Yes, you're correct, but that sort of thought process would support Theistic Evolution rather than creationism.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Complexity of the Human Body Indicates Intelligent Design
- Thread starter Nottingham40
- Start date
- Status
I'll see if I can find them. I remember I talked to other Creationists on this board about it. The problem is the forums have a horrible search engine, making very hard to find.
Upvote
0
Scotishfury09
G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
Deamiter, for the first time, I think I can say you missed my point entirely. You aren't God. You can't possibly understand God's reasoning. What's to say we aren't perfect for what we were designed to do? You're still looking for this worldly king. What exactly would make a perfect human? No need to blink? No need to use the bathroom? Perfect vision (no holes)? There's a lot of compensation in our body that has to be there for it ALL to work. I think once we start to envision our idea of a perfect human it falls apart very quickly.
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Good point -- but if your point is that we can't possibly know what God would do if he were to design something, then don't turn around and claim (as many creationists have in the last decade) that life is indicative of a creator.
If absolutely anything could be evidence of design, you've just made the word 'design' to be obsolete as you might as well just call it reality and quit implying that we should be able to deduce a designer from any set of observations.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Scotishfury09 said:
'Perfect' can be used in different ways as I understand it. It can mean 'without defect' as the Paschal lamb needed to be (and therefore Christ himself as our atoning sacrifice), or it can mean 'fit for purpose', a design/engineering concept. As has been touched the hebrew word for perfect is not used in Genesis, the word used for 'good' carries the notion of God taking pleasure in his creation. We can say that Creation is perfect then if we accept that it was as God intended it to be. I even started a thread on this some time ago when a certain Creationist said he didn't care what the original Hebrew said, he was more interested in the 17th century english translation he preferred.
PS - there's two 't's in scottish. and why are you furious?
Upvote
0
jeffweeder
Veteran
This is interesting
A: The premise of intelligent design is that the evidence of science, understood impartially, points to the need for an intelligence. This is shown in two particular ways. First, there is the irreducible complexity of living organisms, like the biological cell. This is best explained in the book Darwin's Black Box by my friend and colleague, biochemist Michael Belie. He shows the in­credible complexity of each cell and the systems that require many complex parts to work. If you're missing one part, you don't get an almost‑perfect system; you get no system at all. Any creative process would have to produce everything all at once. The Darwinian says that you produce one thing that has some function, and then you add on another one and another and so on until you get the complete cell. Each step is supposedly superior to the last. But irreducible complexity makes that impossible. That is the first feature.
The second feature of living organisms is that they contain what is known as complex specific information. To explain that, just think of a book like an encyclopedia or a computer program like Windows 98. Computer programs don't write themselves; they need computer engineers. A computer program has a very complex set of instructions. Richard Dawkins, the arch Darwinist promoter and atheist, admits forthrightly that a single cell in your body has more information in it than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. That information is what coordinates the activities of the cell. Now, you know how impossible it would be to produce an encyclopedia by mixing letters at random until they came together in a certain way.
Neither of these things can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact." This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.
Q: DESCRIBE THE PREMISE AND PROCESS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A: The premise of intelligent design is that the evidence of science, understood impartially, points to the need for an intelligence. This is shown in two particular ways. First, there is the irreducible complexity of living organisms, like the biological cell. This is best explained in the book Darwin's Black Box by my friend and colleague, biochemist Michael Belie. He shows the in­credible complexity of each cell and the systems that require many complex parts to work. If you're missing one part, you don't get an almost‑perfect system; you get no system at all. Any creative process would have to produce everything all at once. The Darwinian says that you produce one thing that has some function, and then you add on another one and another and so on until you get the complete cell. Each step is supposedly superior to the last. But irreducible complexity makes that impossible. That is the first feature.
The second feature of living organisms is that they contain what is known as complex specific information. To explain that, just think of a book like an encyclopedia or a computer program like Windows 98. Computer programs don't write themselves; they need computer engineers. A computer program has a very complex set of instructions. Richard Dawkins, the arch Darwinist promoter and atheist, admits forthrightly that a single cell in your body has more information in it than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. That information is what coordinates the activities of the cell. Now, you know how impossible it would be to produce an encyclopedia by mixing letters at random until they came together in a certain way.
Neither of these things can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact." This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.
Q: HOW DID GOD DRAW YOU TO SALVATION IN CHRIST
http://www.creationdigest.com/archives/Archive_2007_Winter/DismantlingDarwinism_Summer2005.htm
Maybe some here can TRY to explain what they dont wanna explain in the article
I'm tired
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Most effective in our debate was Ken Miller's attack on Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity." According to Behe, some biological entities are so complex that they simply could not have come about through the slow natural process of natural selection. Or by any natural process for that matter. They must therefore have come through "intelligent design." By way of example, Behe instanced the mousetrap: a contraption for killing small rodents, and something made of five separate parts (the base, the spring, etc.). Take any one of these parts away and the trap fails to function, argued Behe. It must therefore have been planned and put together at one point in time, and started life right out as fully functioning for its intended purpose. (It was not for instance a door stopper adapted for another end.)
