Confusion about Creationism/Intelligent design

[That-_-Guy]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects. Even the Vatican has denied their validity. While I recognize that the Vatican does not represent every Christian denomination it is certainly has more influence over the Christian churches than any other (earthbound) authoritarian body.

Even if even if evolution were to somehow, against all the evidence going for it, be proved wrong, this does not prove intelligent design. Simply because we don't know something does not mean that God is behind it. Think for a second people. We may not know exactly how the world was created, we may never know, this does not mean we can wrap it up in nice little bow using some ancient document whose only apparent authority is that it is old and that it says that it is an authority. This whole argument is circular, irrational and frankly ridiculous.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of simple hate posts but any answer to the above questions is appreciated.

 

[Mikeb85]

It's not just the Bible - every ancient culture from the beginning of time until recently believed that the heavens and earth were created by a supernatural force. I used to be one to place my faith in science - but even with all our human 'wisdom', we still cannot understand some of the most simple concepts. For instance, what is light? In the last hundred years our understanding of light has changed several times. In fact, scientific theories come and go every day, and in the end, change nothing.

Anyhow, I'm not one to subscribe to the way 'intelligent design' and 'creationism' are popularly described. Most 'creation scientists' aren't real scientists, and come up with terrible arguments. Makes Christianity look bad.

What we've got to understand, is that Genesis was written for ancient man. The creation account uses symbolic language, conveys concepts we can't even begin to understand, and is quite brief. And honestly, how everything was created isn't as important as the fact it was created.

 

[juvenissun]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects. Even the Vatican has denied their validity. While I recognize that the Vatican does not represent every Christian denomination it is certainly has more influence over the Christian churches than any other (earthbound) authoritarian body.

Even if even if evolution were to somehow, against all the evidence going for it, be proved wrong, this does not prove intelligent design. Simply because we don't know something does not mean that God is behind it. Think for a second people. We may not know exactly how the world was created, we may never know, this does not mean we can wrap it up in nice little bow using some ancient document whose only apparent authority is that it is old and that it says that it is an authority. This whole argument is circular, irrational and frankly ridiculous.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of simple hate posts but any answer to the above questions is appreciated.

Welcome and I hope you could continue to post here.

No. Not in this forum. No one would reply you with a hate note. If you hung around, you may get a lot of answers, acceptable or not.

To me (I think I am naive on this), ID is simply a political version of creationism.

The scientific nature of evolution and the non-scientific nature of creation are both just "apparent". Take ANY issue and dig into it, you will only find uncertainty on the evolution side. Creationism itself does not have much else to say. The true or false of creationism is not the issue. If evolution is wrong, then there is no other thing to replace it, but creationism. However, it is not easy to prove that evolution is wrong. But it is equally hard to prove it is true. All existed arguments are only on examples. Giving examples do not prove anything.

 

[Biblewriter]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects. Even the Vatican has denied their validity. While I recognize that the Vatican does not represent every Christian denomination it is certainly has more influence over the Christian churches than any other (earthbound) authoritarian body.

Even if even if evolution were to somehow, against all the evidence going for it, be proved wrong, this does not prove intelligent design. Simply because we don't know something does not mean that God is behind it. Think for a second people. We may not know exactly how the world was created, we may never know, this does not mean we can wrap it up in nice little bow using some ancient document whose only apparent authority is that it is old and that it says that it is an authority. This whole argument is circular, irrational and frankly ridiculous.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of simple hate posts but any answer to the above questions is appreciated.

First, as to your question of creationism vs intelligent design, intelligent design is simply the name for a strictly scientific inquiry into the evidence that life as we know it could not have come about by mere chance. Creationism, on the other hand, is the belief that God created all things.

Some call themselves creation scientists, but make many unsustainable claims. Those who use this label almost all insist on not only a literal interpretation of Genesis, but on their interpretation of the meaning of the words there. But most of the claims that come from the intelligent design camp are well founded.

Second, about your comment about "all the evidence going for" the theory of evolution. It is easy to make a convincing argument when you are not opposed. It is another thing to stand up to debate of those who reject your thesis. When I was a university student in the 1960's, I canvassed available literature on evolution, and found that a full third of the available books on this subject were written to challenge its validity. But we were being consistently told that essentially all scientists believed it.

My younger brother was particularly offended when as a senior level Biology student, he was taught that the theory of recapitulation was "outside of the facts." The thing the offended him was that the professor that taught him this as a senior student was the same professor that had taught him that this was a proof of evolution when he had been a freshman!

The evidence for evolution can be made to seem conclusive, but almost every argument offered in its defense is challenged by experts in that particular field. (Although it is not considered acceptable to challenge the theory itself, it is considered acceptable to challenge the validity of a singe point offered in its evidence.)

