Intelligent Design Debate revisited Pt. II
This is an interesting experiment. Mahndisa has provided a new spin on the discussion of ID that I have never read. Her take is that ID cannot be discussed outside the realm physics. This is different because up until now, everyone has discussed ID in context with biology. You can read the comments area in yesterdays post or read her comments on Reva's Take post on the same subject.
Today, I want to delve into another part of this debate. Creationist are saying that their goal is to present an opposing view to Darwinism and not inject religion into the science class. Their belief is that children have the right to know that evolution is not fact and there is evidence that is contrary to its conclusions.
I was provided a link to a creationist website and read several areas of it dealing with evolution. There were several areas that interested me; dinosaurs and tectonic plate movements. It is this area where the creationist theory simply fascinates me. And it is here where the idea of bringing it into the classroom most disturbs me because the basis of the theory is rooted in Biblical teachings.
Dinosaurs
According to some creationist, dinosaurs walked the earth with man. They even note that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.
Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55
different 'kinds' of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like
the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably 'teenagers'
or young adults.
The basic theory is that the flood wiped out the dinosaurs and when the remaining species of dinosaurs emerged from the ark they were not able to adapt to the climate changes and soon perished. However, there is an interesting passage in the book of Job that one creationist referenced that hinted at the fact that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time many years after the great flood.
This would suggest to me that dinosaurs did adapt to the climate and flood did not cause their extinction. The flood is the source that creationist use to confirm the many fossils found. Their explanation is that fossilization didn't take place over millions of years but in a matter of decades or hundreds of years. So, if this is the case then we should have found dinosaur bones that have not been fossilized because the extreme conditions caused by the flood are no longer a factor.
Tectonic Plate Movement
This is an interesting subject as well. Based on creationist, the tectonic plate movement occurred over a period of months, not millions of years.
rapid subduction of the pre-flood ocean floor into the mantle results in new ocean floor that is dramatically hotter, especially in its upper 60 miles, not just at spreading ridges, but everywhere. Being hotter, the new ocean floor is of lower density and therefore rises 3,000 to 6,000 feet higher than before and implies a dramatic rise in global sea level.
Furthermore, BaumgardnerÂ’s modeling predicts that because this thermal runaway subduction of cold ocean floor crustal slabs occurred relatively recently, during the flood (about 5,000 or so years ago), then those slabs would not have had sufficient time since to be fully assimilated into the surrounding mantle. So, evidence of the slabs above the mantle-core boundary (to which they sank) should still be found today. Indeed, evidence for such unassimilated relatively cold slabs has been found in seismic studiescientistetist, the great flood caused the tectonic plate movement which happened over a period of months not millions of years.
I haven't studied earth science since 8th grade so I won't speak on this. However, it does raise some interesting questions about the ID model. There are those that want to introduce ID to the science class without reference to religion. They say that they simply want to challenge evolution as the only theory. After studying the premise of ID on this and several other websites, I am not sure how they can argue that ID is not Biblically based.
My Conclusion
The entire premise of ID is not that the world was designed intelligentligen entity, but that the Bible is historically accurate in all facets of science. How can you argue that the earth is only 6000 years old without injecting the premise of where the 6000 came from? It seems to me that methodology used by creationist scientist is meant more to proved the accuracy of the bible than it is to prove or disprove a theory.
Based on what I read, I am now fully against the introduction of ID in the science class. If this theory is to move forward in the high school curriculum, then its presentation should happen only in a philosophy or religious studies class. I'm not even sure if it necessary to know the theory of ID at this point. At this point, it requires more faith in the scientist than in the Bible. And I'm not prepared to that.
2:25 PM This is why it is pointless to debate this subject because there is a lot of misinformation out here.
The more I think of it, I do agree that the natural laws of physics can explain everything that people think are miracles if they understood the science behind it.
Why would anyone want scientists to meddle with religion? There are enough theologians who don't believe that the bible should be taken literally. Now, people want scientists to test this theory. I think many people will be disappointed in the results. Especially, since some have shown that the parting of the Red Sea could not have occurred based on the bible's account, while others says it can be explained away based on physics. I'm almost inclined to say we should teach ID in class just so that some people can be taught a lesson. I think you will have many more non-believers.
