Changes

: Ah, but you see, that is where ID and evolution DO differ.  For most IDers, as you say, ID is based in religion, and is based on the notion of the existence of some Designer - which is utterly unproven, and, at it's heart, is a religious belief, even if it does not name the Creator (though, to be frank, on most, if not all, ID literature I have seen, the word 'God' screams from between every line).  Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence.  To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God (or any other deity), so, until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.  Science and religion can co-exist, but they can't intermingle, except 'at the edges', so to speak (Theistic Evolution, for example, is one example of science and religion intermingling 'at the edges' - science explains the 'Evolution' part, and religion only really adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part) without compromising one or the other, or both.  They are, in essence, two completely different ways of looking at the universe. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

: Ah, but you see, that is where ID and evolution DO differ.  For most IDers, as you say, ID is based in religion, and is based on the notion of the existence of some Designer - which is utterly unproven, and, at it's heart, is a religious belief, even if it does not name the Creator (though, to be frank, on most, if not all, ID literature I have seen, the word 'God' screams from between every line).  Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence.  To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God (or any other deity), so, until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.  Science and religion can co-exist, but they can't intermingle, except 'at the edges', so to speak (Theistic Evolution, for example, is one example of science and religion intermingling 'at the edges' - science explains the 'Evolution' part, and religion only really adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part) without compromising one or the other, or both.  They are, in essence, two completely different ways of looking at the universe. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: "''...some Designer - which is utterly unproven...''".  On the contrary, I've offered "proof" (whatever that means exactly) a number of times.  It may not be the sort of "proof" that you'd like (or accept—but then would you accept anything?), but it's false to say that a Designer is ''utterly'' unproven.  Not proven to your satisfaction would be more accurate.

:: "''...some Designer - which is utterly unproven...''".  On the contrary, I've offered "proof" (whatever that means exactly) a number of times.  It may not be the sort of "proof" that you'd like (or accept—but then would you accept anything?), but it's false to say that a Designer is ''utterly'' unproven.  Not proven to your satisfaction would be more accurate.

:: "''...at it's heart, is a religious belief...''":  "religion" = to do with God (according to your definition, although that's not the only definition).  Creator = God.  So your sentence is really saying, "Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a belief about a Designer".  Wow!  Really?

:: "''...at it's heart, is a religious belief...''":  "religion" = to do with God (according to your definition, although that's not the only definition).  Creator = God.  So your sentence is really saying, "Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a belief about a Designer".  Wow!  Really?

:: "''Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence''":  So evolutionists keep claiming.  And creationists keep refuting.  Simply repeating the claim does not make it so.

:: "''Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence''":  So evolutionists keep claiming.  And creationists keep refuting.  Simply repeating the claim does not make it so.

:: "''To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God...''":  Simply not true.

:: "''To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God...''":  Simply not true.

:: "''...until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.''":  In other words, until the existence of God is proved, evolutionists won't even consider the ''possibility'' of an alternative.  That's called a closed mind.  It is also unscientific.  If an archaeologist finds a stone tool, he is able to determine that it was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. a human being), ''without having to have proof that the designer existed''!  In fact, the mere ''existence'' of the intelligently-designed stone tool ''is itself evidence for the designer''!  So your argument amounts to this:  (1) I won't believe in a Designer/God until I have proof/evidence.  (2) Here's proof/evidence:  We can see that living things have been intelligently designed.  (3) That proof/evidence is not acceptable because it requires that there be a Designer, which hasn't been proved.  Tails you win; heads I lose.

 

 

:: "''...until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.''":  In other words, until the existence of God is proved, evolutionists won't even consider the ''possibility'' of an alternative.  That's called a closed mind.  It is also unscientific.

 

:::Oh, no, it is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to consider it as a possibility - but then reject it due to lack of evidence.  Which is the epitome of 'scientific'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

 

::If an archaeologist finds a stone tool, he is able to determine that it was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. a human being), ''without having to have proof that the designer existed''!  In fact, the mere ''existence'' of the intelligently-designed stone tool ''is itself evidence for the designer''!

 

:::Because such tools show clear evidence of being a tool, as opposed to just another rock, such as showing marks where it had been hit with rocks in order to shape it to an edge or point.  To date, no-one has shown evidence of a similar nature in living organisms. As I say below, the nearest there has been to that is people claiming that life is too complex for evolution to explain it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

 

::So your argument amounts to this:  (1) I won't believe in a Designer/God until I have proof/evidence.  (2) Here's proof/evidence:  We can see that living things have been intelligently designed.  (3) That proof/evidence is not acceptable because it requires that there be a Designer, which hasn't been proved.  Tails you win; heads I lose.

 

 

:: "''Science and religion can co-exist...''": Of course they can!  Science [[Natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a Christian worldview!

:: "''Science and religion can co-exist...''": Of course they can!  Science [[Natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a Christian worldview!

:: "''evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists''", "''Theistic Evolution,...adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part''":  That's one of the problems with Theistic evolution:  It essentially says that God used a process that supposedly means that He wasn't involved.

:: "''evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists''", "''Theistic Evolution,...adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part''":  That's one of the problems with Theistic evolution:  It essentially says that God used a process that supposedly means that He wasn't involved.

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

== Exactly what does ID have to do with religion? ==

== Exactly what does ID have to do with religion? ==