SSDSSDSSD3
The Great Sea Under!
What's the difference between both of these?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design?
- Thread starter SSDSSDSSD3
- Start date
Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.
Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.[n 2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
I suspect the difference may be that Intelligent Design focuses on "Young-Earth Creationism" whereas Theistic Evolution is more open to including "Old Earth Creationism" (the latter being more compatable with Science). It would also appear that Intelligent Design is primarily Christian, whereas Theistic Evolution applies more broadly to religions including Christianty but outside of it as well. I'm not 100% sure honestly.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
That's a pretty good response.
Thanks, but if it's right it's definetely not a reflection of any deep understanding of creationism on my part. Just an educated guess.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Thanks, but if it's right it's definetely not a reflection of any deep understanding of creationism on my part. Just an educated guess.
You were educated well.
Theistic evolution -> theists who realize that theism is not incompatible with the theory of evolution
Intelligent design -> blatant pseudoscience
Intelligent design -> blatant pseudoscience
Skwim
Veteran Member
I think the crucial point in the description of theistic evolution is: it's not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs. There are several flavors of theistic evolution, all of them with god as a major player in evolution to one degree or another.
And, of course, intelligent design is just creationism wrapped in pseudoscience.
.
And, of course, intelligent design is just creationism wrapped in pseudoscience.
.
There is no substantial difference.
The only difference is how the "design" has been implemented. But it is still a "design", nevertheless.
Ciao
- viole
Dante Writer
Active Member
Dante Writer
Active Member
Intelligent design is not just a religious based belief.
Transpermia and Panspermia could also result through intelligent or planned seeding of a planet to start life. No "God" is necessary.
Theistic evolution refers to a belief in a God or supernatural being that somehow used their power to start or control evolution.
So in my opinion Theistic Evolution is more a construct of religion incorporating Darwin's evolution theories than is Intelligent Design which can have several meanings of intelligence and design with no connection to any religion.
JMO and good question!
Transpermia and Panspermia could also result through intelligent or planned seeding of a planet to start life. No "God" is necessary.
Theistic evolution refers to a belief in a God or supernatural being that somehow used their power to start or control evolution.
So in my opinion Theistic Evolution is more a construct of religion incorporating Darwin's evolution theories than is Intelligent Design which can have several meanings of intelligence and design with no connection to any religion.
JMO and good question!
There is more to the ToE than simple survival. How does intentional alteration of the laws of physics and chemistry by an invisible entity answer "why?"
This just moves the goalpost. If life were transplanted all that changes is the original venue.
I don't see the difference.
Dante Writer
Active Member
Intelligent design does not eliminate the possibility of evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
Could the life forms we see on this earth have been seeded here by an advanced race of beings?
Dawkins allowed for that possibility and so it is intelligent design but without any religious attachment and no need for a God.
How and where those seeds came from was possibly a result of evolution but without knowing that beginning we are just guessing.
Theistic evolution is based on a God figure and is a more religious compromise with science.
True. God could have used evolution as a mechanism, but why posit an entirely unnecessary Original Cause to begin with?
Sure, but how was the advanced race created? It just moves the goalpost/changes the venue of origin.
Weather you call the intentional creator a God or not, there is still neither necessity or evidence for it. Natural evolution is sufficient.
Science doesn't compromise. It has no agenda; no doctrine carved in stone. Science just gathers evidence and proposes explanations for phenomena observed. The explanations change as more evidence accumulates.
Dante Writer
Active Member
We already went through this on another post:
The mechanism you claim has not been replicated and is still just one of may theories including transpemia through intelligent design.
Natural evolution is not sufficient as it has never produced a living organism from inorganic materials. Evolution has never addressed the origins of that life and Darwin steered away from the origins for that reason.
Science is not scientists that do have an agenda to fund their experiments, write books, and keep their tenure.
Dante Writer
Active Member
There is no alteration of the law of physics and no magic entity needed unless you believe life only formed on this planet?
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Intelligent Design does not exclude evolution but the basis of that evolution may not have started on this planet which explains why the large gaps in fossil records and the rate at which evolution seems to have happened after the Cambrian explosion.
What mechanism am I claiming that transpermia doesn't just move to another venue?
Well, given the observable life around us, a living organism was produced sometime and somewhere. If 'natural evolution' didn't produce it, what did? How else to account for it?
That's why peer review is a step in the scientific method.
The venue of the start and the fact of the start are two different things. What is this "intelligence," and how does it figure into the equation?
The gaps in the record are to be expected. Why would there not be gaps? The rates of evolution vary for a number of reasons.
Why would the Cambrian explosion be problematic?
Dante Writer
Active Member
That venue you keep denying would have to come from life on another planet and if there is life on another planet the odds are the same it developed intelligence and it could have been here millions of years before ours.
Peer review only substantiates a hypothesis. Many theories were peer reviewed and later demolished by new research. Peer review by scientists also paid through funding would certainly bias most reviewers.
The rates vary for a number of reasons.... which is evidence no one knows for sure why they vary.
The Cambrian period does not fit the model of rate for the rest of the evolutionary period before or after. New life was springing up everywhere even though all the same building blocks of life were present before and after. Still no reasonable explanation as to why.