Christian fundamentalists want creationism/intelligent design taught in science classes along side the theory of evolution. The problem is, as far as I can tell, no creationist has ever come up with a scientific theory of creationism let alone found evidence to support it. Most creationists spend their time trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution, however this is not a theory. My challenge to creationists is to come up with an observable, testable theory or hypothesis based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis using emperical facts and evidence and without relying on faith or supernatural intervention. I am familiar with the work of AIG and Hovind and so far niether of them have been able to do this. Just to clarify, I will provide some definitions, and I welcome any creationists who do not agree with my definition to come up with their own.

Scientific Theory:

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton's Theory of Gravitation, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Mendel's theory of Inheritance, Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

A hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community.
www.ametsoc.org/amsedu/WES/glossary.html

a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.
farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/

The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.
jmsscienceweb.tripod.com/vocabulary.htm

A theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Hypothesis:

A tentative proposal made to explain certain observations or facts that requires further investigation to be verified.
www.stjude.org/glossary

a tentative explanation for an observation or phenomena that can be tested through experimentation.
www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm

a tentative explanation for a set of facts which can be tested by further investigation
hub1.worlded.org/docs/lowell/PHYSICS.htm

I personally feel that three things are crystal clear.

1. Any theory of 'Intelligent Design" must include the concept of evolution.

The evidence for evolution has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

2. The observation of evolution does not denounce 'Intelligent Design' nor does it denounce the idea of a creator or a spiritual essence to life.

So evolution isn't even in competition with "Intelligent Design". It neither denounces it, nor interferes with it.

3. The Biblical verbatim account of creation is not a theory. It's an ancient unproven and unsupported story that is so closely in line with all the other mythologies of the region that it would be utterly absurd to teach it as fact.

If the Biblical mythology is going to be taught in schools, it should be taught right alongside every other mythology ever created by mankind. With absolutely no preference given to the biblical story over any of the others, including Greek Mythology, Witchcraft, Shamanism, Eastern Mysticism, and every other conceivable manmade philosophy.

There is no evidence that the Bible has divine origins. On the contrary I can personally write a book as large at the Bible itself describing why the Bible can't possibly be from a supreme all-wise creator. The book is simply far too self-inconsistent and contradicts it's very own premises page after page after page. If the scientific method of investigation were applied to the Bible it would be found to be false by self-contradiction even before the end of the very first book of Genesis.

There are also a myriad of reasons why Jesus could not possible have been the son of the God of Abraham. The story is self-inconsistent and has no rational merit.

Why teach something so irrational to our children?

It's also a very negative picture of both God and Man. It has God lusting for blood sacrifices before god can forgive transgressions. It has God asking people to stone each other to death. It has God being a male-chauvinist pig. It has man falling from grace of God. It has God sacrificing his own son to himself to pay for the failings of man.

It's just a totally dismal and negative story all the way around. Why would anyone want to teach this sick demented picture of God and humanity to their children when there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it's of divine origin?

Why would anyone want to place faith in the idea that God is so demented and sick that he lusts for blood sacrifices and asks people to judge each other and stone sinners to death? Only to turn around and send his Son in mortal form to renounce his decree and be nailed to a pole to make God happy so he can forgive men of their transgressions.

This is the sickest story of both God and humanity that mankind ever wrote.

Please DON'T teach this sick demented story to my children!

This story is a insult to both God and humanity.

I agree with all you have said, but ID is not only not a theory it is not even a good idea.
There is no evidence what so ever that it's real.
And yet christian fundies what to tout it like it's a strong theory to put up against evolution.
Evolution does not disprove a god but it does disprove the earth is only 6 to 10,000 yrs. old.
And it is hard to fit in the Adam and Eve story.

WHY??

Ir someone is going to push for something to be taught in school, or even want it to be takin seriously at all they should be able to show some evidence of it.

school - i can see your point.

adults? how can you prove whats taken on faith?


you either believe in whats stated as proof or not, and follow it or not.


it's been debated to death on here, no one wins - you can not debate FAITH vs SCIENCE and have a definitive outcome. sorry.

I saw a really interesting thing once...
it was a scientist/rabbi applying the math of E-MC2(sorry, can't do the notation correctly here) to creationism. He timelined both the big bang theory and creationism and lo & behold...they came out within a couple years of each other!

Here's my take:
...we use 10% of our brains at most...God is infinite...anything is possible...we have proof that evolution has happened (skulls, etc and even changes today - like kids being born with no wisdom teeth because our mouths don't hold them anymore) and ultra-religious folks refuse to believe anything that isn't "in the Bible" even though they also say God has the power to do anything...

This list of he said/she said could go on for hours, but you get my drift...

I think science and theology both go hand in hand...we are just too small to figure it out!