Third, your comment about "some ancient document whose only apparent authority is that it is old and that it says that it is an authority."

This may be the only apparent authority for this document from your viewpoint. But there is one thing about this "ancient document" that cannot be questioned. That is its ability to change lives. I personally know a great many individuals who were criminals before they were impacted by this "ancient document," and who thereafter became useful, contributing, members of society.

This book has done more to change lives and improve society that all the rest of the books in the world combined.

 

[Van]

Creationism is defined in several different ways. I believe God created the heavens and the earth either supernaturally, or naturally or in some combination. Thus I am proud to call myself a "Creationist!" Others, however only apply the term to Young Earth Creationists, those that believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Universe is also less than 10,000 years old and that all things were created within a six 24 hour day period less than 10,000 years ago. They, or at least some of them,
sidestep all the evidence for an older Universe or older earth saying they were created with apparent age, like the wine at Cana.

Under the broader definition of Creationism, falls the concept of Intelligent Design. Here the idea is we can discern "intelligent design" in creation which is a fingerprint of God. One of the tenets is that the first and simplest forms of life would be too complex to fall together without some organizing force. If you break down the necessary parts, it is no longer alive, and the probability that they parts fell together is so low as to be statistically impossible. Thus the term irreducible complexity.

As far as the argument from authority, that the RCC believes this or that and therefore to hold a differing view is unsound, such an argument is unsound. RCC is right on many things, but non-Catholics believe they are wrong on many other things.

If we define Evolution as a significant change in the frequency of genes within a population, we are left with trying to figure out how the changes occur. Darwin's ideas have been discarded on the dust bin of history as to how the changes occurred.
Gradualism is out, Punctuated Equilibrum is in. If individual selection was a driver, akin to a breeder selecting the best traits and breeding them, then we should see gradual change over time, not the status quo for millions of years, then abrupt change. But even today, with Dawinism falling to the wayside about 50 years ago, we have folks proclaiming "survival of the fittest" and other myths as if they had not spent 4 hours of study on the matter.

So what causes the abrupt changes? Could it be a force outside the knowledge of science? Why not?

 

[That-_-Guy]

While I am appreciative of your thoughtful responses I have yet to see much in the way of a valid argument. I realize that the chances of either of us changing our beliefs is very slim as we (those who have replied and I) have clearly thought them out and have decided that they are the ultimate truth of the world.

In response to Van:
I am familiar with the argument of irreducible complexity and what I find to be wrong with it is that it does not count for the fact that if God were to exist, he would be an incredibly complex entity, which, by your views, would necessitate that he would have a creator, who would also then necessitate another creator. It turns into an infinite regress.

In terms of your argument against gradualism and survival of the fittest, these theories have, in no way, been "discarded in the dustbin of history". While it is true that Punctuated Equilibrium is the more popular theory now, mostly due to the idea that, when a drastic change occurs in an environment, those that are most equipped to handle it will survive, Gradualism is still a plausible and supportable theory. For instance, the tetrapod "Acanthostega", one of the earliest known tetrapods, found in Greenland which lives in the sea but has evolved tiny fingers.

Finally, "why not?" is not a valid argument for the existence of God. Again, simply because we do not know how something happened does not mean we can simply say "God did it", and use him as the universal scapegoat for all unknowns.

To Biblewriter:
First of all I think it is impossible to bring religion into any form of scientific debate as it requires the researchers and debaters to forgo proof and the scientific method and simply accept God as a given.

In terms of recapitulation, I'm sorry to your brother, but the theory has been essentially refuted on all fronts. the idea that embryos progress through all stages of evolution while developing ignores the lack of necessary organs and teeth that are not present until a later stage in development. The teacher was clearly wrong in his freshman class but then corrected himself and changed his opinion, which is perfectly fine, everyone makes mistakes.

Thirdly, simply because the Bible has helped people does not prove its truth or value. Self-help books help people yet many of them contain falsehoods. Dr. Phil (not actually a Doctor anyway) helps people but I doubt anyone is going to call him a messiah. I also disagree with your interpretation that the Bible has had an overall positive effect on society. I personally believe that it stunts scientific inquiry and promotes unquestioned loyalty. This is not to mention the numerous wars it has started or the deaths outside of war it has advocated or the many other atrocities that have been committed in its name. I am not saying that all of these things were absolutely advocated by it, but without appealing to its unquestioned authority it would have likely been much harder to garner support for these warlike efforts.

