Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

It is a well established fact that evolution has played a major part in the development of medical treatments. Can anyone provide us with a list of scientific accomplishments based on intelligent design? I'd REALLY like to see that.

OK intelligent design fans. Here's your chance to tell us what ID has done for the world in terms of medical breakthroughs and other advances.

 

Are there any intelligent design fans posting on this forum? You might be talking to nobody.

 

There are plenty of ID proponents on the forums.
Unless you meant there are none on this thread, in which case you believe no thread can start with a question because no one is there to answer it.
Wanna try for a coherent thought again?

 

There are definitely some who have posted here in the past. I have no idea if they're still active, though.

 

Some of them are still active but after getting brutally spanked in threads with similar topics they are kind of "shy" to show up.

To answer the OP there is no such thing as "intelligent design" because the bible ( even if we accept it's authenticity - i do not ) is not a scientific book , it was not written to answer scientific questions and in every case it should not be taken literally . God (if we accept her existence - i do not) did not created the world in a week 6000 years ago ( no idea where this is coming from) and the book itself is allegorical in the sense that the first humans started as perfect and degraded to something else after the original sin , a clear indication of evolution through potential .

 

Perhaps I should explain why this question is important.

 

And now a rewording of the original question:

What possible benefit can come from teaching intelligent design? As near as I can tell the concept is completely useless. But I could be wrong. Here's your chance to enlighten me.

 

"God did it" answers absolutely no questions, and solves absolutely no problems.

It is for the intellectually weak who are not satisfied for the limitations of scientific tools and feel the need to fill the gaps with the God of the Gaps.

 

You can teach intelligent design just don't do it in science class. Maybe as part of a mythology class.

 

Creationism and intelligent design are not the same concepts. I assume the OP knows that, and is only trolling to get some sort of reaction.

 

Who is this directed toward?
I haven't found the use of the word "creationism" anywhere on this thread except in your post.
Are we interupting a private conversation?

 

You would never do such a thing as that tho, would ya? Its so cheap and tacky when someone does that.

But as you are the only one here who has said "creationism" I think we have
yet again, an example of how the goddists here have to make something up
in order to have an issue with science or atheists.

 

I'm not sure of what intelligent design criteria or principals are....but I do know that Atheism is a minority. Meaning most people believe we have a creator---which assumes that most people believe in some sort of an intelligent design--whether it be through millions of year or 6 days. You can believe in intelligent design, yet still latch on to the idea of evolution.

By the way...there is certainly no proof that life was created by some sort of fluke accident.

Mainly...you should be aware that intelligent design and creationism can be two separate things.

 

The op actually did bring up creationism as the reason for his OP....abit down the thread.

 

They are the same.

Goooooddddddd did it.

I take it you are not versed on the origins of ID? The first ID text books were simply creationist texts books with god switch for intelligent designer. Same thing.

 

Intelligent design is simply saying that evolution is not random, but is directed by an intelligent force. There is no way to prove or disprove this theory, however, it is not creationism.

 

"Creationism" comes in a very wide variety of form, I think it would
be realistic to say ID is a subset.

Creationist ideas generally are the crudest sort of throwback nonsense
based on falsehood and ignorance, so to the extent that someone can
try to be intelligent about searching for signs of ID, they'd want to disassociate from "creationism".

Try this. The people who think ID is possible are not creationists.
The ones who think its real and has been demonstrated are, yep, creos.

 

Your version of ID may be that / that simple.

There is no way to prove any theory.

If it is not open to being disproved its not a theory.
If its got no data, its not a theory.

ID is a religious concept, if calling it creationism makes one uncomfortable, it should; its true and creo-ism is rightly
viewed with contempt by the educated.

 

Fair enough, in the Texas article. The poster didn't, but he did quote the article.
It's interesting to note that in the court case in Pennsylvania regarding the very same issue, the judge (who was appointed by Reagan) declared the distinction between creationism and ID was bunk and simply a way to get the same teaching into the schools through the back door.
I, for one, agree with him.

 

The term "creationist" is referring to those people who take the Bible literally...meaning the earth was created in six days not 6 billion.

Non-creationists can believe in intelligent design and evolution, or simply just evolution.

 

Today, the American Scientific Affiliation recognizes that there are different opinions among creationists on the method of creation, while acknowledging unity on the Abrahamic belief that God "created the universe."[5][6] Since the 1920s, literalist creationism in America has contested scientific theories, such as that of evolution,[7][8][9] which derive from natural observations of the universe and life. Literalist creationists[10] believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[11] Fundamentalist creationists of the Christian faith usually base their belief on a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative.[10][12] Other religions have different deity-led creation myths,[note 1][13][14][15] while different members of individual faiths vary in their acceptance of scientific findings

OEC, YEC theistic evolution....

You sure its the way you say?

 

Both ID and evolution both fail to explain the existence of lifeforms that should obviously exist. This includes but is not limited to lifeforms that can cloak and make themselves invisible, lifeforms that have lasers in their eyes, lifeforms that have telepathic and/or telekenetic abilities, lifeforms with radiation breath and lifeforms that can shoot lightning bolts from their hands/paws/claws/appendages.

 

Yes, actually I am sure. When an Atheist puts a thread up...mocking creationism.....we all know that it isn't people who believe in God and believe in evolution that is being mocked. The reference you have up is the scientific community using creationism in the logical assumption that anyone who believes in God believes in creation by God...thus logically they are creationists.

But that is not how the term is used in everyday life..