0
Scienctific theory declares that after the origin of life (abiogenesis), evolution set in. In the chemical evolution of abiogenesis, something had to happen to make life evolvable. The cell had to copy the nucleic acid, divide and get on with it from there and the copying had to very very slightly error prone for evolution to get going. Natural Selection would work on the variants. Abiogenesis and Evolution by Natural Selection are both scientific theories. Evolution is a far more robust theory than abiogenesis. But they are both science, with objective evidence and sensible hypotheses in their favour.
Creation is religion. It may find Evolution implausible, but if that is the case, it is odd to ask 'Is Creation compatible with abiogenesis?'. If Creation rejects Evolution, then wouldn't it reject abiogenesis? If Evolution implies creatorlessness, then what of abiogenesis? Of course, the thinker might declare that Evolution is compatible with the idea of a creator. The creator guides the process, perhaps? But what of the beginning of life? Does the creator allow abiogenesis to proceed with simply chemicals? Perhaps the idea of a creator is superfluous to the notion of abiogenesis then. Certainly the science of Evolution and abiogenesis finds the notion of a creator superfluous. It does not help to consider a creator when all the ingredients for the beginning of life are probably available by themselves, as implied by the amino acid production in the Miller-Urey experiment. It might not help to consider a creator even if the Miller-Urey experiment produced no life-molecule results.
Intelligent Design (ID) is Creation in disguise, or "Scientific Creation" in disguise. It is determined to undermine the teaching of science, with Wedge Documents and court cases and so on. "Scientific Creation" is oxymoronic by the way. The idea of Intelligent Design is "Life is too complex, therefore a Designer did it". Well, that puts not much thought into the matter. What is more, the Designer is deemed to be undetectable, which is unbelievably unhelpful and doesn't add any knowledge to anything. You can hypothesise the idea of a Designer and you can go no further, nor make any predictions about it as true scientific theories must. The Designer is as superfluous in description of life and the Universe as a creator.
I would say that only Evolution is compatible with abiogenesis. Both are scientific ideas. If you want to work out how life works or the Universe works, then the scientific method is for you. Creation and Intelligent Design are not science and do not look at the Universe itself to work out how it works. They only look at the stories in an ancient pre-Science book, before we knew that to find out about the life or the Universe, we must lookat life and the Universe themselves. So how can Creation and ID work out anything about the Universe or life at all.
What else can I help you with?
How did Fundamentalists were at odds with teaching of evolution?
Fundamentalists are at odds with the teaching of evolution because they believe it is not compatible with the teaching of creation. They believe the Bible teaches creation.
Are Religious and Scientific Theories of Creation Compatible?
Theory of Creation is not an acknowledge scientific theory. Science proposed Abiogenesis where life come to exist without need of creation. The Theory of Creation that require the supreme being to create life namely Intelligent Design (ID) had no root of support at all for the existence of God, Deities or Supreme being and their action. The Theory of Abiogenesis while lack of evidence supporting the full process, ID in other hand had nothing at all. The Theory of Creation by far believe in using irreducible complex to stated the process of Abiogenesis impossibility but it had nothing supporting even the existence of the creator. Degree of controversies among Religion to Science varies among religion of concern. Abrahamic's supporter usually in denial of the Abiogenesis theory and try to coin up their theory of creation. Indian's origin usually had nothing to concern or against the Abiogenesis and let the Science be. After all, even if Abiogenesis is not compatible to some of religions, it should not be put to bother since Abiogenesis is still on the long way of study. If the story of creation would be true, there would be the evidence in supporting. What we should do is seeking of evidence and not let the faith blind human process of seeking out truth.
Is there a credible scientific theory that opposes evolution?
No, evolution is widely supported by scientific evidence and is considered a fundamental principle of biology. There is no credible scientific theory that opposes evolution.
What does the church think of intelligent design?
A few years ago, some members of the creationism movement adopted the name 'intelligent design' in an attempt to persuade the United States courts that not only was creationism science but that its advocates were neutral as to who the 'intelligent designer' was. Some creationists, who would otherwise be supportive of the Intelligent Design movement, are bitterly opposed to Intelligent Design because they resist any hypothesis that does not clearly and unambiguously put God at the centre of creation.Among the churches, there are different views on this so-called Intelligent Design. For example:In the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict has refused to endorse "intelligent design", instead backing "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution with no clash between religion and science. The position of the Catholic Church is in favour of the Theory of Evolution, not the obviously artificial construct of Intelligent Design.The Episcopal Church has said that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Christian faith. In 2006, the General Convention affirmed, via Resolution A129, that God is creator and added that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith." This leaves no room for Intelligent Design.For more information on the background of the Intelligent Design movement, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What are the evidence presented in court for Charles Darwin theory of intelligent design?