To juvenisson:

I am hardly trying to prove evolution, even gravity is only a theory until we can test whether its effect holds true for every point on every planet in every galaxy, it is simply termed as a 'law' due to the fact that it is essentially impossible to refute at the moment. Creationism is not the 'only alternative' to evolution I could just as easily give a Bertrand Russel-esque alternative saying that an infinitely tiny mongoose on the other side of the sun that we have never seen and could never see let out a fart one day and suddenly created matter and the universe but lost its tail and that from its tail all mongooses were born and that they are holy creatures.

To Mikeb85:

Most ancient cultures also believed the world was flat and many believed in polytheistic religions this does not mean they are right. I agree with your interpretation of Genesis to a certain extent but I do not think it "conveys concepts we can't even begin to understand" as clearly there are many people who think they do understand them. I, for one, meaning no offense to any of you, think it is a nice story that people have taken too far.

 

[mark kennedy]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Yes there is a profound difference, Creationism is actually more accurately called Biblical Creationism. The most important lineage in TOE is human lineage since the Genesis account clearly indicates special creation while evolution supports human/ape ancestry. Intelligent Design on the other hand is simply scientific and philosophical skepticism concerning Darwinism. In order to advocate Intelligent Design you need not even be convinced that there is a God. This gentleman is an agnostic and certainly not religious, his skepticism comes from questions with regards to how thing would have to evolve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38xoeMPhGik

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects. Even the Vatican has denied their validity. While I recognize that the Vatican does not represent every Christian denomination it is certainly has more influence over the Christian churches than any other (earthbound) authoritarian body.

The Vatican would seem to have taken a moderate view of this. However, the Council of Trent affirms that Adam was the first man and sin entered the human condition through him. This is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in Romans 5 which does not make ambiguise statements along this line. They readily affirm that the evidence for evolution is compelling but that is not the same thing as conclusively demonstrated. They simply state that as long as evolution leaves room for God then it is benign. My experience has been that it doesn't, therefore I'm a creationist by default.

Even if even if evolution were to somehow, against all the evidence going for it, be proved wrong, this does not prove intelligent design. Simply because we don't know something does not mean that God is behind it. Think for a second people. We may not know exactly how the world was created, we may never know, this does not mean we can wrap it up in nice little bow using some ancient document whose only apparent authority is that it is old and that it says that it is an authority. This whole argument is circular, irrational and frankly ridiculous.

Well gee wiz, I'm glad this isn't a hate post. At any rate, Genesis is confirmed in the New Testament that stands up well as historically valid. You must understand, for the Christian the New Testament is the basis for an understanding of Genesis.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of simple hate posts but any answer to the above questions is appreciated.

No, the moderators won't allow us to speak to skeptics and TEs the same way the speak to us. My interest in the subject has been almost exclusively human evolution and I specifically focused on the evolution of the human brain as the scientific basis for my skepticism. Genesis is readily interpreted as highly figurative, the doctrine of justification by faith alone on the other hand is inextricably linked to the sin of Adam.

There are actually two separate issues here, one theological and the other scientific. My issue with Darwinism is that it makes two a priori (without prior) assumptions. The first is universal common descent which was illustrated by Darwin in On the Origin of Species and called the Tree of Life.

The second assumption is that those who do not accept the first assumption are ignorant and their skepticism is an argument from incredulity. That's my philosophical problem with it and if your interested in my scientific reasons there is a thread in here on the evolution of the human brain.

I also debated it formally with Loudmouth some time ago, just in case your interested.

mark kennedy v. Loudmouth: Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

 

[Biblewriter]

To Biblewriter:
First of all I think it is impossible to bring religion into any form of scientific debate as it requires the researchers and debaters to forgo proof and the scientific method and simply accept God as a given.

In terms of recapitulation, I'm sorry to your brother, but the theory has been essentially refuted on all fronts. the idea that embryos progress through all stages of evolution while developing ignores the lack of necessary organs and teeth that are not present until a later stage in development. The teacher was clearly wrong in his freshman class but then corrected himself and changed his opinion, which is perfectly fine, everyone makes mistakes.

Thirdly, simply because the Bible has helped people does not prove its truth or value. Self-help books help people yet many of them contain falsehoods. Dr. Phil (not actually a Doctor anyway) helps people but I doubt anyone is going to call him a messiah. I also disagree with your interpretation that the Bible has had an overall positive effect on society. I personally believe that it stunts scientific inquiry and promotes unquestioned loyalty. This is not to mention the numerous wars it has started or the deaths outside of war it has advocated or the many other atrocities that have been committed in its name. I am not saying that all of these things were absolutely advocated by it, but without appealing to its unquestioned authority it would have likely been much harder to garner support for these warlike efforts.

I agree that religion has no place in a purely scientific debate, for religion is outside of the realm of science. But because of this, many have incorrectly assumed that religion and science are contradictory. There is zero contradiction between religion and science, when each is relegated to its proper field of inquiry. But some beliefs that are assumed to be scientific are, in actuality, religious in nature.

