Intelligent Design

Can Intelligent Design be Identified Scientifically

  • Yes

  • No

  • Possibly (explain)

  • It's a stupid question (really explain)


Results are only viewable after voting.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
IN crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? NATURAL THEOLOGY; OR, EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE DEITY. COLLECTED FROM THE APPEARANCES OF NATURE. BY WILLIAM PALEY, D.D.​

I have been a little standoffish about this movement since my main focus has been human lineage, I have Biblical reasons for this. Still, I like the way the subject of Naturalism and the old school view of nature known as Intelligent Design works. Their work has been well publicized but just to be clear, these are the primary people I have in mind:

Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski

How can we decide if Darwin's theory can account for the complexity of molecular life? It turns out that Darwin himself set the standard. He acknowledged that: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But what type of biological system could not be formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications"?

Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Michael Behe Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference

"No biologist today," observes Douglas Futuyma, "would think of submitting a paper entitled 'New evidence for evolution;' it simply has not been an issue for a century." [1] Whether they see it as an issue or not, however, biologists today still explain (in textbooks, for instance) why they think evolution is true. In other words, they regularly make a case for the theory. Paul Nelson Jettison the Arguments, or the Rule?The Place of Darwinian Theological Themata in Evolutionary Reasoning

Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design. Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions. Jonathan Wells Paul Nelson Homology: A Concept in Crisis

For a brief but interesting watershed moment, this documentary hosts the leading Intelligent Design thinkers in a conference in Pajaro Hills California.

Intelligent Design - Unlocking The Mysteries Of Life

I see no reason at this point to form an argument, this will no doubt be answered with a flurry of ad hominem remarks. My intention here is to reexamine the Intelligent Design movement, what they believe and why it's important.

P.S. If you think this is all a bunch of Bible wielding fundamentalists think again, this guy is an agnostic and makes sweeping indictments against Darwinism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec8lpcA5hls

Here is an interesting debate on the topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&feature=related

Your thoughts...
 
Last edited:

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Intelligent Design in the sense that "something" designed us? Maybe. I doubt such evidence would really come from biology though. It would need to be historical or archaeological. Alien ruins on another planet that show experiments creating humanity, that kind of thing.

Intelligent Design as in the psuedoscientific guise that creationism tries to hide behind in order to further its anti-scientific agenda? It's not even science, so why bother? At best it is philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Probably the biggest problem with debating ID is that no one seems to agree how to define it. If we define it loosely as an argument for teleology, then no, ID cannot be supported with science because science precludes teleological arguments. That's a philosophical consideration, not a scientific one.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
IC is well known to be another PRATT, because:


1. IC was predicted as an expected result of evolution. Muller had predicted it in 1918, before Behe was in diapers. The fact that IC items show up is evidence for, not against, evolution, and is certainly evidence against an intelligent designer, because as any engineer knows, a well designed system is robust, and has built in redundancies to be able to survive a loss of one component. IC is evidence of either evolution or of incompetent design. This shows up again and again in the many stupid designs in the animal kingdom. To say that God micromanaged these by designing them himself is to say that God must have flunked out of God-school.

2. The evolution of the ID classic examples are not mysteries. Likely evolutionary routes are always known, and in most cases there is plenty of evidence for them as well, from real biologists in real scientific papers. In fact, many of these evolutionary routes are published in textbooks from before Behe's book, showing the Behe is not only dishonestly ignoring the papers in his own field, he is even ignoring the textbooks!

Then he turns around and misrepresents this to gullible Christians, raking in literally millions of dollars in the process, and the dupes that he swindled idolize him and ask to be take to the cleaners for more. He's done more to make Christians look like idiots than any new atheist could dream of doing, while at the same time keeping that money from going to support churches that desperately need it.

3. Behe himself admits that his "theory" is on par with astrology. This feeds directly into #2 above.

The bottom line is that whenever a creationist mentions irreducible complexity or Behe, what they are really saying is:

ID is really just a re-statement of the all too commonly heard line that

"Because I don't understand biology, I want you to reject evolution."

