Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist

[Guderian]

Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist

By Mark Coultan
November 27, 2005

KEN Ham should be on the same side of the street as proponents of intelligent design. After all, he's in opposition to the atheistic view of science as an explanation for the world we see. He, like many people in the intelligent design movement, is a Christian.

But intelligent design advocates probably won't thank Australian-born Mr Ham for articulating what many of them try to avoid saying. That is: for some, the intelligent design movement is essentially a stalking horse for religion and, in the US, a way of getting around the separation of church and state to get into schools and influence children's education.

He says some Christian intelligent design people believe that, if they "can get students to begin to question atheism", that may be a way to get them to listen to the Bible.

Because of rulings of the US Supreme Court "their hands are tied".

"If you mention the Bible, they are going to say that contravenes the separation of church and state.

"Therefore some people are trying to find a way around that."

Mr Ham is one of the leading proponents of creationism in the US.

He arrived from Australia in 1976 and established the Answers in Genesis ministry in 1994. It is devoted to propagating the idea that the Bible, and in particular its first book Genesis, is literally true, right from the first line: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Answers in Genesis, which has been promoting Christian rallies in Canberra and Geelong this weekend, is building a $25 million museum in Cincinnati which tells history as it occurred in the Bible, adding dinosaurs and a few other things along the way. As the museum's website says: "Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all."

Mr Ham says much of the scientific evidence of evolution comes from the assumptions that scientists make, but if you come to the evidence with different assumptions, you get quite different answers.

He says many Christians are now grabbing on to the intelligent design argument "thinking that solves the issue of the separation of church and state to get things into schools".

"If those people get themselves on school boards, fine.

"We don't oppose them. Simply because, for me, and for us in the biblical creation movement, we say, well let them fight the evolutionists, the atheists, and keep fighting issues of naturalism and so on, that's fine."

Source

This is what I've thought ID was all along. Discuss.

[Prince Kassad]

I think this whole problem was actually caused by overzealous atheists. By painting evolution as a scientific principle that disproves God, they automatically made enemies of all true believers.

This whole "intelligent design" thing might not even exist if atheists had simply accepted evolution for what it is: a scientific theory unrelated to God.

I think Intelligent design is just the Christians' reaction to people using science as an excuse to antagonize religious people.

If Galileao and the Heliocentric movement had behaved the same way as the evolution supporters, there would probably be a "geocentric design" movement!

[Farnan]

ID is guided evolution. Creationism, and I am a creationist (please don't make fun of me) believes that God created Heavan and Earth and there was no evolution.

[Prince Kassad]

ID is guided evolution. Creationism, and I am a creationist (please don't make fun of me) believes that God created Heavan and Earth and there was no evolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Creationism just a specific form of ID?

ID is just an umbrella term that could be used to describe guided evolution or 6 day creation.

[Last Roman]

this guy makes me sick

we have seperation of church and state in the constitution for a reason (and actually in the bill of rights I believe). Im tired of having people trying to put religion into our public schools, a clear violation of said admendment. (I am a Christian by the way, but I believe that religion and science class should be seperate). Now if say, somebody tried to remove the second admendment, the right would be up in arms, but apparently its okay to remove something you dont agree with, but not the other way around. Hypocrites.

[Justinian]

but apparently its okay to remove something you dont agree with, but not the other way around. Hypocrites.

Oh ha ha ha whoopsthatappliestotheleftwingevenmore...

[Atheist Peace]

Intelligent Design is Creationism. Creationism with evolution intertwined inside it is still creationism.

[Justinian]

Intelligent Design is Creationism, Creationism isn't Intelligent Design.

[Prince Kassad]

Intelligent Design is Creationism. Creationism with evolution intertwined inside it is still creationism.

That's like saying socialism is communism. ID is just an umbrella term.

[Guderian]

I think this whole problem was actually caused by overzealous atheists. By painting evolution as a scientific principle that disproves God, they automatically made enemies of all true believers.

This whole "intelligent design" thing might not even exist if atheists had simply accepted evolution for what it is: a scientific theory unrelated to God.

