ID (Intelligent Design) = common ground for both TEs and Bible Creationists

[GodLovesCats]

A hyptotheisis comes from man though, so in that sense ID is manufactured.

 

[Resha Caner]

A hyptotheisis comes from man though, so in that sense ID is manufactured.

In that sense all science is manufactured.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In that sense all science is manufactured.

Nope. The hypothesis of ID is made by man because ID itself is made by man. Natural sciences are made by God.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nope. The hypothesis of ID is made by man because ID itself is made by man. Natural sciences are made by God.

The phenomena being studied was created by God (in both cases) and the science was created by man (in both cases). How do you conclude God created science? Where did God stipulate the study of Cold Neutral Hydrogen Gas in Galaxies and how it should be done?

 

[GodLovesCats]

If God did not create natural science, who did? If He did not create science, how did He break the rules of science to make miracles happen? This was how my sister explained to me the miracle of the virgin birth was possible when I believed nobody except Joseph could be Jesus' father.

 

[Resha Caner]

If God did not create natural science, who did?

You're confusing the phenomena with the study of that phenomena. When a ball falls to the earth, that's simply what happens. When a scientist gives name to that phenomena (gravity), collects data, hypothesizes an equation to fit the data, and then tests the equation - that's science - the method of doing those things - something only humans do. Balls will fall to the earth regardless of whether we do science.

If He did not create science, how did He break the rules of science to make miracles happen?

A miracle is not breaking physical laws.

This was how my sister explained to me the miracle of the virgin birth was possible when I believed nobody except Joseph could be Jesus' father.

Every man in the village of Nazareth could have been Jesus' father. Knowing that biologists have actually observed births with no male progenitor (known as parthenogenesis), doesn't explain Luke 1:35.

 

[GodLovesCats]

You're confusing the phenomena with the study of that phenomena. When a ball falls to the earth, that's simply what happens. When a scientist gives name to that phenomena (gravity), collects data, hypothesizes an equation to fit the data, and then tests the equation - that's science - the method of doing those things - something only humans do. Balls will fall to the earth regardless of whether we do science.

Of course if that ball is hanging on a tree and a strong wind blows, man did not make it drop.

A miracle is not breaking physical laws.

A miracle is often a supernatural event - one that defies all known scientific laws and theories.

Every man in the village of Nazareth could have been Jesus' father. Knowing that biologists have actually observed births with no male progenitor (known as parthenogenesis), doesn't explain Luke 1:35.

But no man was. God is. Therefore, God broke a science rule by making a baby without a human dad.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course if that ball is hanging on a tree and a strong wind blows, man did not make it drop.

Huh? I never said man made the ball drop in any circumstance. Gravity made it drop. But gravity is not science. Studying gravity is science. Do you see the difference?

A miracle is often a supernatural event - one that defies all known scientific laws and theories.

Many people use the word supernatural, but that word is not in the Bible, and I don't like it. Just because we don't know how God did it, doesn't mean it breaks a physical law. At one time we didn't have the law of gravity. Rather, a more appropriate description would be that some miracles have employed extraordinary means, i.e. means beyond human ability. But, hey, tornadoes are beyond human ability, and they're not breaking physical laws.

But no man was. God is.

Yes. True.

Therefore, God broke a science rule by making a baby without a human dad.

No. All we know is what was revealed in verses such as Luke 1:35.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Anyway, do you believe ID comes from God or man?

 

[Resha Caner]

Anyway, do you believe ID comes from God or man?

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. Do you understand the difference between gravity and studying gravity?

ID, as a hypothesis, comes from man. Intelligence, as a characteristic of living beings, comes from God.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yes I do.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes I do.

Cool. Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Anyway, do you believe ID comes from God or man?

All of man's ideas come about because God made man.. made his brain.

It is just observing that "rabbits don't pop out of dust" - not exactly rocket science to admit to the obvious.

blind faith evolutionism claims that "dust" has in it -- the properties to "get to the rabbit end point".

