2 proofs that nature was designed

[Astrid]

My husband has a similar position. He thinks evolution is happening, and God steps in every now and then to give it a helping hand in the direction he wants it to go.

I asked him why, if God has a specific goal in mind, he didn't just create that end goal right at the start. He wasn't able to think of an answer to that.

Steps in to tinker now and then, as if trying to
keep an old English sports car running.
God, the semi-omni who hasn't it in him to
design a universe that can operate without
His micromanagement.
Sounds very disrespectful.

 

[Astrid]

I too have many Christian friends who align themselves with evolution, but they frequently mean something else - ie a God-directed evolutionary process whereby God gives it a kick every so often to keep it on course.

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency. I suppose you could from the perspective of logic posit that God has been watching the footie these last 14 Billion years and has never had anything to do with the process; a sort of absenteeist version of theism. But my friends wouldn't buy into that either.

So basically you have friends who
cannot commit to intellectual honesty.

 

[Astrid]

perhaps that's what has happened, but there is no necessity for it.

Yes, that really is kind of lame, but you have to be pretty ignorant of theology to fall for that as the only alternative to divine intervention on the material plane.

We' ve often noted the hard line binary thinking of fundamentalists.
Even this non theist is sophisticated enough to see alternatives there.

 

[Frank Robert]

True evolution's hypothesis is for undirected change with no external agency.

The selective agent in evolution is the pressure of the environment acting on the population.

In Lenski's Long-term Experimental Evolution laboratory project where the food was limited to 12 e-coli colonies one of the e-coli colonies developed the ability to feed on citrate aerobically resulting a robust colony. The appearance of the Cit+ (novel) trait meets the criteria of Behe's irrefutably complexity but the exact mechanisms were traced back to multiple potentiating mutations.

 

[Astrid]

The selective agent in evolution is the pressure of the environment acting on the population.

In Lenski's Long-term Experimental Evolution laboratory project where the food was limited to 12 e-coli colonies one of the e-coli colonies developed the ability to feed on citrate aerobically resulting a robust colony. The appearance of the Cit+ (novel) trait meets the criteria of Behe's irrefutably complexity but the exact mechanisms were traced back to multiple potentiating mutations.

Do you miss hearing the "half a wing"
irreducible complexity argument?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you miss hearing the "half a wing"
irreducible complexity argument?

I miss 'on a wing and a prayer'. How far could one get on half-a-wing and a prayer-and-a-half?

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you miss hearing the "half a wing"
irreducible complexity argument?

Among the problem creationists have is that they are still locked into 19 century Darwinian Theory and have never heard of exaptation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Among the problem creationists have is that they are still locked into 19 century Darwinian Theory and have never heard of exaptation.

If a creationist understood evolution inside and out, and could explain it at the PhD level, yet refused to believe that is how it happened ... preferring instead to believe God created the universe in six days ... would you think he has a problem?

 

[Astrid]

Among the problem creationists have is that they are still locked into 19 century Darwinian Theory and have never heard of exaptation.

Its a giveaway when they concern
themselves about "Darwinism".
One might equally want to savage Ptolmemy
or Galileo for their observations and theories.

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't doubt that there are some individual creationist who understand evolution but defer to the bible. They are entitled to their beliefs which in and themselves are not problematic.

The problems arise when creationists institutions like AIG and DI provide a mangled version of the ToE to the public and promote a pseudoscience to be taught in public schools.

 

[Astrid]

I don't doubt that there are some individual creationist who understand evolution but defer to the bible. They are entitled to their beliefs which in and themselves are not problematic.

The problems arise when creationists institutions like AIG and DI provide a mangled version of the ToE to the public and promote a pseudoscience to be taught in public schools.

"Defer to Bible" is not so simple as that.
What does the Bible say?
"Defer to belief in infallible ability to understand
the bible" is closer. That is no better than
intellectual dishonesty.

The AIG etc who do as you describe are just
liars, snake oil salespeople. Con men.

Something seriously wrong with beliefs that
need or would accept such help.

 

[Frank Robert]

"Defer to Bible" is not so simple as that.
What does the Bible say?
"Defer to belief in infallible ability to understand
the bible" is closer. That is no better than
intellectual dishonesty.

The AIG etc who do as you describe are just
liars, snake oil salespeople. Con men.

Something seriously wrong with beliefs that
need or would accept such help.

My point was that individuals may be sincere in their beliefs but institutions that promote pseudoscience based on zero research should know better

 

[Astrid]

My point was that individuals may be sincere in their beliefs but institutions that promote pseudoscience based on zero research should know better

Yep.

 

[Speedwell]

If a creationist understood evolution inside and out, and could explain it at the PhD level, yet refused to believe that is how it happened ... preferring instead to believe God created the universe in six days ... would you think he has a problem?

No, I would just think he was eccentric. I give you Dr. Todd Wood, PhD in biochemistry and understands evolution as well as anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problems arise when creationists institutions like AIG and DI provide a mangled version of the ToE to the public and promote a pseudoscience to be taught in public schools.

I'm going to agree with this, based on the fact that the Creation Events didn't use a lick of science at all.

They were a series of miracles; not natural processes.

And for that, I do wish ICR, DI, and others would stop trying to explain Genesis 1 as if God used science and Mother Nature to bring this universe into existence.

Ditto for the Ark, the Flood, and almost anything else that were products of miracles ... not science.

This is, in my opinion, what should be taught in public schools.

In short, Creationism doesn't belong in science class; it belongs in history class.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I would just think he was eccentric. I give you Dr. Todd Wood, PhD in biochemistry and understands evolution as well as anyone.

Thanks, Speedwell.

I'm watching this now.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks, Speedwell.

I'm watching this now.

BTW, welcome back. We missed your particular take on these subjects.

 

[VirOptimus]

If a creationist understood evolution inside and out, and could explain it at the PhD level, yet refused to believe that is how it happened ... preferring instead to believe God created the universe in six days ... would you think he has a problem?

Anyone can reject reality for any reason, its not my problem as long as they dont try to spread it.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, welcome back. We missed your particular take on these subjects.

Thank you very much!

I just finished watching Mr. Wood's video.

I like that guy and applaud his honesty.

 

[Speedwell]

Anyone can reject reality for any reason, its not my problem as long as they dont try to spread it.

And worse, spread hatred for those who don't agree with them, including their fellow Christians.