Berlinski is hardly any better. He has no biology degree, and is just some writer talking about stuff he apparently doen't understand.

Papias
 
Upvote 0

rcorlew

Serving His Flock
Aug 21, 2008
1,102
77
48
Missouri, the show me state!
✟9,157.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Defining ID is like nailing jello to a wall, to a TE it is God acting out a purpose through a process which is viewable and best represented by evolution, to a Creationist it is God acting in rather short fashion in an event 6-10,000 years ago. The old watchmaker analogy is not ID (it is IB for Intelligent Builder), ID is best explained by an architect who draws the plans for a building based on its purpose, then the "building process" runs off the purposeful blueprints drawn by the architect but the architect himself trusts the process based plans that he drew up.

So first order would be to define ID in a terse argument in order to illicit proper responses.
 
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Defining ID is like nailing jello to a wall, to a TE it is God acting out a purpose through a process which is viewable and best represented by evolution, to a Creationist it is God acting in rather short fashion in an event 6-10,000 years ago. The old watchmaker analogy is not ID (it is IB for Intelligent Builder), ID is best explained by an architect who draws the plans for a building based on its purpose, then the "building process" runs off the purposeful blueprints drawn by the architect but the architect himself trusts the process based plans that he drew up.

So first order would be to define ID in a terse argument in order to illicit proper responses.

It's easy to define ID. It's a synonym for creationism. Except instead of being dressed up in religion, it's dressed up in pseudoscience. While it is true there is a possibility that we could be "intelligently designed" and remain completely agnostic to what or who the "designer" is, Intelligent Design as a movement is characterized by its opposition to evolution and the Discovery Institute/AiG people that lead it.
 
Upvote 0

crawfish

Veteran
Feb 21, 2007
1,731
125
Way out in left field
✟10,043.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dark_Lite, that is probably not a constructive way to conduct this thread.

I would say the key factor behind ID is the idea that one can detect the supernatural involvement of an intelligent being behind creation. This is why it does not get support from the TE community, most likely, because we typically believe the supernatural is not something that can be quantified in any real way.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
It's easy to define ID. It's a synonym for creationism. Except instead of being dressed up in religion, it's dressed up in pseudoscience. While it is true there is a possibility that we could be "intelligently designed" and remain completely agnostic to what or who the "designer" is, Intelligent Design as a movement is characterized by its opposition to evolution and the Discovery Institute/AiG people that lead it.
While that's probably very true in practice, I don't think it is in theory. YECs have a habit of indiscriminately latching onto any idea that opposes mainstream origins science, regardless of how well-supported it is scientifically or how well it jives with their theology (just look at busterdog recently touting the glories of an eternal universe).
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Defining ID is like nailing jello to a wall, to a TE it is God acting out a purpose through a process which is viewable and best represented by evolution, to a Creationist it is God acting in rather short fashion in an event 6-10,000 years ago. The old watchmaker analogy is not ID (it is IB for Intelligent Builder), ID is best explained by an architect who draws the plans for a building based on its purpose, then the "building process" runs off the purposeful blueprints drawn by the architect but the architect himself trusts the process based plans that he drew up.

So first order would be to define ID in a terse argument in order to illicit proper responses.

Dembski defines it in terms of Complex Specified Information. Behe would explain it in terms of Irreducible Complexity. Wikipedia defines it as,

'the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'​

It is puzzling that scientists and academic professionals do not recognize the likes of Behe and Dembski as their own. It is absolutely staggering that Christians would have a problem with the proposition as the universe and life being a result of a design from the mind of God. Its foundational to our faith.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 1:1-3)​

Now getting back to the OP, did anyone watch the Miracle of Life or the debate?

My interest in the subject is purely philosophical because Darwinism and Intelligent Design (AKA Natural Theology) are both intellectual and philosophical points of view on nature. It might interest some of you to know that Intelligent Design is nothing new, Even Sir Isaac Newton made an argument for Intelligent Design in Principia.