I am not aware of any proposed explanation of the origins of our ecosystem other than creation or evolution. While someone may come up with another plausible concept in the future, I have never heard of one, nor can I currently conceive one. For even if our ecosystem was brought here from another planet, the problem of out original origin would be the same. Since these are the only two choices offered by our present intellectual system, any challenge of evolution is assumed to be an advocation of the concept of creation. And since creation requires a creator, any mention of creation is assumed to be based on religion.

But religion is not just a belief in God. it is a belief about God. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Atheism is a religion, for it is a belief about God. The belief that there is no God is just as much of a belief about God as the belief that there is a God. I contend that evolution, rather than being a scientific belief, is a religious belief held by most of those who call themselves scientists.

A religious belief is held in the absence of proof. Although many imagine that evolution has been proved, there is not even one supposed proof of evolution that is uncontested in the scientific community. By this I do not mean that there are those who call themselves scientists that contest these proofs. I mean rather that some of the most respected experts in each of the various fields of scientific inquiry involved in these various "proofs" have published challenges to the validity of the particular "proof" of evolution that lies within their own particular field of expertise.

Adherents of a religious belief typically feel a prejudice toward those who do not subscribe to this belief. All non-evolutionists have often felt this prejudice when they have dared to voice their opinions. This ranges from mockery, in its lesser stages, to calls for boycotts of various publishers and demands for dismissal of various individuals from employment in its more severe stages.

Adherents of a religious belief often become angry when their security in that belief is threatened. I have personally witnessed this anger in evolutionists many times.

Adherents of a religious belief often attempt to squelch those who dare to challenge this belief. It is common knowledge that evolutionists often attempt to silence opposing views. The most common excuse for this attempt is that any challenge of this view is an introduction of religion into the debate. But the only way any challenge to a concept could be religious is that the concept itself is a religious concept.

 

[Biblewriter]

In response to Van:
I am familiar with the argument of irreducible complexity and what I find to be wrong with it is that it does not count for the fact that if God were to exist, he would be an incredibly complex entity, which, by your views, would necessitate that he would have a creator, who would also then necessitate another creator. It turns into an infinite regress.

You forget that there has to be an ultimate origin. Either the physical cosmos has always existed, or else it was caused by something that has always existed.

Theoretical physicists have projected the present laws of the cosmos back to a Big Bang billions of years ago. I personally have no problem with this concept, because it does not contradict my understanding of what the Bible says. But when their theories are examined at length, we find that at some point, a very small fraction of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after this supposed Big Bang, there was a time when their entire theory collapses without an external force. To avoid the introduction of the concept of God into their theories, they have chosen to call this force an observer. But what they call it is immaterial. The fact is that even the concept of the Big Bang requires a God.

But your argument misses that whole point of the argument of irreducible complexity. If the cosmos, or any part of it, is so complex that it could not have come about through gradual change, then it would have to have come into existence suddenly.

The fact is, that most of the organs of most of the organisms in our world are of such a nature that, in anything less than their complete form, they would be a liability instead of an asset.

Take, for instance, an eyeball. For this organ to work, it needs to have, at a bare minimum, a light sensitive array, a light transmitting cover, and a light transmitting fluid between the array and the cover. A mutation that produced any of these without the other two would be useless. And if it were useless, then natural selection would discard it.

The hardest problem of all for evolution is the origin of sexual reproduction. For this to come about by evolution requires a mutation that suddenly produced a fully functional male and a second mutation that suddenly produced a fully functional female. Both of these mutations had to have occurred in the same species, and close enough together in time and space to allow the male and the female to get together. If either the male or the female were less than fully functional, natural selection would have discarded that mutation as useless. If they were not in the same species, they could not reproduce. And if they were not close enough together in time and space to get together, they could not reproduce.

The statistical probability against either of these mutations having ever taken place is enormous. But the probability against both of them having taken place at essentially the same time, in the essentially same place, and in the same species, is too enormous to even fathom.

 

[Van]

In response to Van:
I am familiar with the argument of irreducible complexity and what I find to be wrong with it is that it does not count for the fact that if God were to exist, he would be an incredibly complex entity, which, by your views, would necessitate that he would have a creator, who would also then necessitate another creator. It turns into an infinite regress.

In terms of your argument against gradualism and survival of the fittest, these theories have, in no way, been "discarded in the dustbin of history". While it is true that Punctuated Equilibrium is the more popular theory now, mostly due to the idea that, when a drastic change occurs in an environment, those that are most equipped to handle it will survive, Gradualism is still a plausible and supportable theory. For instance, the tetrapod "Acanthostega", one of the earliest known tetrapods, found in Greenland which lives in the sea but has evolved tiny fingers.

