(Creationism asserts that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god of the bible, in 6, 24-hour days as explained in the book of Genesis.)

ok Genesis says that it took God 6 days to create earth, but it does not say that those were 24 hour days. in the Bible is states that one day in Heaven is 10000 years on the earth(i'm not sure were it says that but i will ask my dad when i see him because he's a pastor).

Did you not read my last comment or simply choose ignore it...

[Did you not read my last comment or simply choose ignore it...]

I read it. This post is not about evolution or creationism. Its about I.D. and Big Bang theory. Big difference.

Okay, I'm a little late on this because you've already poster something else, but I feel that this is something that needs to be said. I am one semester away from finishing a Bachelor's degree in Physics, so please trust that I know what I'm talking about.
Firstly, this attack on the Big Bang theory is nothing more than propaganda. The Big Bang theory, while it is not completely flawless, is an extremely sound theory. Things that are "magical" according to the article, such as the expanding universe, is observed fact. How? Every wave phenomena has what is called a Doppler Effect. You hear this with sound waves all the time. The police car sirens get higher as the car comes towards you and lower as it moves away. Light does the same thing, except it changes color. This is called redshifting, because as the wavelength of light increases, it becomes more and more "red." Dark matter and dark energy are accepted by a majority of the physicists out there today, and I feel that until someone has seen and knows the mathematics and physics that went into the theory, they have no business criticizing it. Equally and more confusing paradoxes come from quantum mechanics, yet no one questions or writes ignorant articles about it. Why? Because quantum mechanics moves "in a direction" to support things that are not materially based. Basically: it agrees with more people's spiritual beliefs. This author - whoever he is - is attacking Big Bang so he can get support, and that is not the way intellectual debates should be done.
That having been said, Intelligent design is not science. I have seen and studied science in biology, chemistry, and physics for the past three and a half years. I know science when I see it, and ID does not cut it. The point of lack of experimental evidence and "end goals" has already been brought up, so I won't beat a dead horse. However, the argument of "complex systems" should be brought up. ID proposes that because the universe is organized into "complex systems" that it is clear that a designer was behind it. However, systems are not real. Systems are arbitrary tools that scientists use to aid in predictions. As such, systems are chosen to fit profiles. However, they do not actually exist. To use them in a scientific argument simply shows how little the arguer knows of science. You can go to arn.org to learn more about the "system" argument (I think I found it in a paper - 'The Positive Case for Design' or something like that).
Thirdly, what would happen if there were a design oriented science? I will use physics as an example because I am most familiar with it, and because it is the most fundamental of the sciences. Physics advanced itself first through observation, then through failure. Quantum theory and parts of Relativity came because of inexplicable phenomena. Thought had to be reformulated to explain these phenomena, and great things have come about from it. Everything from GPS to lasers was invented as a consequence of modern physics. If a crisis were to occur in a design oriented science, people would leap to "explain it away" with a designer. Civilization would technologically stagnate. While yes, we could try to say "let's figure out how the designer did it," this is still not the same thing as science, and the end result is not going to be the same. Materialistic science, whether you agree with it or not, has accomplished much in the understanding of the universe and utilization of that understanding. If it works well, why should we exchange it for something as wavering and compromising as intelligent design?

That was long, and I even bored myself writing it. So if you read it, thank you. It's just that not many people enter these types of debates with the proper background, and while mine is not complete by any means, I feel it is adequate to present my viewpoint.
Again, thank you for reading this if you did. If you have any additional questions/ comments, make them on my site.

casey_faye_17,

You should look into big bang cosmology.

GOODGREYPOET,

I have a few problems with some minor things in your post, but I think your argument is valid.  In fact, it is the exact same argument Michael Behe presented during his recent testimony in the Dover, Pa. trial.  There really is no good reason to prefer one over the other, because they both rest on evidence of similar strength.  However, I will tell you why the issue is so controversial.  The notion of design necessarily implies a consciousness, a designer, while the big bang theory does not.

Now to the minor things.

"Many religious groups, especially christian fundamentalists, have hijacked the theory as their own, asserting that the intelligent designer is none other than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. "

I think that for all practical purposes, this is just a false statement.  If you pay attention to the debate, I'm confident that many times, you will find the ID folk defending ID against religious critics.  answersingenesis.org, for example, frequently criticizes ID for not going far enough.  So religious groups really don't take ownership of ID, they just borrow relevant arguments sometimes ... I mean, why not.  That doesn't mean they highjacked the theory.

Also, I think it would help your argument if you not only pointed out the ad hoc'ness of certain assumptions, but also pointed out evidence that is contrary to those assumptions.

Have you read the entry about big bang cosmology at my site?  If not, I'd like for you to check it out.

Darth_Renner,

You should check out my entry on big bang cosmology as well.

Also, there is design-oriented science.  SETI. Forensics. Etc.

