Originally posted by: inspire
I disagree with the premise that ID necessarily discredits science. ID/Creationism may belong more in a philosophy class - as long as evolution doesn't claim to explain the ultimate origin of life. Once that happens, and evolution crosses the boundary, then you get apples and oranges arguments like today.
You're wrong. You equate ID and creationism, and they're two separate ideas.
You people are going to go on forever discussing this because nobody is stepping forward to say a few things:
1) Evolution does not discredit a "god." Evolution simply states that we started in a puddle as simple organisms and have slowly changed into all of the various species you see now.
2) Creationism is the belief that a higher power created everything. You can be a creationist and an evolutionist, you would simply believe that God created everything, big bang happened, and we evolved from amoebas. However a
strict creationist or a
fundamentalist creationist would say that Genesis tells exactly how the world was created. This is of course stupid since Genesis gives two distinct versions of how the world was created (one in chapter 1, one in chapter 2).
3) Intelligent Design says that God created everything and directed it to be as it is now. That specifically contradicts evolution. It does not say that God made things just as in Genesis (as strict creationism does), but it does say that God was first, created everything, and made things the way they are today. Evolution includes the idea of NATURAL (not god-guided) selection, so therefore, evolution and ID are inherently opposites. So, in your statement,
inspire, you are wrong. If you want to believe an alternative of ID where it does not discredit science (evolution), go right ahead, but that is not the common interpretation, and it is not what we're discussing in this thread.