Did Jesus create evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Here's an article for scientists and bible scholars alike.

What Holds the Universe Together?: Physics and the Bible: – Lambert Dolphin – Koinonia House

Physicst Lambert Dolphin examines the theories behind what holds the universe together, and suggests that the Bible and science don't have to be mutually exclusive.

khouse.org

I love Khouse and Chuck Missler.

I was a member of his organization at one time, and got his VHS series on creationism (with Mark Eastman).

I like the way he describes the Bible as a message from space, containing pre-written history, immune to hostile jamming.

 

[Kylie]

Evidently it's your opinion too.

If a person can leave Boston and take baby-steps and arrive at Los Angeles, more power to him.

If that's your example of microevolution, then so be it.

As long as he is the same man who left Boston, and arrived in Los Angeles exactly as he left.

You don't understand analogies, do you?

 

[Kylie]

How many trips to Boston is this guy making?

If microevolution is one trip from Boston to Los Angeles via baby steps.

And a second microevolution is from Los Angeles back to Boston.

How many times is this guy expected to traipse the United States before he arrives somewhere with a new genus?

I was very clear about this in post 53 AND post 60. If you were actually interested in a discussion, surely you would have read those posts, wouldn't you?

 

[YahuahSaves]

1) At t=0 either nothing existed, or existence itself existed.
2) t=1 exists.
3) Nothing cannot produce t=1.
Therefore,
C) At t=0 existence itself existed.

I could make the same exact argument for the origin of life. Intelligent Design is far superior to natural evolution since evolutionists also agree that evolution is guided, they just have no explanation for it and Intelligent Design does. In short, the only thing we know that is capable of creating is a mind. Abiogenesis has zero scientific support.

Had to laugh that the first minute and a half Bens trying to sell the viewers life insurance God is my "life insurance policy".

 

[All Becomes New]

Had to laugh that the first minute and a half Bens trying to sell the viewers life insurance God is my "life insurance policy".

I highly recommend watching the whole thing. It's fantastic.

 

[stevevw]

The problem I see with the simple analogy of evolution being small steps to a change is that it makes living things passengers in the process. They are evolved by some outside force of nature (NS and mutation) along the way. Whereas living things especially humans are active participants in what happens to them along the way.

Rather than just being passengers they can choose what route toward change and in doing so are actually the ones doing the driving. They are actually their own intelligent designers, artificially selecting what happens and therefore are directing the course of evolution.

For me this points to something more than naturalistic processes. It points ultimately to a mind behind evolution whether that be humans or God or some mind like force in the universe that cannot be produced or reduced to naturalistic processes.

Now if Mind is the result of naturalistic evolution then there is a lot of explaining to do. But how naturalists get around this is to say that there is no Mind or agency or at least it has no causal power and then explain everything back to naturalistic causes which often don't actually explain anything but correlate. But this still doesn't explain how we intuit that we do have causal power in our own lives and the world and can make meaningful changes.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I highly recommend watching the whole thing. It's fantastic.

I will when I'm not distracted by anything for an hour! Thanks for sharing

 

[YahuahSaves]

The problem I see with the simple analogy of evolution being small steps to a change is that it makes living things passengers in the process. They are evolved by some outside force of nature (NS and mutation) along the way. Whereas living things especially humans are active participants in what happens to them along the way.

Rather than just being passengers they can choose what route toward change and in doing so are actually the ones doing the driving. They are actually their own intelligent designers, artificially selecting what happens and therefore are directing the course of evolution.

For me this points to something more than naturalistic processes. It points ultimately to a mind behind evolution whether that be humans or God.

Partially correct. There is God’s will and God’s will was to give us choice. We are participants in our survival or our destruction. Often we choose the latter thinking it's true "freedom". We only have to look at humans interference to see that we aren't very good at defining what is good and what is bad. It often takes hindsight of many generations before we see the evidence.

 

[YahuahSaves]

This doesn't answer my question.

How would you explain biological evolution to someone who asked you what it was?

Refer to post #80

 

[YahuahSaves]

Something for the "scientists" to consider.

 

[Kylie]

Refer to post #80

That post is not an explanation for how scientists say evolution works, nor is it a post by you. Please answer the question I actually asked.

How would you explain biological evolution to someone who asked you what it was?

 

[Gene2memE]

Intelligent Design isn't science.

It's an attempt to smuggle creationism back into the classroom. After creationism got booted out in the late 1980s via Edwards v Aguillard, due to it being an explicitly religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause, ID was invented as a 'scientific theory' to take it's place.

The later editions of the creationist 'textbook' Creation Biology/Origins and Biology morphed into the first edition of the intelligent design 'textbook' Of Pandas and People, sometimes with barely any actual change to actual content. In some chapters, text was lifted word for word, with the exception of 'creationist' or 'creationism' being cut and past replaced with the words 'design proponents' or 'intelligent design'. Hilariously, in one case the beginning and end of the original word 'creationists' were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

ID is an explicitly religious doctrine. Kitzmiller v Dover found that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".

ID writer and advocate Michael Behe, during testimony for that case, admitted that a definition of science that included ID would also have to include astrology as science.

 

[Kylie]

Intelligent Design isn't science.

It's an attempt to smuggle creationism back into the classroom. After creationism got booted out in the late 1980s via Edwards v Aguillard, due to it being an explicitly religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause, ID was invented as a 'scientific theory' to take it's place.

The later editions of the creationist 'textbook' Creation Biology/Origins and Biology morphed into the first edition of the intelligent design 'textbook' Of Pandas and People, sometimes with barely any actual change to actual content. In some chapters, text was lifted word for word, with the exception of 'creationist' or 'creationism' being cut and past replaced with the words 'design proponents' or 'intelligent design'. Hilariously, in one case the beginning and end of the original word 'creationists' were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

ID is an explicitly religious doctrine. Kitzmiller v Dover found that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".

ID writer and advocate Michael Behe, during testimony for that case, admitted that a definition of science that included ID would also have to include astrology as science.

Never mind the fact that in all the years I've seen people putting forth the idea of Intelligent Design, I've never seen anyone who could propose what the intelligent designer would be if not God.

The best they can do is say, "What about super intelligent aliens who came and started life on Earth?"

But that just pushes the problem back a step. Where did these super intelligent aliens come from? Did they need to be intelligently designed as well? If so, the question of what the intelligent designer has not been answered. Or maybe those aliens didn't need to be intelligently designed, but if that's the case and intelligent beings can come about without being intelligently designed, then why can't we say such a process is responsible for the life we have here on Earth?

So yeah, as @Gene2memE said, Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never mind the fact that in all the years I've seen people putting forth the idea of Intelligent Design, I've never seen anyone who could propose what the intelligent designer would be if not God.

ID, in my opinion, is disrespectful to creationism.

 

[All Becomes New]

Intelligent Design isn't science.

It's an attempt to smuggle creationism back into the classroom. After creationism got booted out in the late 1980s via Edwards v Aguillard, due to it being an explicitly religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause, ID was invented as a 'scientific theory' to take it's place.

The later editions of the creationist 'textbook' Creation Biology/Origins and Biology morphed into the first edition of the intelligent design 'textbook' