Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Givemeareason]

"Surely the thing that produces such a mind has to be as great if not greater than that mind."

No one is even suggesting the minds that create, are greater than those that believe.

Most of the Universe exists without any signs of life. Life is out there though, we can now see planets that will have life on them. Maybe nothing more than worms and snails, or maybe life has been and gone. We are yet to learn.

For many back in the 1800s and before, that would of been scary. The further we go, the more scared the people become.

Genesis says.

The Sixth Day: Creatures on Land
…25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."…29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.…

It's promising Man control over the Earth. Well that never happened did it. And all it took to go wrong was us not to do what god tells us, or the priests tell us god told them.

That in the hands of people who want control, is gold dust. And men can be evil

Of course it should also be kept in mind that upon evolving into single cell organisms life had already existed in that state for a far longer period than multicellular has existed to this date. The fact that life existed in that state for such a long period would seem to indicate lack of any direction or purpose at least. That being the case indicates to me that the universe is a place guided by probabilities. So our existence would only be a possible prediction based on the laws of the universe, probability being one of them, interacting with the conditions that continue to evolve. It seems rather pointless except that we are here to understand at this point in time. So what is the point in understanding if the universe never needed to be understood before?

 

[Givemeareason]

I agree that it's incorrect, but personally, my only concern is that people aren't promoting conclusions which directly contradict science and history. Science doesn't seek to make theological claims about whether evolution fulfills some deity's plans, so I have no problem with ID.

Why? It is still misleading.

 

[Moral Orel]

So what is the point in understanding if the universe never needed to be understood before?

Why does there need to be a point? Is it just too depressing to think that there isn't one?

 

[bhsmte]

I agree that it's incorrect, but personally, my only concern is that people aren't promoting conclusions which directly contradict science and history. Science doesn't seek to make theological claims about whether evolution fulfills some deity's plans, so I have no problem with ID.

Do you believe ID is legit science?

 

[Givemeareason]

Not in

Why does there need to be a point? Is it just too depressing to think that there isn't one?

Not in the least. I just like to understand. The end justifies the means.

 

[Givemeareason]

Do you believe ID is legit science?

Not in the least. I addressed that a few posts up in the thread.

 

[bhsmte]

Not in the least. I addressed that a few posts up in the thread.

I know, I was asking cearbhall.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why? It is still misleading.

Because I don't mind if people are religious and/or theistic. I don't view that as an inherent problem, and I don't consider it to be my concern.

Do you believe ID is legit science?

Not at all. It's theological and philosophical. It doesn't threaten science. It answers a completely different set of questions than evolution and natural selection.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I don't mind if people are religious and/or theistic. I don't view that as an inherent problem, and I don't consider it to be my concern.

Not at all. It's theological and philosophical. It doesn't threaten science. It answers a completely different set of questions than evolution and natural selection.

Yes, I agree.

No problem with people believing in ID based on faith. Only issues when those claim ID is legit science and or need to deny the evidence for evolution to prop up ID.

 

[Givemeareason]

Yes, I agree.

No problem with people believing in ID based on faith. Only issues when those claim ID is legit science and or need to deny the evidence for evolution to prop up ID.

I disagree because I'D is used to mislead people who then mislead others and then the attacks on science begin....

 

[lesliedellow]

To claim that was gods work or remotely intelligent is, in my opinion, ignoring the obvious.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, of course.

 

[Moral Orel]

When the bible says in the beginning there was light this could easily mean the big bang.

Actually, the big bang wasn't a giant fireball like people think. The force was so strong that atoms couldn't form for a long time after it started (hundreds of thousands of years I think before light was even possible), which means no light for a long time after the initial "boom". So the very beginning wasn't light at all, still darkness.

 

[Moral Orel]

Lab tests have never proven evolution. Only micro evolution which has limits.

What is the limit to microevolution given enough time? One tiny change every 10,000 years for a couple billion years seems to make a lot of big changes to me. Where does it stop for you?

 

[bhsmte]

I disagree because I'D is used to mislead people who then mislead others and then the attacks on science begin....

Lets face it, some people want and or need to be misled.

 

[paulm50]

Of course it should also be kept in mind that upon evolving into single cell organisms life had already existed in that state for a far longer period than multicellular has existed to this date. The fact that life existed in that state for such a long period would seem to indicate lack of any direction or purpose at least. That being the case indicates to me that the universe is a place guided by probabilities. So our existence would only be a possible prediction based on the laws of the universe, probability being one of them, interacting with the conditions that continue to evolve. It seems rather pointless except that we are here to understand at this point in time. So what is the point in understanding if the universe never needed to be understood before?