I think Intelligent design is just the Christians' reaction to people using science as an excuse to antagonize religious people.

If Galileao and the Heliocentric movement had behaved the same way as the evolution supporters, there would probably be a "geocentric design" movement!

I agree to a certain extent. But you cannot surely blame it all on the atheists? creationists oppose evolution period, athiests provoking them with evolution is only a minor cause for thier behavior.

ID has supposedely nothing to do with Christians, it is suppose to refute evolution. The problem is it has no evidence of it's own, all it does is try to discredit evolution.

ID is guided evolution. Creationism, and I am a creationist (please don't make fun of me) believes that God created Heavan and Earth and there was no evolution.

The only connection ID has to evolution, is that it tries to refute evolution. I dont care if your a creationist as long as you don't try to spread your views as a science.

The problem I have is with ID and creation advocates trying to undermine science by attacking evolution without any empirical evidence what so ever.

[Atheist Peace]

That's like saying socialism is communism. ID is just an umbrella term.

Socialism and Communism are different things, while Intelligent design is creationism with extra ideas added into it.

[RZZZA]

Imo, you can never prevent science form clashing with religion. Well you can try, but it would be futile. Both are ways of viewing the world you live in, theyre different means to the same end...the question both science and religion has been trying to answer has been all these unanswerable questions that plague the human mind. What is God? Why are we here? How did life begin? In this way, science and religion are awfully similar...but the way they go about tryingto answer these questions is very dissimilar. You cannot prevent the clash of science Vs religion because theyre both competing for the same prize.

[Last Roman]

Oh ha ha ha whoopsthatappliestotheleftwingevenmore...

how so? Im not trying to start yet another political argument here, I would just like to see some evidence.

[Prince Kassad]

I agree to a certain extent. But you cannot surely blame it all on the atheists? creationists oppose evolution period, athiests provoking them with evolution is only a minor cause for thier behavior.

Yes, but it was a serious mistake for atheists to claim that evolution and religion can't coexist. Like I said earlier, ID is just an involuntary defensive response.

ID has supposedely nothing to do with Christians, it is suppose to refute evolution. The problem is it has no evidence of it's own, all it does is try to discredit evolution.

Which was part of my point.

The only connection ID has to evolution, is that it tries to refute evolution.

Like I already said, ID can be used to apply to "God started evolution".

I dont care if your a creationist as long as you don't try to spread your views as a science.

That's what the Pope said to Galileo!

The problem I have is with ID and creation advocates trying to undermine science by attacking evolution without any empirical evidence what so ever.

Could say the same for global warming, global cooling, nuclear winter...

But I think this is the whole point of science - to propose new ideas, and to prove/disprove them. I think ID is a legitimate idea, though Creationism seems unlikely to be true, in my opinion.

[Justinian]

how so? Im not trying to start yet another political argument here, I would just like to see some evidence.

You need evidence of either side of the political spectrum removing something it doesn't agree with but throwing a fit if it's done to them? Erm... look in the newspaper.

Liberal: We want social and religious freedoms so we aren't damn Nazis like those stupid conservatives. Now take down that cross!

[Last Roman]

Liberal: We want social and religious freedoms so we aren't damn Nazis like those stupid conservatives. Now take down that cross!

you got me

ps, im a liberal and if i heard another liberal saying that i'm pretty sure i'd punch him in the gut.

[Guderian]

Yes, but it was a serious mistake for atheists to claim that evolution and religion can't coexist. Like I said earlier, ID is just an involuntary defensive response.

To call ID a "involuntary defensive repsonse" is to greatly underestimate what it is trying to do. And why it was proposed in the first place.

Which was part of my point.

I said supposedely. The problem is Christians pretend it has nothing to do with Christianity, but they are the major advocates of ID. Their usual excuse is, "we are trying to promote an alternative to evolution, its all in the name of education, it has nothing to do with creation"

Like I already said, ID can be used to apply to "God started evolution".

No it cannot, ID is opposed to natural selection.

That's what the Pope said to Galileo!