The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts and almost in the same plan. Ten Moons are revolv'd about the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those Planets. But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions: since the Comets range over all parts of the heavens, in very eccentric orbits. For by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbits of the Planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detain'd the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. General Scholium

What is more it did not originate with him, Intelligent Design is actually a teleological argument for the existence of God for crying out load. It goes something like this:

1. Nature exhibits complexity, order, adaptation, purpose and/or beauty.
2. The exhibited feature(s) cannot be explained by random or accidental processes, but only as a product of mind.
3. Therefore, there exists a mind that has produced or is producing nature.
4. A mind that produces nature is a definition of "God."
5. Therefore, God exists.
Teleological argument

Intelligent Design is really just another argument for God acting in time and space. I'll tell you what we need and it's not a definition of Intelligent Design, it's a definition of science and/or God. Then we might be getting somewhere.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
It is puzzling that scientists and academic professionals do not recognize the likes of Behe and Dembski as their own.
Is it? Behe has admitted in court that, under his own redefinition of the word, science would encompass such things as astrology. I don't know many scientists who would agree with that.

It is absolutely staggering that Christians would have a problem with the proposition as the universe and life being a result of a design from the mind of God. Its foundational to our faith.
I don't know of any Christians who deny that. What they deny is that the miraculous creation of universe by God can be demonstrated scientifically. Not the same thing. If God could be proved with science, we wouldn't need faith as described in the Hebrews passage you cited.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
These look intelligently designed to me and beyond the means of natural law, and random chance to produce.

Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)...

...Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI.Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Stephen C. Meyer
78585-004-A63E1F47.jpg

Is it? Behe has admitted in court that, under his own redefinition of the word, science would encompass such things as astrology. I don't know many scientists who would agree with that.

He was making a point, science at one time had a much broader spectrum of pursuits. The word simply means knowledge, it only became a mirror of natural philosophy in the late 19th century. What you are calling science is a much larger epistemology.


I don't know of any Christians who deny that. What they deny is that the miraculous creation of universe by God can be demonstrated scientifically. Not the same thing. If God could be proved with science, we wouldn't need faith as described in the Hebrews passage you cited.

You are expanding the meaning of science again indicating that scientific knowledge is relying exclusively on sight. Science since the Scientific Revolution has been focused on cause and effect relationships that are determined by means of directly observed or demonstrated phenomenon. Creation would be a phenomenon and should God be the cause of creation then God as the primary first cause (Unmoved mover) then it falls within the bounds of natural science.

We have evidence for our faith, we have evidence for the creator from creation. Thats not my opinion, that's Gospel:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)​

When Paul says 'although they knew God', who do you think he is talking about? Not only is Paul saying that we know there is a God but we know certain things about God from creation. Which by the way, is the crux of the Paley argument. Of course a Christian can rightfully look at creation and conclude that there is sufficient and ample evidence of an intelligent designer. Whether you can come to a scientific certainty would depend on what you consider sufficient and ample evidence because 'certainty' is a big word in science as I'm sure your well aware. Oh yea, you also have to have a comprehensive definition for what science is in it's epistemology and processes.



Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Dark_Lite, that is probably not a constructive way to conduct this thread.

It was asked what the definition of ID is. That is what I think the definition of ID is.

I would say the key factor behind ID is the idea that one can detect the supernatural involvement of an intelligent being behind creation. This is why it does not get support from the TE community, most likely, because we typically believe the supernatural is not something that can be quantified in any real way.

"Purely scientific" ID does not necessarily include a supernatural being. Hypothetically, an ID hypothesis that does not require the supernatural is falsifiable and is thus scientific. Hypotheses that require supernatural beings are not falsifiable and are thus not scientific.

While that's probably very true in practice, I don't think it is in theory. YECs have a habit of indiscriminately latching onto any idea that opposes mainstream origins science, regardless of how well-supported it is scientifically or how well it jives with their theology (just look at busterdog recently touting the glories of an eternal universe).

Practice is just as important as theory. ID is only one front of the creationist movement. There are many, many others.
 
Upvote 0

bloodbought09

Veteran
Feb 8, 2010
1,999
121
51
united states
✟10,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Intelligent Design in the sense that "something" designed us? Maybe. I doubt such evidence would really come from biology though. It would need to be historical or archaeological. Alien ruins on another planet that show experiments creating humanity, that kind of thing.

Intelligent Design as in the psuedoscientific guise that creationism tries to hide behind in order to further its anti-scientific agenda? It's not even science, so why bother? At best it is philosophy.

You are philosophy.:p
 
Upvote 0

bloodbought09

Veteran
Feb 8, 2010
1,999
121
51
united states
✟10,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Intelligent Design is a way to try to show atheists and agnostics that there is a God. It is a standpoint coming from one thing that many people can relate to, the natural world. I think a lot of the arguments make sense.

One example is that a car just does not come into existence. Someone had to engineer and build the thing. The same argument is made with the universe. God knew how He was going to form it and spoke it into existence. We are not equal to God but formed in His image and likeness. We cannot speak to metal and make it a car. The process of creativity in us takes much longer.

I, on the other hand can speak to a mountain and tell it to be removed, and it will obey if I have faith. I may not be able to speak to a car, and tell it to be removed but I tried the other day.

This is a level play field where anyone with any belief system can relate to. A believer in Jesus Christ, an atheist, or an agnostic can be an engineer, or build a car, if that is their profession. To say that these ideas are stupid is just ignorant. It does not take much intelligence to understand the arguments, but others just get bored with easy concepts.

Bless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bloodbought09

Veteran
Feb 8, 2010
1,999
121
51
united states
✟10,354.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is it? Behe has admitted in court that, under his own redefinition of the word, science would encompass such things as astrology. I don't know many scientists who would agree with that.


I don't know of any Christians who deny that. What they deny is that the miraculous creation of universe by God can be demonstrated scientifically. Not the same thing. If God could be proved with science, we wouldn't need faith as described in the Hebrews passage you cited.

Astrology is a logistic delusion. If you want to believe it you can. No difference for the mindsets of atheism, agnostic, theism. They all pretty much say I do not know, I will take my mindset on faith.

When you do know God, you know the falacies in each of these beliefs. I have lived all four and I still live the last and best.
 
Upvote 0

Mallon

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
6,109
296
✟15,392.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
These look intelligently designed to me and beyond the means of natural law, and random chance to produce.
But that's a hunch. It's not a valid form of scientific argument. One could just as easily say that a cell doesn't look intelligently designed and leave it at that.

He was making a point, science at one time had a much broader spectrum of pursuits. The word simply means knowledge, it only became a mirror of natural philosophy in the late 19th century. What you are calling science is a much larger epistemology.
But words aren't defined by their etymologies. Hippopotamus literally means "river horse", but the animal certainly isn't a horse that lives in rivers.

For what it's worth, I agree that science once had a much broader meaning. But that has since changed, and for the better, I think. Do you seriously think we should be teaching astrology, alchemy, and clairvoyance in the science classroom?
One thing is for sure: the strict meaning of the word "science" isn't going to change anytime soon. Best get used to it.

You are expanding the meaning of science again indicating that scientific knowledge is relying exclusively on sight. Science since the Scientific Revolution has been focused on cause and effect relationships that are determined by means of directly observed or demonstrated phenomenon. Creation would be a phenomenon and should God be the cause of creation then God as the primary first cause (Unmoved mover) then it falls within the bounds of natural science.
Science isn't the search for first causes, though. It's the search for proximal causes. Religion is the search for first causes. And direct observation of a phenomenon isn't a defining feature of science, either. In science, what we need to be able to observe directly are the EFFECTS of a given phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. Consider the detection of electrons, for example. We can't see those directly.

We have evidence for our faith, we have evidence for the creator from creation. Thats not my opinion, that's Gospel:
The question is whether it is scientific evidence. For something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. And how could you ever falsify a God who is omni-potent and omni-present?
I think the evidence the Bible is referring to, here, is that feeling you get when you look up at the stars or at the complexity of the cell and marvel about how it all came to be. That feeling that there must be something to all this, and that we were put here by someone for a purpose. Those kinds of feelings are certainly evidence of a sort, but they aren't scientific evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But that's a hunch. It's not a valid form of scientific argument. One could just as easily say that a cell doesn't look intelligently designed and leave it at that.

