a mammoth elephant discovered in Siberia not so long ago.

Hundreds of thousands of years? Hardly, more like ten to twenty thousand years. Bones do not fossilize under Arctic conditions, though remains do freeze ... but only if they are quickly covered with ice ... Nature abhors a vacuum and the arctic scavengers are, while not plentiful, thorough. Unscavanged remains sink down through the ice (P-38s lost during WWII sunk down to bedrock through some 300 yards of ice in just 50 years). In the case of Polar Bears, who live mainly on sea ice, where there is no bedrock below, they would become well aged meals for marine organisms.

I will leave to the reader the refutation of his spider example as an exercise, since it is so trivial that it is hardly worth even the reading of it for any other purpose.

 

[Etritonakin]

The concept of a god that deliberately creates humans cannot coexist with evolution - unless humans are an inevitable result of evolution. A theist might imagine a creator god that sets up some initial conditions and billions of years later notices the existence of intelligent apes and decides to interact with them. I don't think that god can claim to have purposefully created humans as the Abrahamic religions believe.

If you take into account the necessity of creating an environment for humans to delight in -and from which to learn certain things -before creating humans, evolution makes a lot of sense -especially for an eternal God in no big hurry.

The stated purpose or 'meaning of life' in the bible is to delight in what God has created (and also that he delight in what we create). Toward that end, evolution is essentially a program or intelligence of sorts which allows for survival of species without constant supervision, but also results in endless variety in which to delight.

It is noteworthy that humans were purposefully made lower than the angels according to the bible -after angels were made initially greater -but with the potential to be greater than the angels (in mind, body, authority, etc...). The psychological effect of our present situation should be considered -being dependent on the earth, limited by that dependence, focused on a limited environment, etc...

The reality is that evolution may not need creative input -at least once underway -but it is subject to creative input. It can be tweaked at any time, as our example shows.

Is it also possible to encode specific changes to be made over time -even while random mutation and adaptation are occurring? I'm not sure if that is possible, but it is an interesting question.

Knowing when a God who need not reveal himself might have made a tweak here or there would be rather difficult.

Many assume that because Adam is called the first "man" in the bible, it does not allow for any humanoids on earth prior to Adam -but that is not the case.
It is also assumed that the story of Genesis describes the initial creation of the earth -but that is also not the case (only the first verse does).

God made man in their image and likeness -the intent being to create more gods -to reproduce.
It is the end that was declared from the beginning -and is quite a logical step.

The creation of Adam seems to be described as a direct -seems to suggest that he did not have a humanoid mother and father.
The same is true for other life forms in Genesis

Even if this is the case, it does not mean evolution had not been occurring previously -or that the direct creation of Adam and other life forms was not based on previous life.

God is not credited with creating the earth and earthly life alone -but with creating the entire universe and framing "the worlds" -so it is not outside the realm of possibility that evolution
is happening on many worlds -by God's decision when designing that which led to the existence of the universe. It is stated in the bible that he created the heavens "to be inhabited".

We can see how evolution does not necessarily need a designer to occur -if everything happened "naturally" in the correct order, etc.... -but that is based on the nature of the elements and forces which lend themselves to evolution -which came to exist when the universe was initiated.

We can also see how evolution CAN be purposefully initiated -as our own example shows.

We do not truly KNOW whether evolution on earth was purposefully initiated after the formation of the earth -or was inevitable from the time of the big bang -but even if inevitable, design decisions could predate the big bang.

We may eventually find a variety of life forms on many worlds..... or we may eventually initiate life on many worlds -having learned how here on earth.

 

[Parsimony]

The concept of a god that deliberately creates humans cannot coexist with evolution - unless humans are an inevitable result of evolution. A theist might imagine a creator god that sets up some initial conditions and billions of years later notices the existence of intelligent apes and decides to interact with them. I don't think that god can claim to have purposefully created humans as the Abrahamic religions believe.

It can if God is omniscient (i.e. knows what exact initial conditions are necessary to eventually give rise to humans).

 

[psychoslice]

The only difference to me is a few brain extra cells lol.

 

[dust1n]

Why do people want to tell me what I can or can not believe in??? I have no issues with evolution, creationism (on my terms) and Christianity.

First, find a passage that says "Thou shalt not commit evolution!" First rule of Scuba applies: I won't be holding my breath.
Second, consider baking a cake. The baker mixes all the ingredients, puts it in an oven and watches it evolve into a cake. The cook obviously created the cake using various tools and supplies. Why can't God use evolution?

Because evolution isn't perfect and often results in massive amounts of suffering, it would be philosophically short-sighted to put God in charge in something we know is very problematic for humans.

 

[dust1n]

Yes, I think there is a difference. Intelligent design merges fine with all known science. Creationism does not.

Mmhmm, much like my Fairy-made world merges fine will all know science. Same with a very small tea port currently orbiting the sun in the Oort cloud.

 

[Sunstone]

Mmhmm, much like my Fairy-made world merges fine will all know science. Same with a very small tea port currently orbiting the sun in the Oort cloud.

Are you saying that any notion of a deity creating the world is not compatible with science? Just looking for clarification.

 

[dust1n]

Are you saying that any notion of a deity creating the world is not compatible with science? Just looking for clarification.

Anything that can't be falsified is more or less useless, and a far cry from "science."

 

[Sunstone]

Anything that can't be falsified is more or less useless, and a far cry from "science."

Thanks for qualifying your statement for me. We have slightly different views on this matter, but I'd rather not argue them at the moment.

 

[George-ananda]

Mmhmm, much like my Fairy-made world merges fine will all know science. Same with a very small tea port currently orbiting the sun in the Oort cloud.

Difference being the evidence and argumentation for mind-bogglingly complex beings (DNA, etc,) coming about through abiogenesis and evolution fostered by higher nature intelligences is in my opinion greater than the evidence arguing for that teapot. This is my opinion formed from study of the evidence for many things and beings beyond the physical realm and what it tells us.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Because evolution isn't perfect

Not only is it perfect: it's elegant. Stupid should be painful, even fatal. Such is evolution.

 

[dust1n]

Difference being the evidence and argumentation for mind-bogglingly complex beings (DNA, etc,) coming about through abiogenesis and evolution fostered by higher nature intelligences is in my opinion greater than the evidence arguing for that teapot. This is my opinion formed from study of the evidence for many things and beings beyond the physical realm and what it tells us.

I wasn't comparing the teapot or the fairies to evolution. I was comparing the teapot or the fairies to the ID.

 

[dust1n]

Not only is it perfect: it's elegant. Stupid should be painful, even fatal. Such is evolution.

Right, well when you can convince me that "elegance" is the creator carefully and purposefully allowing thousands of children to die at early ages due to common and well known genetic mutations, and in an unnecessarily painful way, perhaps I would consider such a creator as elegant.