Galileo was a creationist?

ould say the same for global warming, global cooling, nuclear winter...

But I think this is the whole point of science - to propose new ideas, and to prove/disprove them. I think ID is a legitimate idea, though Creationism seems unlikely to be true, in my opinion.

All of these are based on evidence. They have not been proved yet but that is science.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Yes, but it was a serious mistake for atheists to claim that evolution and religion can't coexist.

I'm an atheist and I've never said anything like this. Most of the people, scientists included, who acknowledge evolution are theists or religious in some way. So clearly evolution can and does coexist. I know many atheists and they say the same thing. I read many atheist writers - same with them.

So where are these 'overzealous atheists'?

Evolution is entirely neutral on the question of God.

Like I said earlier, ID is just an involuntary defensive response.

A defensive response to something that isn't the case? These wicked 'overzealous atheists' don't exist. As I said: evolution is neutral on the question of God. ID is not a 'defensive response'. ID is an attempt at undermining an accepted body of scientific knowledge because that knowledge is not compatible with a particularly narrow form of religion - fundamentalist, literalist Christianity. The rest of Christianity and most of the rest of the religious world has no problem with evolution (note the recent statement condemning ID from the Vatican, for example).

Scratch an ID proponent and you won't just find a religious person underneath, you'll find a fundamentalist. And religious fundamentalism of all kinds is not renowned for tolerating or accepting anything that doesn't fit in its tiny, cramped, narrow, rigid, unchanging, conservative, ignorant view of the universe.

[Prince Kassad]

I'm an atheist and I've never said anything like this. Most of the people, scientists included, who acknowledge evolution are theists or religious in some way. So clearly evolution can and does coexist. I know many atheists and they say the same thing. I read many atheist writers - same with them.

So where are these 'overzealous atheists'?

Evolution is entirely neutral on the question of God.



A defensive response to something that isn't the case? These wicked 'overzealous atheists' don't exist. As I said: evolution is neutral on the question of God. ID is not a 'defensive response'. ID is an attempt at undermining an accepted body of scientific knowledge because that knowledge is not compatible with a particularly narrow form of religion - fundamentalist, literalist Christianity. The rest of Christianity and most of the rest of the religious world has no problem with evolution (note the recent statement condemning ID from the Vatican, for example).

Scratch an ID proponent and you won't just find a religious person underneath, you'll find a fundamentalist. And religious fundamentalism of all kinds is not renowned for tolerating or accepting anything that doesn't fit in its tiny, cramped, narrow, rigid, unchanging, conservative, ignorant view of the universe.

A few pointers...

1) I didn't say all atheists are like this, only enough to irritate the religious world

2) A fundamentalist isn't necessarily a bad thing - that idea was propagated by the exact same atheists that I have been talking about!

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

A few pointers...

1) I didn't say all atheists are like this, only enough to irritate the religious world

Really? So name one then.

This nonsense that evolution is somehow an argument for or a support for atheism is a Creationist and ID distortion. Evolution is, as a scientific body of theory, utterly NEUTRAL on either the existence or non-existence of God.

The reason Creationists and their ID stalking horses have tried to create this association between evolution and atheism is it suits their agenda. These terrible radical atheists you talk about are a fiction. Creationists and their ID allies are not a fiction - they are very real, very well-funded and highly organised. ID is just the latest tactic in their decades long drive to ram their narrow version of religion down others' throats; which is why they are using school boards and law courts to peddle their nonsense. If they were really interested in presenting an alternative scientific theory they'd do it in the forum of scientific debate. They don't do this because their real agenda is to insinuate their fundamentalist religion into high school science classes, where it has no place.

2) A fundamentalist isn't necessarily a bad thing - that idea was propagated by the exact same atheists that I have been talking about!

Who? Name one. Where are the organised, well-funded and politically powerful groups of atheists who are mounting this ficticious campagain? Atheists understand that evolution is neutral on the question of whether God exists. These radical atheists you talk about don't exist.

But highly organised and politically active fundamentalist Christians do. ID is the latest evidence of their radical and narrow-minded religious agenda.