Isn't it true that it was formulated just to counter the theory of Evolution? Religion should not be melded into science, the secular and spiritual concepts should be kept separate. Agree or disagree?
204446
Science is the study of the natural world.  A "god" or other supernatural being falls outside of science.\n\nIntelligent design contributes nothing to the fields of science.  It offers no testable theories... nothing can be predicted and tested from it.  All it says is, "something created it".  That offers absolutely  nothing from a scientific perspective.  It is an embarrassment to education that people actually think it represents scientific theory.\n\nSorry about the rant.... I totally agree that science should be kept free of supernatural beliefs (because science can't work on what it can't test or observe).
429773
That's impossible to quantify at the present. We'd have to poll millions of people around the globe just to get a reasonable demographic. What's more, everyone really should believe in evolution, and anyone who does not believe in evolution is clearly ignoring the facts. Evolution is a fact, not a possibility, and not just a theory. Whether or not it conflicts with Christianity's premise is yet to be determined, and I really could not care less. Evolution isn't a religious doctrine, it's a scientific analysis.
146367
don't even get me started! already the religious folk are posting, don't rock their faith or they'll burn your house down for pointing out the obvious.  Evolution is just a theory, one of the best so far, the theory itself will evolve (proof in the pudding?) until the answer becomes clear.  At least scientists attempt to provide answers, make us think and progress as a species, no religion has ever done anything but stagnate a population, we are still too young as a species, too many of us are bought up in house of racist, superioristic (a word?) and thoroughly backward teachings, it's like a virus handed down from generation to generation.  Pity, we could be so much more, and we will be, but it takes millenia to evolve.
51547
There seems to be some confusion here. Let's try to define our terms a bit first, before we get nasty, shall we? \n\nEvolution is a scientific theory. It will never be more than a scientific theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is not "proven" or more than a theory. It is just the theory of gravity. \n\nAll a scientific theory is, is an attempted explanation for the evidence we have. A scientific theory is expected to be superceded by a better theory that explains more of the data as more evidence accumulates. \n\nOur current theory of gravity is probably wrong. We will discard it eventually, and replace it. I am sure of it. \n\nOur current theory of evolution is probably wrong too. We will discard it eventually as well, and replace it. \n\nTo the main body of your question:\n\nSince this has been answered repeatedly on talkorigins and other sites, and in fact is even listed as an argument to be avoided by procreationists such as Answers in Genesis, it hardly seems worth addressing here. I have enclosed a link if you want to pursue it further. \n\nActually, I do not believe you are actually sincerely interested in learning anything about the subject at all, but just jeering at people on the other side. However I might make some comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters in court under cross-examination.
219459
The theory of evolution (assuming you are lumping this in with the physics of the creation of matter) has the same initiation problem as the Religious one.\n\nWhere did the first matter come from?\nWhere did God come from?\n\nBoth 'sides' will say there has simply been [insert your object here]\n\nPeace out
71631
10,000 American clergy members signed this letter to the same effect.\n\nFor too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.\n\nIn the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.\n\nThe outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important  perspective, click here.  Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages.  And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.\n\n\nSincerely,\n\nMichael Zimmerman\nDean\nCollege of Letters and Sciences\nUniversity of Wisconsin Oshkosh
571662
Actually, I have a bachelors in Physics and studied evolution in great detail.  It is through that extensive study that I came to the conclusion that it must be wrong and that all things were created by an intelligent being by design.\n\nAs for your example about the "long periods" instead of days... Did God create the plants in one "long period" and wait a really long time before creating the animals later??\n\nYou also say that all branches of government are controlled by Christians, but I have to say that they aren't making very many Christ-like decisions.
10934
By the time I read all of the answers I realized that my thoughts had pretty much been covered. So kudos to all above me!\n\nBut I do want to emphasize what Snehal has proposed. One world........no religions. I agree with the answer that said that religions have basic similarities but that man has chosen to use their religion inappropriately. Wars have been fought merely over "interpretations." People have died for believing differently. Lives have been controlled because of those reading religion as a misinterpreted call for power. People are told what to think and what not to think and are condemned for differing opinions. \n\nI'm sure right now someone reading this is shaking their head thinking, "She has no clue what she is talking about." If it would stop with that, all would be fine. We are all entitled to have our own opinions. It is when someone will write me slamming me for my beliefs and finding  a way to avenge my thoughts by blasting me somewhere that we realize this is symbolic of our world's problems. It's not just because of religion of course. Religion is the scapegoat. Man can blame his judgements of others on the fact that they belong to "the wrong" religion. If we didn't have religions..........we would all have to face what we really are without the use of the scapegoat. \n\nGod? Well I believe we have a higher order. Does he want religions killing and disagreeing? *cough* Think about what He would write if he answered this question. :)
383008
Technically, and scientifically it is a theory. Theory doesn't  mean that it isn't true though, it simply means it is the most widely accepted opinion of the scientific community until someone can come along with a better theory or disprove the theory.\n\n"God created Us" is not a scientifically accepted proof against the theory of evolution. This is because without evolution DNA mutation makes no sense, even though it is a well observed phenomena.\n\nFossils also would have no explanation.\n\nAnd as a teacher, it would be best to say that it is okay to not believe every theory, because many past theorems have been proved wrong, but that he or she should maybe look into evolution a little more before casting a judgement.