Finally, "why not?" is not a valid argument for the existence of God. Again, simply because we do not know how something happened does not mean we can simply say "God did it", and use him as the universal scapegoat for all unknowns.

Point one is a non sequitor. Life began at a point in time within the Universe. Prior to that, life did not exist within the Universe. God, the Creator of the Universe, the first cause, created the Universe. He, or She, or It existed before the Universe was created. I believe that force is eternal, without beginning. You can say it had a beginning, but without support. What is scientific fact is that before time, a force existed and that force caused the big bang to bang. So lets return to life could not come about by natural forces as we understand natural forces today. This is widely accepted. Not that Yahweh created life, but that some organizing force unknown to science most probably created life, because the design is too complex for it to happen in some warm swamp hit by lightning.

As to your second point, gradualism has been discarded. Yes, many deny it, but there it sits, gathering dust all the same. Changes do not occur based on individual choices, as Darwin thought, but based on changes in the frequency of the genes within a population. And presently we are without a clue as to what actually brings about these changes. Fewer and fewer folks are buying Darwin's theory, and more and more into the Modern Synthesis.

Third point, I did not attempt to prove the existence of Yahweh, but simply that a force outside the knowledge of science has been discovered by science, it caused the big bang and it or yet another force caused life to begin. And ditto for the question of what caused man to be able to handle abstract thought. We just do not know. But we know it probably did not happen through "naturalistic processes."

At the end of the day, I made no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, but rather we have indications God might exist, and no support for the premise that forces beyond our current understanding do not exist. Thus a theistic world view is probably more sound than an atheistic one, based on our knowledge today.

 

[keyarch]

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

Much information is available on this site about Creationism, but to understand the difference between it and ID, I thought the following definition from some of the founders of the ID movement might help.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Intelligent Design[/FONT]
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects.

I fail to see how the above statement is unreasonable and/or ludicrous.

 

[mark kennedy]

Much information is available on this site about Creationism, but to understand the difference between it and ID, I thought the following definition from some of the founders of the ID movement might help.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm

Hey brother, long time no see! I'm in the Army now, stationed at Ft Stewert in Georgia. You may have already seen it but if not, this is a debate I'm sure you would like. I loved it even though the issues I'm most concerned about were not addressed.

Debate on ID and Evolution

William Buckley is asked why he is on the Intelligent Design side and he simply answers that it's because of how those who take the opposing view are treated. There is a deep bias and abiding animosity to creationists and those who hold to Intelligent Design views and it's fascinating to see the reaction of people who really have no religious views to defend engage evolutionists on this topic.

Good to see you on here. You'll no doubt notice things have not changed much. I tried to get away from the whole topic and I'm even debating justification by faith with a Catholic. It was fascinating how much we really agree on despite the many differences. It's in the General Theology Formal Debate forum if your interested in checking it out.

Hope this post fines you well.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

Even if even if evolution were to somehow, against all the evidence going for it, be proved wrong, this does not prove intelligent design. .

Odds of Big Bang going off as advertised: Maybe one in ten to the 118th or ten to (ten to the power of 123).

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html

These are standard secular numbers.

Essential, the funny big bang out of nothing could have been done for 10 to the 60th atoms all at once (with a little less bang, and within the six day time frame), and it would not be less likely in any meaningful sense given the astounding odds of the one singularity going big bang.

So, it is no less likely. And very smart people dont think its ludicrous.

Even the Darwinists have given up on random mutation and natural selection as the driving force of all the improbabilities of life. In short, enormous amount of time will no longer make their equations work as they learn more. Now they need a mechanism beyond chance.

 

[That-_-Guy]

Well gee wiz, I'm glad this isn't a hate post.

I do apologize for the tone of that portion of my post. It was a copy-paste that I did not look at nearly closely enough. I wrote that paragraph a few weeks ago in a small debate after I had had a very bad day so, again, I apologize for my small hypocrisy in that regard. I try to keep as respectful as possible but we all slip up now and then.

In response to all who have posted: Thank you very much for the clearness and lucidity of your arguments. I wish more of the religious people I met were as well versed and well spoken.