Miller turned up for our debate with a mousetrap, or rather with two mousetraps. One in its original five-part form and one with a piece missing but the other parts bent so that it still functioned. With great effect, at a crucial point in the debate -- just after Behe had given an exposition of his thinking -- Miller whipped out his mousetraps, original and modified version, and showed just how lethal for Mickey and Minnie his modified trap could be. Of course, the New Creationists fought back, but really we all knew that that was the end of that line of argument. And more. Since the mousetrap example had been shown so obviously fallacious, strong doubts were now seeded about the worth of the other parts of the Creationist case. Miller was terrific, and we all knew it.
- Michael Ruse
Miller turned up for our debate with a mousetrap, or rather with two mousetraps. One in its original five-part form and one with a piece missing but the other parts bent so that it still functioned. With great effect, at a crucial point in the debate -- just after Behe had given an exposition of his thinking -- Miller whipped out his mousetraps, original and modified version, and showed just how lethal for Mickey and Minnie his modified trap could be. Of course, the New Creationists fought back, but really we all knew that that was the end of that line of argument. And more. Since the mousetrap example had been shown so obviously fallacious, strong doubts were now seeded about the worth of the other parts of the Creationist case. Miller was terrific, and we all knew it.
- Michael Ruse
Upvote
0
Since shernren dealt with irreducible complexity, I'll try to tackle specified complexity.
The difference between an encyclopedia or computer program and evolution is that the producers of encyclopedias and computer programs know what they want to produce before they produce it. They have a goal, and anything that does not fit that particular goal is "wrong". It doesn't work as intended.
With evolution, no goal is set in advance. For example, when some fish began developing digitized fins, there was no preplanned goal of eventually producing frogs from those fish. The only goal was better adaptation of those fish to the environment they were already living in. Their new-fangled fins gave them better stability when seeking to glean food from the bottom of swift-moving currents and streams.
It was not planned that they would also be helpful in crawling out above the water line onto the shore. It just happened that what was helpful in the water was also helpful for getting out of the water.
The problem with Dembski's specified complexity argument is that it assumes the species we see today were a preplanned goal. If that were the case, anything that did not tend toward that goal would be wrong. But in fact, if evolution had taken a different direction, it would not be taking a wrong turn, it would just have given us a different set of species than those we have.
Of course, another inadequacy of the specified complexity argument is that it assumes complete randomness in evolution. It totally omits the very non-random process of natural selection, which does eliminate what is unworkable, though not with a specific end goal in mind.
Upvote
0
Scotishfury09
G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
I'm sorry, I'm not really trying to argue either way, I'm just tired of this "stupid designer" argument.
Upvote
0
Scotishfury09
G.R.O.S.S. Dictator-For-Life
I could just not be understanding your post, but I think you're agreeing with me? "We can say that Creation is perfect then if we accept that it was as God intended it to be."
To answer your question, scotishfury was my gamertag from WarCraft II a really long time ago and has been the same since then. I put one t instead of two because scottishfury was taken. It's spelled correctly in my biography. 09 is just when I graduate from college. I'm not so furious, really, it's just the name I'm used to.
Upvote
0
But it's a valid argument that stems from the logic of Intelligent Design. If one set of complex/efficient features can be attributed to a designer, then another set of uncomplicated/inefficient features should be attributable to either a lousy designer or to no designer at all! As Deamiter said, if you can attribute any feature, no matter how complex or efficient, to design, then the notion of Intelligent Design has become useless because it explains nothing in its attempt to explain everything!
That's why its best to get rid of the idea altogether, rather than box God into arguments for complexity. God is in everything: the simple and the complex. We must take that much on faith.
Upvote
0
I attended an ID lecture some time ago, and the presenter showed us pictures of a child playing soccer, and flowers, and even though he said that ID does not try to portray a benevolent God, that God could be "evil" as well, the pictures spoke differently, in my head I wondered where are the weeds, and the children with cystic fibrosis.
The other day I was watching the Nightline debate between two figures from the Rational Response Squad vs. Kirk Cameron, and his way-of-the-master buddy--I don't recall his name. They had just finished telling the audience, that all they had to do was look at all the "pretty" things in nature, and you can see that there is a creator.
And a woman from the audience, got up and asked who created cancer?
And of course the response was "the fall".
I assume the fall also decided to place malicious diseases in hereditary lines rather than selecting victims at random from the entire population, and I assume that the fall produced weeds, and the parana, and placed venom in the fangs of a snake, I assume the fall produced mosquitos, and 350,000 species of beetles (God must have been bored).
If i were looking for a dumb god, I would have to go no further, than hearing the ID theorist speak, and read between the lines.
Someone here tried to say that the theory of evolution is "fluffy", of course if they were to spend time understanding the mechanics and the wall of evidence, rather than say such an endeavor is boring they would find that evolution is quite solid.
I prefer a boring path to truth, than the fluffy path to false comfort provided by Behe his kin, and his followers.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