And how would you detect a designer if one did indeed exist?

My apologies, casey_faye_17.  I meant to say, you should look into white hole cosmology.

sorry again.

My big bang entry is at manonfire_reasons, not manonfire_writings.

"The Big Bang theory is where science becomes science fiction. So the choice is clear: either teach both Big Bang and I.D. theory in science classes or teach neither. For that matter, since there is such a fine line between sceince and philosophy in the first place, why not just combine the two and teach a Philosophy of Science class?"

Well to answer your question, a philosophy of science class would probably just focus on recognizing the underlying philosophies of scientific ideas, not the ideas themselves.  The reason we ought to teach big bang cosmology is that it is a working hypothesis, it serves as a valid methodological framework.  And as such, it probably deserves some special attention in classrooms.

The issue is that if we teach big bang cosmology in the classrooms, then we ought to teach other ideas (such as ID) that rest on arguments and evidence of similar strength as well.  And incidentally, ID theorists are currently opposed to mandating the teaching of ID in the classrooms.

[However, the theory itself makes no assertions about the identity of the designer.]
    Yes, it does.  The 'designer' designs.  The designer is 'intelligent'.  Or the designer has 'creative capacity'.  Additionally, the 'designer' has an end-goal in mind consciously while designing, because that's what the word 'design' means.  Expressly, 'design' means a process whereby some being of some sort produces something with an end-goal in mind.  Science began to progress much more quickly and in more productive ways, when it tried to explain and describe things not in telological explanations (end-goal), but mechanistically.
[Many religious groups, especially christian fundamentalists, have hijacked the theory as their own, asserting that the intelligent designer is none other than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.]
     Actually, the theory originites in theological thought.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48938-2005Mar19.html
     Here's an article on intelligent design that you might actually find useful.    http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
[For that matter, since there is such a fine line between sceince and philosophy in the first place, why not just combine the two and teach a Philosophy of Science class?]
    A Philosophy of Science class is a good place for something like 'ID', because it allows one to help make some sort of more or less clear distinction between what is and and what is not science.
[Intelligent Design theorists  have presented observable evidence from relevant fields such as biochemistry and astronomy.]
    Please present such.  The bacterial flagellum doesn't count, because it still could be explained, it just has not been explained scientifically.
[But still critics of the theory say it should not be taught in science classes because despite the evidence for  an intelligence at work, the theory cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.]
    Look at Shermer's site.
[which simply demonstrates that natural, evolutionary processes are inadequate to explain the specified complexity of living organisms.]
    Not at all.  The problem here arises, because the effects of evolutionary processes are _cumulative_ from generation to generation.  Dawkins does a decent job of explaining this in _The Blind Watchmaker_.

Does anyone else find the idea of creative design somewhat like a fantasy story? Once upon a time... And then you make some stuff up. The difference between intelligent design and the big bang theory is that the big bang theory is based on science at some level, maybe it gets really fuzzy the farther out you go, but they have to use the scientific principles we already know to make their stuff up. No science CAN'T explain everything, but that doesn't mean we should pull a "God (or insert your diety here) did it" The point of science as I see it is to to keep explaining why in ways that can be proven. So you reach a point where you can't explain why, use what you know, make some guesses based on what you know, and then test them until you CAN explain it. Intelligent design is not only silly it is lazy. Somehow I don't think my Geology proffesor would give me very good grades if I answered "because our intelligent designer made it so" on tests. The big bang theory because it took place in the past will only ever remain a theory unless we invent time machines, however, by taking what we know of the world and the universe today scientists can make pretty good theories. Though I was never under the impression that the big bang theory was considered set in stone, I was under the impression there were several theories all being debated, so there are a lot of loopholes in it, big deal, eventually they will come up with a more solid answer. If on a personal level you want to say "(insert designer here) did it" that is fine, most of us can't understand this stuff anyway, not to mention don't want to lol but to teach it in school is just silly. And for Christians dead set on saying ID is right, if God DID make everything do you want us studying God from a science point of view? If I were God I would feel violated. Kudos to KU who is now offering a class on I think it is something like "modern mythologies: Intelligent design, something, something, something" The point is intelligent design is classified as mythology lol And btw, it is KANSAS not Kansas City who has done it, yes that would include Kansas City Kansas, but as most people are too ignorant to realize there is a Kansas City MO and we do not teach ID, because we still have brains and we do not like to be lumped with Kansas thank you very much. Kansas Sucks... Well not Lawrence, but the rest of KS sucks. Oh and btw I was too lazy to respond to your post on my page here so I did it on my page, basically I said look at the link, and I was mostly talking about the big founding fathers who everyone knows for simplicities sake, many of whom were not die hard Christian. Thomas Jefferson for example VERY influential and not Christian by most Christian's definitions and he did not consider himself Christian. It is speculated that Washington was deist, though he was generally quiet about his religion and didn't attend church regularly or anything, or course you mentioned Ben Franklin, a lot of the founding fathers whatever thier beliefs also talked about how Christianity has done bad stuff blah blah blah, and made it clear that getting it too involved in the state is bad. Anyway go to that site you can find others I'm sure, and I'm sure we could find others saying the opposite, but it really doesn't matter. They were people they change, they said stuff to get elected, they aren't always consistent, and they were all individuals. Hell they all owned slaves and we certainly don't do that anymore, so even if they had all said "We should be a Christian nation and people of other religions should be disregarded in government" in today's world that won't work, and we have to adapt. I mean I think they did a pretty good job, but we don't do everything they did or said to do. Half the time they disagreed among themselves. And wow, that went on way too long and I need to go to bed. Have a good night, sorry for responding to an old post, and I liked the new Harry Potter movie too. Harry Potter created the universe lol Night.