While I will agree that it is an opinion I think it is far more substantive then a hunch.


But words aren't defined by their etymologies. Hippopotamus literally means "river horse", but the animal certainly isn't a horse that lives in rivers.

Truly science is not an easy epistemology to nail down, I think Meyer does a good job thinking it through though.

Stephen C. Meyer: Is intelligent design science - Signature in the Cell

For what it's worth, I agree that science once had a much broader meaning. But that has since changed, and for the better, I think. Do you seriously think we should be teaching astrology, alchemy, and clairvoyance in the science classroom?

Of course not but thats not how you learn the mystical arts anyway, you have to be initiated or some such. The reason that science and religion went their separate ways was mostly because Protestants wanted it that way. We have a wall of separation between government and religion for many of the same reasons.

One thing is for sure: the strict meaning of the word "science" isn't going to change anytime soon. Best get used to it.

Then define it.

Science isn't the search for first causes, though. It's the search for proximal causes. Religion is the search for first causes. And direct observation of a phenomenon isn't a defining feature of science, either. In science, what we need to be able to observe directly are the EFFECTS of a given phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself. Consider the detection of electrons, for example. We can't see those directly.

Science is about tools, mental and physical. If in fact God is the cause of creation then the epistemology of Darwinism is deeply flawed. Science searches for explanations for effects and thus renders a conclusion as to the cause. It is not out of bounds to conclude an Intelligent Designer for a scientist depending on what definition of science, or a particular scientific discipline you are using.

The question is whether it is scientific evidence. For something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. And how could you ever falsify a God who is omni-potent and omni-present?

A lack of positive proof would do it, Christianity stands or falls on it's historicity. I see the evidence clearly as do the unbelievers who refuse to accept the Gospel. It can be falsified if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary but the Scriptures make credible evidence that God is in fact active in human affairs.

I think the evidence the Bible is referring to, here, is that feeling you get when you look up at the stars or at the complexity of the cell and marvel about how it all came to be. That feeling that there must be something to all this, and that we were put here by someone for a purpose. Those kinds of feelings are certainly evidence of a sort, but they aren't scientific evidence.

It's called natural revelation and Paul makes it clear that we are all aware of it. Not only is the glory of God evident and obvious in creation but men of God beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father.

In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer." (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)

Is Christian Apologetics, that is the defense of the Christian faith, scientific in the sense that Simon Greenleaf is saying?

Why or why not?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Astrology is a logistic delusion. If you want to believe it you can. No difference for the mindsets of atheism, agnostic, theism. They all pretty much say I do not know, I will take my mindset on faith.

When you do know God, you know the falacies in each of these beliefs. I have lived all four and I still live the last and best.

Astrology is a pagan believe system, nothing more. It was wrapped around astronomy so tightly during the Middle Ages that they were often considered two parts of the same thing. Christianity has a long history of opposing pagan belief systems but an unfortunate tenancy to blend some pagan traditions into it's own. I think that is whats happening with Darwinism, a pagan mythology is being blended together but they logically separate like oil and water.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Mark, did you see in post #4 that it has been pointed out that irreducible complexity was predicted in 1918 by biologists (spec. Muller) as an expected result of evolution? You are aware then that the ID, and CSI you bring up are actually evidence FOR evolution, not against it, right?

Also, I'd guess you are aware that the paper you quoted was snuck in under shady circumstances, then revoked because of these, right? It's just a creationist diatribe, not a real paper.

Also from post #4, which you seem to have innocently missed, is the fact that any decent engineer knows that a properly designed system will be robust, and thus able to function even if a part is removed. So the whole ID movement is arguing that God is a shoddy designer, who is either incompetent or cruel. With that, it's not a surprise that so many Christians reject intelligent design, in addition to the scientists who see that Dembski's arguments usually amount to little more than word games.

Papias
 
Upvote 0