Agree. As a species understanding why is very important. Why did the game move, crops grow, illness happen, the people with an answer to the questions have a lot of power.

"They happen because god wills it. Do as god wants, and I will tell you what he wants, and everything will be fine."

This built every sacred monument from stone circles to the largest religious building in the world. Has made every holy man above the rest, and led to mass genocides. Some recorded as god's will.

 

[stevevw]

Psst... evolutionists don't use the word "evolutionist." The correct word is "scientist."

You have to be careful in using the word scientist because not all scientists believe in evolution and not all scientists believe in evolution the way that some do. So that can be tarring them all with the same brush. Where as the word evolutionists is well known for people who believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

No, evolutionary biology is not in crisis. Stop peddling this nonsense please.

I dont think I used the word crisis and maybe thats your take on what I meant. But certainly the theory is undergoing some rethinking or more and more are proposing it should. The more we are looking into the finer detail of how evolutionary pathways can be shown in genetics the more it is bringing up problems for Darwinian evolution.

Its when we dig below the surface and look at the practical steps that can lead to a creature evolving through mutations and natural selection. To many other mechanisms were neglected that could have also contributed to creatures gaining genetic info. There is also a difficultly in showing how mutations can create new complex functions. Some say that much of a creatures ability to change is there in the existing genetics or gained through HGT. Some say that mutations mainly have a fitness cost and any small benefits are not great enough to be taken on.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. As far as micro evolution is concerned there is no problems and most people agree. But as far as what some claim that creatures can evolve new complex functions and features that were never there to begin with that is under question. The question is are some claiming that evolution has more ability than it really does by using something that is limited and giving it more power that it really has. They are using something that is true and then creating a misrepresentation to build their theory. There are number of scientists and papers that are now saying this in one way or another. Some of which I have posted.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have to be careful in using the word scientist because not all scientists believe in evolution and not all scientists believe in evolution the way that some do. So that can be tarring them all with the same brush. Where as the word evolutionists is well known for people who believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution.

No, steve, that's not accurate. The designation "evolutionist" is a creationist ploy meant to foster the impression that a controversy exists within the scientific community, with creationists on one side and evolutionists on the other. No such controversy exists. Only a tiny minority of scientists (and an even smaller minority of biologists) denies the reality of evolution.

I dont think I used the word crisis and maybe thats your take on what I meant. But certainly the theory is undergoing some rethinking or more and more are proposing it should. The more we are looking into the finer detail of how evolutionary pathways can be shown in genetics the more it is bringing up problems for Darwinian evolution.

So you keep claiming. Forgive me for not taking this claim seriously, given your history of misinterpreting the relevant literature.

It all depends on what you mean by evolution. As far as micro evolution is concerned there is no problems and most people agree. But as far as what some claim that creatures can evolve new complex functions and features that were never there to begin with that is under question. The question is are some claiming that evolution has more ability than it really does by using something that is limited and giving it more power that it really has. They are using something that is true and then creating a misrepresentation to build their theory. There are number of scientists and papers that are now saying this in one way or another. Some of which I have posted.

I know. I read some of the papers you posted. And I demonstrated that they are not saying what you claim they are saying.

 

[Givemeareason]

Lets face it, some people want and or need to be misled.

I think you have just disproven evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The force was so strong that atoms couldn't form for a long time after it started (hundreds of thousands of years I think before light was even possible), which means no light for a long time after the initial "boom". So the very beginning wasn't light at all, still darkness.

According to the best model, light (photons) would have appeared during the Lepton Epoch, from 1 second to 3 minutes after the big bang, as a result of electron-positron annihilation, but at this stage the photons immediately interact to produce new electron-positron pairs. In the Photon Epoch (3 minutes to 240,000 years) the energy is mostly photons, but the universe is still opaque, as they quickly interact with other matter. By 240,000 to 300,000 years, atoms have formed, the universe is relatively transparent and light can travel freely. See Big Bang Timeline.

 

[Givemeareason]

Because I don't mind if people are religious and/or theistic. I don't view that as an inherent problem, and I don't consider it to be my concern.

Not at all. It's theological and philosophical. It doesn't threaten science. It answers a completely different set of questions than evolution and natural selection.

It threatens the validity of Christianity.