Kitzmiller v. Dover, Intelligent Design VS Theistic Evolution.

[Diaste]

On 9/30/2024 at 9:23 AM, Diamond said:

 Debates over topics like evolution and intelligent design can become quite heated, sometimes overshadowing the actual content of the biology books themselves. These debates have indeed led to legal battles, such as the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

In that case, the court had to step in to determine whether intelligent design could be taught in public schools, ultimately ruling that it could not because it was deemed a religious view rather than a scientific theory.

It’s a reminder of how important it is to engage with the material directly and understand the science behind it, rather than getting caught up in the controversy. Encouraging open-mindedness and critical thinking can help foster a more informed and respectful dialogue.

We do not use Intelligent Design, we now use the team Theistic Evolution. 

Theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creationism, is the belief that God or a higher power used the process of evolution to create life on Earth. This view attempts to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific understanding of evolution. Here are some key points:

Integration of Faith and Science: Theistic evolutionists believe that the scientific theory of evolution is compatible with their faith. They see evolution as a tool used by God to bring about the diversity of life.

God’s Role: While accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, theistic evolutionists believe that God guides or influences these processes in some way.

Variety of Views: There are different interpretations within theistic evolution. Some believe God intervenes directly at certain points, while others see God’s role as more of a sustaining presence throughout the evolutionary process

Balderdash!

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, Diaste said:

Balderdash!

Evolution, a change in genes or alleles in a population, is something we see going on everyday, and it's manifestly God's creation.    It should be realized that evolution does not specifically predict universal common descent or  how life began on Earth.

it's just a natural phenomenon.    The way God intended.

 

[Diaste]

On 3/16/2025 at 6:26 PM, The Barbarian said:

Evolution, a change in genes or alleles in a population, is something we see going on everyday, and it's manifestly God's creation.    It should be realized that evolution does not specifically predict universal common descent or  how life began on Earth.

it's just a natural phenomenon.    The way God intended.

 

That's adaptation. The real problem is a philosophical. God did not create to evolve. I don't know how anyone can read Gen 1 and conclude evolution was God's plan. It's clear the living creatures were made complete at the moment of creation. 

Trying to ingratiate one's self with the world system and it's incoherent conclusions about how life as we know it came to be is misplaced faith, belief and trust. 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution, a change in genes or alleles in a population, is something we see going on everyday, and it's manifestly God's creation.    It should be realized that evolution does not specifically predict universal common descent or  how life began on Earth.

it's just a natural phenomenon.    The way God intended.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

That's adaptation.

No.   That's evolution.   Adaptation is when organisms change to fit the environment.    Not all evolution is adaptation and not all adaptation is evolution.    Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution.    A neutral mutation in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.    The EPAS1 mutation that allows Tibetans to thrive at very high altitudes is adaptation and evolution.  

This is one of he most common creationist misconceptions about evolution, and one that continuously holds them back in understanding God's creation.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

The real problem is a philosophical.

No, the problem is not knowing the facts.    "People are usually down on things things they aren't up on." = Everett Dirkson

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't know how anyone can read Gen 1 and conclude evolution was God's plan.

Reading Genesis, you couldn't get the fact that mitosis was God's plan, either.   That's not what it's for.   If you want to make it about that, you're missing the whole point of Genesis.   Read it His way; it's the only way to learn from Him.    As Christians point out, Genesis is consistent with evolution and other things we find in His creation.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

It's clear the living creatures were made complete at the moment of creation. 

That idea is man's revision of God's word.   Why not just accept it His way?

Trying to ingratiate one's self with the YE revision of scripture and it's incoherent conclusions about how life as we know it came to be is misplaced faith, belief and trust. 

Just accept it God's way.

 

 

Edited March 18 by The Barbarian

[Deadworm]

Dr. Kennth Miller was chosen as the lead witness in the Kitzmeyer-Dover trial for teaching evolution in public schools.  

In this video Miller provides the fascinating legal history of the evolution vs. religion debate,  He also lays out the best single argument for human evolution based on human vs. chimpansee chromozones.  

https://www.bing.com/search?q=kenneth++miller+youtube+evolution+god&form=ANSPH1&refig=49EA51E2FC17483BAC43D7BE07FAD74A&pc=U531&adppc=EDGEESS&pqlth=0&assgl=37&sgcn=kenneth++miller+youtube+evolution+god&qs=HS&sgtpv=HS&smvpcn=0&swbcn=10&sctcn=

 

Perhaps most fascinating of all, Dr.  Miller is a devout Roman Catholic; and he brilliantly explains in this video how he reconciles his Catholic faith with the tory of evolution.  J was shocked to learn that secular biologists would choose a devout Catholic as the ideal spokesman to defend teaching evolution in public schools.

[teddyv]

On 9/30/2024 at 8:23 AM, Diamond said:

We do not use Intelligent Design, we now use the team Theistic Evolution. 

This may ;ead to confusion in the terms of intelligent design (ID) and theistic evolution (TE). I am fairly confident that those that hold to a TE position do not align themselves with the ID position. The ID position is generally associated with people from the Discovery Institute, like Dr's Berlinski, Behe, and Tour, among others. However, this organization is simply a creationist organization in disguise.

[one.opinion]

37 minutes ago, teddyv said:

This may ;ead to confusion in the terms of intelligent design (ID) and theistic evolution (TE). I am fairly confident that those that hold to a TE position do not align themselves with the ID position. The ID position is generally associated with people from the Discovery Institute, like Dr's Berlinski, Behe, and Tour, among others. However, this organization is simply a creationist organization in disguise.

Yes, the confusion is unfortunate, but real. I have focused a great deal of my adult life serving the Intelligent Designer, but I would not be very popular in the ID circles. There is an unfortunate amount of animosity between the two camps that should share a Christian faith (although unlike TE proponents, there are a few ID proponents that are quite decidedly NOT Christian).

[The Barbarian]

On 3/27/2025 at 3:56 PM, teddyv said:

This may ;ead to confusion in the terms of intelligent design (ID) and theistic evolution (TE). I am fairly confident that those that hold to a TE position do not align themselves with the ID position. The ID position is generally associated with people from the Discovery Institute, like Dr's Berlinski, Behe, and Tour, among others. However, this organization is simply a creationist organization in disguise.

It should be noted that Behe is an evolutionist, who just thinks that God has to step in now and then to make it work.    And Michael Denton, in  Nature's Destiny argues that living things are entirely natural and produced by nature, not miraculous intervention.

So there's a lot of variation in IDers.  

[teddyv]

On 3/30/2025 at 7:44 PM, The Barbarian said:

It should be noted that Behe is an evolutionist, who just thinks that God has to step in now and then to make it work.    And Michael Denton, in  Nature's Destiny argues that living things are entirely natural and produced by nature, not miraculous intervention.

So there's a lot of variation in IDers.  

Like anywhere, there is always going to be some difference - I'm sure we share some different opinions. That said the DI as an organization is a thinly disguised veil of science plastered over creationism.

[The Barbarian]

On 3/27/2025 at 4:36 PM, one.opinion said:

There is an unfortunate amount of animosity between the two camps that should share a Christian faith (although unlike TE proponents, there are a few ID proponents that are quite decidedly NOT Christian).

Michael Denton, for example, seems to be kind of a deist.   And there's this:

Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design?
https://islamonline.net/en/why-muslims-support-intelligent-design/