And now, back to the actual argument:
Evolution, much like gravity, is essentially agreed to be a fact by the scientific community insofar as we know that species change over time. We have concrete, undeniable, examples of this everywhere. The most obvious being bacteria and viruses. If they never changed we would never have to develop new and stronger vaccines for the same disease, there would be no scare about our paranoia about hygiene simply killing off weak viruses, leaving the stronger ones to dominate the gene pool. Even in humans, studies have shown (though I will admit this is tentative) that our thumbs have gotten longer and more dexterous than our ancestors'. The only things that are argued in the scientific community are the method of evolution as well as the how. To my knowledge no scientist will say that organisms do not change with their environments over generations. The example of eyes is explained simply because eyes did not just pop into existence through a mutation, they are the result of numerous mutations. First there was a blind thing which eventually mutated a patch of light-sensitive cells, only able to sense very bright from very dark. Eventually this was refined and improved upon in a series of slow, evolutionary steps until eyes as we know them now exist.

In terms of the arguments about Ultimate origin and other origin theories:
I restate my claim that simply because we cannot quite explain how matter came to be (which I think is the ultimate question more than how life came to be) we cannot simply place God in that hole in our understanding and consider it filled. I think that in all likelihood the answer is completely out of our capacity to understand it, the chances of us understanding such an event seem tiny to me. It likely involved forces and things far beyond our capacity to conceive of, much less form cognitive words and phrases around. Perhaps we would need to be able to operate on completely different planes and dimensions than we currently do to have a chance at understanding it, I cannot claim to know. I realize this is getting very "out there" but i can't think of any better way to describe that which I am claiming in impossible to describe.

Even if there was such a "creative force" behind the cosmos I'd have a few more problems. I simply find it impossible to believe that not only is this "force", for lack of a better word, able to be described by an ancient text, but also has a consciousness that tends toward human-like emotions of forgiveness and anger. Not only this but somehow it also cares what happens to us? We, who, if this "force" did exist, had a human-like consciousness and was eternal, would barely register as so much as a speck on its radar?

I have respect for the consolation and the comfort that religion provides to some but, to me, it makes a few too many assumptions. I am sorry if this offended anyone or came off as a 'hate post' I am merely attempting to state the reasons for my beliefs.

 

[busterdog]

And now, back to the actual argument:
Evolution, much like gravity, is essentially agreed to be a fact by the scientific community insofar as we know that species change over time. We have concrete, undeniable, examples of this everywhere. The most obvious being bacteria and viruses.

But, if you look at your analogy more closely, there is a huge difference between the small amount of minor speciation (in morphology, and within "kinds") and a real explanation for origins of species in the first place, or life for that matter. Yeah, we understand what happens if you drop a hammer today. But, that isnt a unified theory or the slightest hint of comprehension for why this physical law is what it is post-big bang (if you buy into big bang).

 

[Biblewriter]

... The example of eyes is explained simply because eyes did not just pop into existence through a mutation, they are the result of numerous mutations. First there was a blind thing which eventually mutated a patch of light-sensitive cells, only able to sense very bright from very dark. Eventually this was refined and improved upon in a series of slow, evolutionary steps until eyes as we know them now exist.

This is typical of the gross oversimplification almost always seen in evolutionary discussions, and completely misses the point. In my example I listed only three absolutely minimal requirements for a generalized eye, but if we change the definition from an eye to an eyeball, the number of absolutely required features rises exponentially.

I challenge you to pick any organ of the human body and propose a series of steps in which that organ could have gradually developed. Remember that, for evolution to work, each sequential variational step would have to give a distinct procreational advantage to individuals that had that variation as opposed to individuals that did not have that variation.

If you attempt to rationally approach this question, you will find it impossible to accomplish, for most of the organs of most of the organisms are of such a nature that, in anything less that a fully developed state, would be a liability, rather than an asset. Thus, natural selection would reject them.

In terms of the arguments about Ultimate origin and other origin theories:
I restate my claim that simply because we cannot quite explain how matter came to be (which I think is the ultimate question more than how life came to be) we cannot simply place God in that hole in our understanding and consider it filled. I think that in all likelihood the answer is completely out of our capacity to understand it, the chances of us understanding such an event seem tiny to me. It likely involved forces and things far beyond our capacity to conceive of, much less form cognitive words and phrases around. Perhaps we would need to be able to operate on completely different planes and dimensions than we currently do to have a chance at understanding it, I cannot claim to know. I realize this is getting very "out there" but i can't think of any better way to describe that which I am claiming in impossible to describe.

Again, you are dodging the point. Either the physical cosmos has always existed or it had a beginning. There is no possible third choice. But if it had a beginning, there had to have been a causation for that beginning. So we are absolutely forced to one of two conclusions. Either the physical cosmos has always existed, or there is a causative force outside of that cosmos that has always existed. You can call that causative force whatever you want to call it, but you cannot deny its necessity.

Even if there was such a "creative force" behind the cosmos I'd have a few more problems. I simply find it impossible to believe that not only is this "force", for lack of a better word, able to be described by an ancient text, but also has a consciousness that tends toward human-like emotions of forgiveness and anger. Not only this but somehow it also cares what happens to us? We, who, if this "force" did exist, had a human-like consciousness and was eternal, would barely register as so much as a speck on its radar?