     The basic idea of American government is that of a democracy, or a representative republic.  The idea of a democracy, or a representaive republic, doesn't come from Christianity, not is found in the Bible.  Consequently, to say that we should be a 'Christian nation' implies that we should reject the basic idea of our government, and that we should not live under a democracy, or a representative republic. 

Spoonwood,

I really think that you are hopeless.  I've tried to explain things to you before (ID makes no statement about the origin or moral nature of the designer!) but you seem to be completely unable to grasp these concepts.  I guess that's all I have to say.

EA_Lani,

It is apparent that you are not familiar with design arguments.  And since I would rather that you spend your own energies educating yourself than me spending my energies educating you, I won't respond to you in very much detail.  I have a lot of work to do anyways.  But I encourage you to look at some ID responses to their critics before criticizing.

"Does anyone else find the idea of creative design somewhat like a fantasy story?"

Isn't it funny how readily we accept that matter as inanimate as a rock can spontaneously animate?  The notion that man came from "monkeys" sounds as ridiculous to tribes in africa as the notion of a designer sounds to you.  It's all perspective.  It's all about the paradigms.

"The difference between intelligent design and the big bang theory is that the big bang theory is based on science at some level ..."

There are many areas of science which use design filters.  The common example is the SETI program, which is seeking signs of intelligent life outside our solar system.  Criminal forensics is another example.  There are a plethora of examples where design filters are used in science.  I see no good reason why design filters cannot be used in biology as well - no, your philosophical biases do not count as good reasons.  We find complex specified information in all living organisms.  And by the way, intelligence is the only known producer of complex specified information.  So when I see complex specified information in living organisms, why the heck is it unreasonable to infer that the only known producer of complex specified information - intelligence - produced the complex specified information I'm looking at???

A comparison is made between ID and the Big Bang theory mainly because both theories both theories are based around a boolean (yes, no; true, false) - and are therefore centered around detecting the presence or absence of the particular explanation in question - and both theories have religious implications.  There is no good reason to favor the science of one over the science of the other, except perhaps the difference in the level of development of the two theories.

"... but to teach it in school is just silly"

ID folks actually oppose mandating the teaching of ID in classrooms.  What they do advocate is that we teach more about Darwinism, its strengths and its weaknesses, as though it were science rather than dogma.  I'm sure you were unaware of the IDers' intentions until now.

"Kudos to KU who is now offering a class on I think it is something like "modern mythologies: Intelligent design, something, something, something" The point is intelligent design is classified as mythology lol "

Yeah, this is exactly what professor Paul Mirecki - the guy teaching that class - wants: to reinforce the bias that you already have against ID by actualizing your dreams of classifying ID as "mythology" once and for all.  I actually think that his recent e-mail to some fellow atheists elucidates the religious dogma and unwarranted bitterness underscoring this entire debate:

"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

Does anybody else see this as childish???  I don't see how anybody can respect a man like that, or have any kind of respect for that class; it was birthed out of malice and disrespect.  Congratulations, EA_Lani, on falling prey to professor Mirecki's quicksand of bitter malice.  Thank you for demonstrating my points about philosophical/emotional bases/predispositions.  Kudos.

"And for Christians dead set on saying ID is right, if God DID make everything do you want us studying God from a science point of view?"

Actually, many Christian organizations - answersingenesis.org, for example - frequently criticize ID for not going "far enough."  Secondly, why shouldn't we investigate God from a scientific point of view?  What is "God" anyways?  We've got a serious definitional problem here that should not be entertained any longer.  And lastly, why the heck are you bringing Christianity into this?  That's a bad habit that you anti-IDers seem to have.

and not that this is relevant to the original post, but ...

I think that government and religion serve different roles, and we the people should avoid mixing these roles.

oh, and by the way ...

class is cancelled.  professor Mirecki's bigotted comments have gotten him in hot water and that class is no longer being offered.