Not sure how to answer this as scientific theories are not subject to the law but are supported by overwhelming evidence. The only time that evolution or the theory that supports it is in a court of law is when some public school somewhere, or some state somewhere tries to introduce religion into the classroom disguised inder the terms creation " science : or intelligent design.There is no theory of evolution put forward by Charles Darwin that includes intelligent design. If fact the theory of evolution by natural selection is the antithesis of intelligent design.
Which one is correct evolution or creation?
Evolution is scientific fact. Creation is religious faith masquerading as real science.
What are the pentecostal beliefs about evolution?
They do not believe in evolution; only creation.
What is a science word that ends with genesis?
The words biogenesis and abiogenesis are "science" words. The former means the creation of life from life, and the latter means the creation of life from non-life.
4 theories for the origin of life?
Answer:Evolution is not a theory regarding the origin of life. It is a theory that explains how simple organisms over time diverged into the wide variety of species we find today. Two theories are: -Intelligent Design - Religious explanation stating that a higher power made life.-Abiogenesis (a-, not + bios, life + -genesis, creation) - Not to be confused with evolution. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis explaining the origin of life by finding a way that inanimate matter could lead to the first simple life. Abiogenesis and evolution typically go hand-in-hand but do not require each other. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis has not yet been demonstrated.Panspermia is a hypothesis suggested by a couple of astronomers. It is not widely accepted by either biologists or astronomers, or for that matter even exobiologists. But it suggests life originated somewhere out in space, perhaps on the surface of another planet, and somehow crossed the interstellar depths and just happened to fall to earth without incinerating in our atmosphere or being destroyed by the shock of impact.A fourth hypothesis, since we need four, is the RNA world. It suggests a self replicating RNA molecule coated the world before DNA evolved and dominated. There are many variations of this hypothesis.
What is Intelligent Design Who founded it and What are its goals?
William Paley, of the 18th century, propounded the following; What if someone were to find a watch in a forest? A watch is complex and apparently tuned to fulfil a function; that of telling time. Paley extended the idea of complexity to living organisms and how functionally-fulfilling he presumed their complex structures to be. He claimed that a designer was obvious in the case of the watch and, due to such complexity in living organisms, a designer should be necessary for them as well.This designer became known as the 'intelligent designer' in the idea called Intelligent Design. The idea is that living organisms are too complex to have arisen in any form other than their present one, the one that fulfills the present function that organism and all its organs fulfill.Later, the Theory of Evolution, generated by Charles Darwin, disposed greatly of any Intelligent Design notions. But there was still creationism, the age-old explanation of life's structure and diversity that preceeded both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Many creationists have always been negative of evolution and have tried to force creationism upon school curricula to remove evolution from classrooms. When creationism made no effect, 'creation science' was introduced as a 'more scientific' way to combat evolution in the classroom.Intelligent Design these days has morphed from Paley's apparently earnest and innocent suggestion of 'complexity requires design' to a great attack on evolution. Michael Behe found backing for Intelligent Design, saying that biochemical pathways were too complex to go designerless. (He particularly pointed to the immune system.) Intelligent Design is now the replacement of 'creation science' since that didn't take off in school curricula. It insinuates that it is a 'scientific' creation-like argument. To gain approval, Intelligent Design denies any religiousness, denies the 'Intelligent Designer' is God or any god in any way. It also claims the 'Intelligent Designer' to be 'undetectable' and presumably supernatural.Intelligent Design is in fact, not only a curriculum-pushing 'theory', but a political movement, instigating the 2005 Dover district court cases. The explicit goal seems to be to extirpate evolution from schools. One wonders if Intelligent Design advocates want to expurgate the Theory of Evolution from science and society altogether. Perhaps many do. Intelligent Design shows the same disapproval to evolution that creationism and 'creation science' do. The judge of the 2005 court cases did identify a religious life-force behind the Intelligent Design advocates within the court case. Intelligent Design is simply creationism in disguise.Notice that at no point along the way has anyone evaluated Intelligent Design and certainly not the proponents themselves to see if it stands up to evolution. The Theory of Evolution is still as robust as ever.
Why do Darwin and evolution weaken the design argument?
Strictly speaking, this question is in the wrong order, because Charles Darwin and evolution pre-dated the intelligent design argument.At the time of Charles Darwin, in the nineteenth century, most people in Europe and the Americas believed that God created all living things just as we see them now. Thus, there was no reason for the intelligent design argument, which holds that if evolution occurred then it must have been guided by an unseen deity.Intelligent design is in part a political phenomenon, created in the United States because the Courts rejected the teaching of creationism, and then 'creation science', as science in the school syllabus. The proponents of intelligent design believed that, by separating claims for the existence of God from their hypothesis about design of living organisms, the courts would accept intelligent design as a suitable topic for a science course, taught alongside, or instead of, evolution. However, this was as weak an argument as those previously submitted for creationism and creation science, and intelligent design continues to be regarded as a religious argument, not a scientific one.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
What has the author Norman D Newell written?
Norman D. Newell has written: 'Creation and evolution' -- subject(s): Evolution, Creation