Again, you are reasoning backwards. The logical problem is not why such a "force" would be like ourselves. But why we would be like it. And that is not at all hard to understand. It is only logical that if such a creative force existed and decided to create beings, it would give its creations characteristics like itself.

Again, if this force indeed existed, what is illogical about the notion that this force desired that its creations should be aware of its existence? And if this force indeed desired that its creations should be aware of its existence, it is only logical that it would have revealed itself long ago. So any document it might have produced, by whatever means it chose to use, would very logically be ancient.

So I conclude that your arguments are all logically inverted, and are actually illogic, rather than logic.

 

[busterdog]

The statistical probability against either of these mutations having ever taken place is enormous. But the probability against both of them having taken place at essentially the same time, in the essentially same place, and in the same species, is too enormous to even fathom.

What do you think ID is saying or should say on this point:

1. Therefore, there must be a God who made the eye, etc.

or

2. Therefore it is foolhardy to exclude the existence of God (and to avoid seeking Him).

I am not completely clear on what Paul is speaking of in Romans 1. What were people to glean from creation? Perhaps this is it.

In a strictly formal sense, ID should erode confidence in secular theories of origins because it proves the cause of all this is beyond us and nothing further is required from these proofs alone. One still must seek God to know who he is and who the creator is from this point.

Proving that it was God who made it and us is yet a further step in the rational process.

Your thoughts?

 

[mark kennedy]

Well gee wiz, I'm glad this isn't a hate post.

I do apologize for the tone of that portion of my post. It was a copy-paste that I did not look at nearly closely enough. I wrote that paragraph a few weeks ago in a small debate after I had had a very bad day so, again, I apologize for my small hypocrisy in that regard. I try to keep as respectful as possible but we all slip up now and then.

Actually, those of us who have been doing this for a while are prone to that sort of thing. I appreciate the civil tone.

In response to all who have posted: Thank you very much for the clearness and lucidity of your arguments. I wish more of the religious people I met were as well versed and well spoken.

Now that's refreshing, thanks.

And now, back to the actual argument:
Evolution, much like gravity, is essentially agreed to be a fact by the scientific community insofar as we know that species change over time. We have concrete, undeniable, examples of this everywhere. The most obvious being bacteria and viruses. If they never changed we would never have to develop new and stronger vaccines for the same disease, there would be no scare about our paranoia about hygiene simply killing off weak viruses, leaving the stronger ones to dominate the gene pool. Even in humans, studies have shown (though I will admit this is tentative) that our thumbs have gotten longer and more dexterous than our ancestors'. The only things that are argued in the scientific community are the method of evolution as well as the how. To my knowledge no scientist will say that organisms do not change with their environments over generations. The example of eyes is explained simply because eyes did not just pop into existence through a mutation, they are the result of numerous mutations. First there was a blind thing which eventually mutated a patch of light-sensitive cells, only able to sense very bright from very dark. Eventually this was refined and improved upon in a series of slow, evolutionary steps until eyes as we know them now exist.

First of all, I'm not crazy about the term mutations. In genetics the mutations traditionally were changes in form or function but now it's a change in the DNA sequence. Most do nothing at all but when they do have an affect they are almost always deleterious (harmful). Also, I'm not entirely sure that adaptations in populations over time are the result of changes in DNA sequences. Genes can be turned on and off, there's regulatory genes and gene expression that very often are vital components in adaptive evolution. Birds and butterflies evolve rather quickly while various other species of turtles have no changed dramatically in hundreds of millions of years.

In genetics evolution is defined as the change of alleles (variations of genes) in populations over time. Things do change over time and the vast array of diversity indicates that regardless of your view of lineage and natural history evolution is an inescapable fact of life, quite literally. No one is denying this, it's when you make sweeping generalities about universal common descent that I have bouts with incredulity.

In terms of the arguments about Ultimate origin and other origin theories:
I restate my claim that simply because we cannot quite explain how matter came to be (which I think is the ultimate question more than how life came to be) we cannot simply place God in that hole in our understanding and consider it filled. I think that in all likelihood the answer is completely out of our capacity to understand it, the chances of us understanding such an event seem tiny to me. It likely involved forces and things far beyond our capacity to conceive of, much less form cognitive words and phrases around. Perhaps we would need to be able to operate on completely different planes and dimensions than we currently do to have a chance at understanding it, I cannot claim to know. I realize this is getting very "out there" but i can't think of any better way to describe that which I am claiming in impossible to describe.

