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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the difference between both of these?
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
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.
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.
What's the difference between both of these?
The question is what does the addition of a deity add to the Theory of Evolution that was not already there without one?
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?"I would say it answers the "why" of evolution beyond simple survival.
This just moves the goalpost. If life were transplanted all that changes is the original venue.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.
I don't see the difference.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.
True. God could have used evolution as a mechanism, but why posit an entirely unnecessary Original Cause to begin with?Intelligent design does not eliminate the possibility of evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
Sure, but how was the advanced race created? It just moves the goalpost/changes the venue of origin.Could the life forms we see on this earth have been seeded here by an advanced race of beings?
Weather you call the intentional creator a God or not, there is still neither necessity or evidence for it. Natural evolution is sufficient.Dawkins allowed for that possibility and so it is intelligent design but without any religious attachment and no need for a God.
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.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.
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.
What mechanism am I claiming that transpermia doesn't just move to another venue?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.
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?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.
That's why peer review is a step in the scientific method.Science is not scientists that do have an agenda to fund their experiments, write books, and keep their tenure.
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?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?