652597
I think you've opened a *huge* can of worms here! But never being one to avoid discussion, I'll dive in......\n\nI agree.\nI think that religion was a device created by early mankind to explain the unexplainable, to create some social order and it was exploited by some people who had various socio-political agendas. \nI'm not denying that many, many people find their religion a source of comfort and I would not deny them their faith. I feel that religion has evolved with time, although some of the dogma has remained in the past.\nI'm sure lots will disagree, but that's just my own tuppenth worth.
475249
Absolutely. First of all, "common era"? Who's "common" are they talking about?\nThis is the latest example of the POLITICS of science running away from religion.  If they can't "prove it" then it must be "mythology" as they seem to be recently fond of pigeonholing it.\nWhen I was a kid I wanted to be a "scientist" (whatever that meant). Science has become so involved in politics (because of the chase of the almighty federal grant dollar, and the desire to shed all religion-based moral restrictions in order to take shortcuts in research), that it now finds itself in opposition to the entire concept of religion and faith as moral guides.
244597
Both evolution and the Bible have to be accepted on a faith basis.  No one was there to prove either side and the event cannot be repeated in the same manner.\n\nI personally believe it is according to God's plan that we were created.  I accept His word by faith.
22996
There is a wonderful book published by the Vatican Observatory called "Physics, Philosophy, and Theology:  A Common Quest for Understanding."  It is edited by Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J.\n\nThis book is a collection of articles on Science and Religion by Christian scholars, most of them I think Catholic.  Some of its contributors are:\nIan G. Barbour\nErnan McMullin\nMichael J. Buckley, S.J.\nRichard J. Clifford\nFrank J. Tipler,\nand more.\n\nAlso, there is a good book called "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation" edited by Keith B. Miller, which contains articles by Christian scholars and scientists.  I think most of the contributors in this book are Protestant, but there may be some Catholics as well.  It includes:\n\nDeborah Haarsma\nConrad Hyers\nEdward B. Davis\nMark A. Noll\nDavid Livingstone\nLoren Haarsma\nJeffrey Greenberg\nHoward J. Van Till\nRobert John Russell\nand others\n\nWilliam Dembski is a prominent advocate of the "Intelligent Design" theory.  \nMichael Behe is also an advocate of Intelligent Design and has written "Darwin's Black Box" in which he argues that evolutionary theory does not account for "irreducible complexities."  He means by this systems which seem to need all the parts in order to function, such as the eye, or even a cell.\n\nOf course, Behe and Dembski are highly criticized, and you can see their views as well as their opponents' views in a book called, "Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics" edited by Robert T. Pennock.\n\nAlvin Plantinga has written extensively on science and theology, and he is anti-evolution.\n\nThe writers in the Perspectives on an Evolving Creationism book are mostly (I think all) pro-evolution, and yet they are Christians.\n\nMichael Ruse, while I don't think he is actually a Christian, has a book called "Can A Darwinian Be A Christian" in which the answer is yes.  \n\nI hope this helps!
84505
I hate to smash peoples faith, but the definition of perfect doesn't fit their god. I don't believe that any entity can create such a universe, so diverse and large. While only inputting one form of intelligent life. Besides, haven't we already deduced (using scientific data) the creation of the solar system is due to something else entirely? Truth is, we have no way to completely explain anyone's faith. That's why you simply have to accept everything based on faith. I however, would place my faith in the repeatable, and accurate, scientific method.
666119
Its an interesting thought.\nMost popular religions are 2000+ years old and althought many of the basic principles are applicable today, a lot of the dogma isn't.\nWould a modern day religion have a flood story, a 7 day creation story or would the Big Bang be the creation story? Would it be based on science and evolution?\nLooking forward to reading the answers...
36008
To answer this question is to resolve FIRST the issue: Is evolution part of a religious belief? If so then it should be banned from public school.\n\nIMHO, it is the opposite of creationism--also a religious belief. In other words both evolution and creationism are religious beliefs. The former being espoused by aetheists, and the latter by bible-believing people. This being the case, both should be banned from being taught in public school to STRICTLY observe the First Amendment. I understand that the core of this amendment is that the State should not favor (or dis-favor) one religious belief over another.\n\nBut, banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is not practical. It will not help children develop analytical minds. On the other hand, teaching evolution while at the same time banning the teaching of creationism is like teaching children that they use only their left hands and not their right hands.\n\nCommon sense and fairness calls for public schools to teach both Evolution and Creation. Let children develop their minds free from bias.\n\nSome on this site will insist that Evolution is not a religious belief it is a theory. But, you are only  playing with words. Would you also agree if someone will say that creationism is not a religious belief but a theory? \n-------------------------------------\nBTW, please read carefully the replies of Zac and the Marker. Their comments just proved my contention that evolution is really a religious belief--disguised as theory.\n---------------------------------------------------------\nwith kind regards.
479348
Please visit my blog http://360.yahoo.com/catholiccatechism and read my "Pacifico (of Evolution per Creationism ) - The Reconciling (of Evolution with Creationism)"\n\nThis blog entry will explain to you why you do not have to choose between science and theology. In fact, the very idea that this choice must be made is entirely fallacious. They both coexist just fine.