Here's a link where a Scientist dissects parting of Red Sea, finds perfect storm
In addition, Barbara Thiering present evidence that the bible shouldn’t be taken literally in her work, Jesus and the riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls
There are more examples of this, but I think you get the picture.
2:26 PM LOL, James you are taking me back to my bible college days. There are some bible scholars who don't believe in the 6000 year period of time. Some believe that it was a much longer period of time.
Secondly, as I argued on Reb's site...science deals with projectable patterns. If a pattern changes, then if science can't recognize where the pattern changed and that it did they will operate under the assumption that the pattern has been consistent and reason from that.
The question i would ask is has the earth always been under the same 'pattern' or were there potential pattern shifting events that dramatically influences life and growth on this earth.
Secondly, on a universal scale, we acknowledge the magnitude of the universe. PHYSICS is based upon four factors - Of the four known forces,nuclear, gravitational, electromagnetic, and weak (radioactive decay). Let's stress the word known. Now what if there are forces which presumably there might be in the universe that are unknown? What are there effects on us and physics as we currently know it?
2:47 PM I say the heck with it, let's teach it in the classroom and see what happens. I must warn you, before my mind was opened up to some of the evidence about how things in the bible couldn't have occurred; I used to be a Sunday school teacher. Now, let's just say, I don't take things in the bible literally.
2:56 PM I see what you are saying Dell, but we can only teach what is known and when it comes to science, what is verifiable. And that verification is based on our limited knowledge. To attempt to encampass what is known and what is unknown would be a serious excercise in futility.
And Dell you make my point exactly. Some scientist believe in the 6000 years and some don't. So when you stand in front of a classroom and say based on evidence we have "this". But some believe this and some believ that, however, we can't test it I just wanted you to know what some folks believed.
2:57 PM You might be right Cynthia. I'd like to ask:
"If Noah took two of every land dwelling animal on the ark. That would mean that ocean dwelling dinosaurs didn't have to adapt. Therefore, they should still be around. Why aren't they - and different were they from the shark, which we know has been around for a long time."
3:56 PM If the flood occurred, there would be evidence of an Ark. This is how science would look at it.
The only thing that is permanent is change. We are not the same as we once were neither is anything else. We evolved from an embryo to a fetus, to a child, to an adult and each stage is different. Interestingly, embryos of other species look very similar to humans and yet, during fetal development we eventually look human.
I'm saying this to say, nothing is the same as it started out. This is what science has shown, and this is what creation can't explain. If we were so unique, why would God make our embryos the same as many other species including tadpoles? If you look at a phylogenetic tree of all living things, you will observe that things have changed (evolved). There is no way creation can explain what have been uncovered through scientific inquiry. Herein lies the problem.
3:56 PM why is it so hard to believe that god used evolution in creation?
4:24 PM rell,
I think this is more practical. But, how would this work since the bible really doesn't allow for evolution. What you are suggesting is that the bible needs to be updated so to speak to accommodate evolution.
6:56 PM Great blog! And thanks for stopping by :-)
8:49 PM James,
Who says the dinosaurs that lived during the flood are not around. The coelacanth, found in the fossil records of the Cretaceous period and thought to be extinct, was found to be alive and well off the coast of Africa when caught by a fisherman handline fishing in deep water. I have always suspected that the loch ness monster was a landlocked dinosaur- The fact is we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the depths of our oceans- I personally believe the big prehistoric predators were victims of their own success- they exhausted their prey population.Most of them that is- I believe that some survived.
Later'
9:48 PM Malik,
I welcome the opportunity to learn about how the bible allows for evolution. What I don't understand is those who make statements and then don't back it up. If I'm wrong, then show me. Isn't this what this exchange should be about?
This is what I learned in the bible about the origin of creation. And this doesn't jive with evolution.
Here is a comparison of the bible's creation stories with modern-day science.
At the end of the above Website, someone suggested that the book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3 is evidence of evolution, but I think this is a stretch.
If you have something else, please share.
8:23 AM Malik,
Email it to me as well and I will post it here.
9:44 AM Thanks Malik!
1:19 PM malik,
my email address is: jamesmanning1969@yahoo.com