God is not conceived, feared, worshiped or the object of systematic theologies because he explains the origin of matter. Convictions regarding the nature, character and work of God in human history are brought about by other means. We do not worship and serve the Living God because it satisfies our natural curiosity about origins. In my particular brand of religious conviction it is the sin of Adam that take precedence over the general consensus regarding human lineage. Frankly, the Bible stacks up pretty good as credible history against other sources and is preferred based on logic and scholarship that is the mark of Christian/Hebrew traditions.

Even if there was such a "creative force" behind the cosmos I'd have a few more problems. I simply find it impossible to believe that not only is this "force", for lack of a better word, able to be described by an ancient text, but also has a consciousness that tends toward human-like emotions of forgiveness and anger. Not only this but somehow it also cares what happens to us? We, who, if this "force" did exist, had a human-like consciousness and was eternal, would barely register as so much as a speck on its radar?

Your problem would seem do be a philosophical one with a view toward subjective aspects of human consciousness. While I can't identify this force in terms that would satisfy you query questions like this are answered in my mind simply by deference to the soul. I don't know if you read the Bible at all but I think you would enjoy browsing the wisdom literature, Job, Psalms and Ecclesiastes. You might be surprised how many of the prophets asked similar questions.

I have respect for the consolation and the comfort that religion provides to some but, to me, it makes a few too many assumptions. I am sorry if this offended anyone or came off as a 'hate post' I am merely attempting to state the reasons for my beliefs.

Your certainly entitled to you beliefs but rest assured Darwinism is riddled with assumptions. I don't think your questions about consciousness, emotion and the origin of things is satisfied any better by assuming exclusively naturalistic causes. Maybe since you took the time to at least inquire you would consider some things from my experience.

As a new Christian I had questions regarding tangible evidence for the faith and mind you, on a personal level I was fully persuaded. Still, nagging questions persisted so I explored various avenues of Christian Apologetic (a Greek word for a legal defense). Too much of it was fluff and doctrine but I started to look into the Bible as history, that is, as a primary source for historicity. The resurrection and conversion of Paul were the two episodes that weighed on me the most and when questions like these get a hold it's hard to turn your thought away.

I would suggest you consider, simply consider, by what criteria you determine the historicity of an event. If you make an a priori assumption of naturalistic explanations then you cut yourself off from some pretty compelling possibilities. I understand your skepticism and appreciate your civility. Just bear in mind, I did not retreat into the comfort and safety of private conviction, I have considered the evidence from scientific literature and found it flawed and deeply biased.

We all make up our own minds, I hope your journey brings you to consider the shinning promise of God's interaction with his creation and intervention in human affairs. Just something to think about.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

First of all, is there a difference between the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design?

1. Creationism -- specifically YEC is the belief that the Bible is a trustworthy document that accurately states the Origins event as a real 7 day week about 6,000 years ago. You find that account of creation in the first two pages of the Bible Gen 1-2:3. You find a perfect summary of that timeline as compared to our literal 7 day week in Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD MADE...".

2. Intelligent design is simply "the academic freedom to follow the data where it leads - EVEN if it leads to a conclusion for design that is not compatible with the doctrines of atheism". It is the concept that discovery of design is to be admitted when found.

A perfect example of this principle brought to the level of commercial availability is the study of EM wave forms. Hint: Press the SCAN button on your car radio when driving through an area where the buttons are not preset to pick up stations. Electronic detection of ID Wave form is happening right in front of you! But it is not arguing for a literal 7 day creation week.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First of all I would like to state that I am an Atheist, a fact which I'm sure, alone, will garner me a fair share of criticism. I would just like to know a few things regarding these beliefs.

...

Second of all, how can they possibly be defended in reasonable argument? They both seem absolutely ludicrous in all respects. Even the Vatican has denied their validity. .

As an Atheist you may be interested in the atheist evolutionist Collin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history - managing the largest collection of fossils on earth ). Doctor Patterson stated that stories about "how one thing came from another are stories easy enough to make up but they are not science... The reason is they can not be tested". Patterson once again affirmed his position in this at the end of the 20th century just before he died.

The bottom line is that when you look at the junk science methods of Haeckle and of Marsh's horse series (later published in Simpsons text ) and Piltdown man and even recently the totally debunked Neanderthal dating claims from C14 - a Pattern of deception begins to emerge totally consistent for example with Osborn's deception in the case of "Nebraska man". Most of these deceptions are employed for DECADES to prop up the belief that evolutionism is "actual science" and not junk science.

How can anyone looking objectively at the junk science claims of evolutionism -- take it seriously?

How can anyone looking objectively at the complexity of a single cell - take evolutionism seriously? They have to "want to believe in it" if you ask me.

in Christ,

Bob