 

[BobRyan]

If God did not create natural science, who did? If He did not create science, how did He break the rules of science to make miracles happen? .

God is able to "act" and His actions don't "break science" any more than building a brick house "breaks science"

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe you should read The Design Inference.

from your link

" The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)"

"How can we identify events due to intelligent causes and distinguish them from events due to undirected natural causes? If we lack a causal theory how can we determine whether an intelligent cause acted? This book presents a reliable method for detecting intelligent causes: the design inference. The design inference uncovers intelligent causes by isolating the key trademark of intelligent causes: specified events of small probability."


================================= end quote
(to determine - "what are the things that were MADE" vs things due to "undirected natural causes")

The ID of Romans 1 is far less "scientific" than that. It Romans 1 ID takes more "Faith" than what is being proposed in your link to reach the high standard of ID in Romans 1 -- and yet that Romans 1 ID is "the minimum" according to God's Word -- the lowest level so obvious in its observations in nature that all mankind even the pagans can apprehend.

In other words - take away the science in your link - and add faith ... to get the Romans 1 basic ID level that all mankind can see. "The only objection" possible when going from the very minimum ID level of Romans 1 -- over to the level of ID in your link is in "adding science" to the scope of it where we calculate probabilities and breaking down macro observations in Romans 1 into micro events with each having their own probability calculated. The "objection" would then be to adding the rigor of the science that we find in your link.

God comes to earth and "makes something" which the scientist says "did not occur naturally on its own".

You then say that to know that it did not occur naturally on its own (rabbits popping out of the dirt for example) is to infringe on the Bible.

My main objection with ID is that by framing the idea as a scientific hypothesis, it inadvertently takes on a divine claim, thereby infringing on Exodus 20:3.

how so??

You can't tell me what my objection is. I gave you my objection.

You object that it does not rise to the level of a gospel presentation.

But Romans 1 says those without scripture at all -- clearly see the ID that is "in nature" .. it does not argue that all mankind knows about the virgin birth or the trinity.

That wasn't my objection.
I will add a second objection. I gave you my view of Romans 1:18, and an example of an unbeliever who exhibited the effect. The second objection I've been alluding to, then, is an inappropriate use of the term "ID". If an evolutionist were to show me a picture of bacteria and claim it demonstrates evolution, I would object in the same way. A picture shows nothing of changes in allele frequency, and so to make any statement about evolution from a picture alone is erroneous. If they were to show me 2 strands of DNA from that population of bacteria at 2 different points in time, and how they are different, that would constitute a proper argument for certain facets within the evolutionary field of study.

I don't see how that is an objection to ID.

ID is stating the obvious - rabbits don't simply pop out of the dust. When you start with dust... how do you get "rabbits"?

The Bible says God put rabbits there.
evolutionism teaches its believers that the dust itself "had the properties" to get to the "rabbit" end point. ID says "dust as no such properties" ... that is not rocket science. It also says the complexity and design seen in rabbits is far beyond "dust" and shows both design and manufacture.

 

[Resha Caner]

You object that it does not rise to the level of a gospel presentation.

I misunderstood what you were saying the first time I read this. Yes, I am objecting to that. A "presentation" that doesn't mention Christ and his salvific gift is not the Gospel at all. Salvation does not depend on us. People can believe a multitude of erroneous things (including evolution) and still be saved. That's the whole point of the Gospel.

When you obsess over geological layers and what is in them to the point that your conversation with an unbeliever never mentions Christ, you have lost the Gospel.

In other words - take away the science in your link - and add faith ...

Sigh. No. The two are not interchangeable. ID is a scientific hypothesis, not something accepted on faith. Your statement amounts to: I can change things and the final product is the same as what I started with. I can remove Polonius from Hamlet and replace him with Captain America and it's still Shakespeare. Sorry, but no.

I see a constant problem in discussing science with lay people that they fail to grasp the extent to which rigor is critically important. One must track the details with extreme care. The tiniest of changes can ruin everything.