So if someone says that the earth is round becouse we have a mountain of evidence that it is and someone else says I believe and have faith that it is square they are both right?
Because faith is as strong as evidence?

Why could Jesus not be from the line of Abraham?

There are several places in Genesis where a person could add in an infinite amount of time. The earth most likely is more than 6-10000 years old.

But also the methods scientists use to count the years are flawed. I believe there was a shield of water around the earth for a few thousand years that would mess up the dating methods.

nope - not at all, faith is evidence in things unknown, not seen or perceived by the senses, thats what makes it faith. we can see from space pics the world is basically round, it does not need faith to believe - the evidence is clear.

Faith in my opinion, should not be taught in schools so we agree there it is of religious beliefs and should be taught at home or at church if at all. but to want to debate science vs faith will go nowhere the two cannot or are not compatible for discussion. how can one prove their faith? you either have it or you dont. how do you measure a pound of belief? what measure do you use to to find the length of love? or the depth of remorse? what scale do you use to weigh justice or mercy? the scientific methods cannot be used to argue against faith. nor can faith be used to prove god or creation. once all see this there will be no more arguements between the two. JMO

ok but faith alone is empty, you can make anyone believe anything with faith.


"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."


-Adolf Hitler

i wnt argue with you SM, i understand your stance on this, all im saying is that it leads to no solution here, its been going on ad naseum since i've been here but good luck with it.

I agree that it's not a theory.

I'm not sure I agree that it's not a good idea.

It's certainly not worthy of teaching. And even if it was, it would support all mysicism and religions in any form. Actually the Biblical account of God would be the least supported by the idea of 'Intelligent' design because the Biblical picture of God is not a picture of an 'Intelligent' God.

So "Intelligent Design" would rule out the Biblical account of God anyway.




Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. But I could teach a course on the evidence for "Intelligent Design" in less than a minute.

Owl give that lecture right now.

~ The class assembles and everyone takes a seat ~

~ I walk up to the podium and deliver the lecture ~

"Dear students the universe appears to be more organized than random chaotic chance would allow for. But that's just a guess.

Some people believe that it may have required intelligent design.

We know from biblical stories that the biblical God has not displayed the level of intellect required to design a universe, so we can rule out that mythology.

The pantheistic and animistic views of a spiritually created universe may have some merit.

However there is insufficient observational data to confirm or deny any of this at this time.

The final exam is on Wednesday. If there are questions please leave a message on my answering machine.

Class dismissed.


~ The students leave the classroom and the course is over ~

I agree with you on this Sam, in the most abstract philosophical way.

The existence or non-existence of a God is impossible to prove or disprove.

However, when it comes to religions that have been carved in stone via dogma I totally disagree. Logic can indeed be used to show that these religions are false.

The Bible contains so many self-inconsistencies and contradictions that it can't possible true. Period.

It has proven itself to be false beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Biblical God is supposed to be unchanging. Yet in the Old Testament God tells people to stone sinners to death (this automatically requires that people judge other people!). How can you stone a sinner to death without first judging them to be a sinner?

So clearly the Biblical God told people to judge each other and even stone people to death if they judge them to be sinners. He also told them to seek revenge; an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This was the teachings and commandments of the God of Abraham.

But then in the New Testament Jesus tells people not to judge others, not to stone others, and to forgive people.

Clearly Jesus and the God of Abraham can't possible have been the same unchanging God.

They had totally different ideas of how people should behave.

This religion is false. Period. It's not a matter of faith. It shoots itself in its own foot. It contradicts its own premises.

It may be impossible to prove whether or not there is a god "abstractly". But when it comes to dogma written down, it's pretty clear that the bibilcal version of God is a farce.

It can't be true.

Jesus was not the God of Abraham at least that part is truth.

sorry james i assumed he was talking of the biblical god, as to the religion your correct i wil not argue the point. but "faith" which is what SM seemed to be indicating whether it be any belief, still cannot be argued against science in my opinion. correct me if you think i'm wrong please. - how will you do so?

Someone should have told Darwin this. Oh wait, Darwin told them himself..


"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"
—Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139. "

Intelligent design does claim a form of evolution, but merely in the adaptation of a species to environments, not changing from one species to another.. Darwin never tried to say that.

Well, the Christians claim that he is.

They don't claim to have multiple Gods. Just one. A trinty. The father, son, and holy ghost (all one God)

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. The father, son, and holy spirit are all one.

And they do that on purpose to avoid becoming a polytheistic religion like Greek Mythology was.

But it isn't working.

It doesn't really matter what Darwin said. The fact that species evolved from one into another is obvious.

The supposed 'missing links' is a creationists wet dream.

Science has accepted the existence of transistional fossils. There are plenty of them. Maybe not any that can specifically document how humans evolved from primates, but clearly species evolve one into the other.

That's well accepted by scientists.

Darwin's comments were made before the evidence was in.