You then say that to know that it did not occur naturally on its own (rabbits popping out of the dirt for example) is to infringe on the Bible

That's not what I said. Again, rigor is important here.

How do you know God? Do you know God because you're smart enough to know God, or because God revealed himself to you?

[edit] P.S. I understand your use of the term "evolution", but strictly speaking, evolution makes no claim about rabbits popping out of the dust. Rather, that is abiogenesis. Again, that rigor thing. Evolutionists will crucify you over mistakes like that. You lose credibility and they stop listening. If you really want to engage them, you need to understand them. You need to listen to them.

 

[Resha Caner]

This got really side-tracked. I will note that the idea of common ground between creation and TE is something that interests me. It's worth a discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

For he sake of "reference"

The Gospel, eternal life, the Trinity, scripture are all concepts beyond ID.. ID is a basic element that Romans 1 points to - common to all mankind... visible and apparent to all mankind.
1. Determine that something is made. ID
2. Deduce the invisible attributes of the maker based on observations alone.
3. Choose to submit to the drawing of God "I will draw all mankind unto Me" John 12:32
4. Respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit "He will convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16

Romans 1 ID is the incredibly basic rudimentary steps of 1 and 2 available to all mankind even pagans according to Romans 1.. even atheists.

Modern ID is like the Romans 1 version only with the scientific "rigor" of studies in nature that rely on structured analysis -- added to that basic level of ID found in Romans 1.

Modern ID is about taking macro systems, dividing them into micro component-necessary-parts and estimating probabilities, in addition to observing what does not occur in nature and in most cases can't even occur in a contrived scenario in the lab.

You object that it does not rise to the level of a gospel presentation.

But Romans 1 says those without scripture at all -- clearly see the ID that is "in nature" .. it does not argue that all mankind knows about the virgin birth or the trinity.

I misunderstood what you were saying the first time I read this. Yes, I am objecting to that. A "presentation" that doesn't mention Christ and his salvific gift is not the Gospel at all.

Agreed. Romans 1 is not talking about the Gospel .. it does not claim that pagans look at a tree or a bird and come away convicted of the virgin birth, the incarnation of the Son of God, vicarious substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ, a 7 day creation week etc.

Neither does the science employed in the ID paradigm claim to be presenting such a thing.

ID is a scientific hypothesis, not something accepted on faith.

The same is true of Romans 1 - the pagans are confronted with evidence in nature - in the "things that have been made". But it does not mean they also were informed about the mission of God the Son at the same instant.

Your statement amounts to: I can change things and the final product is the same as what I started with.

How so?

[edit] P.S. I understand your use of the term "evolution", but strictly speaking, evolution makes no claim about rabbits popping out of the dust. Rather, that is abiogenesis.

Evolutionism in its strictest sense will in fact start with something like a prion or a prokaryote and imagine a long string of "just so stories" trying to get it to "rabbit".

But in practice they often start with "the accretion disc around the early primordial sun"

Evolutionists will crucify you over mistakes like that.

Some will...others know full well that Dawkins and the History Channel and a great many other sources do that very thing - linking cosmology to evolution of life.

 

[BobRyan]

This got really side-tracked. I will note that the idea of common ground between creation and TE is something that interests me. It's worth a discussion.

The OP and title of this thread is an attempt at "giving" the TEs a leg to stand on .. "as if" they knew enough not to take the distinctively atheist tact that rejects the ID that we see in Romans 1.

It grants them the wisdom to not have unwittingly employed the atheist argument - that claims when God does something you would never know he had an ounce of intelligence by looking at what he did.

By contrast when we look at the art and invention of very intelligent members of mankind - WE DO expect to see irrefutable evidence of their skill and intelligence.

 

[GodLovesCats]

This is not an atheist versus Christian topic at all. It is about people who know the Bible is not a science book understanding what other Christians do not want to learn or accept.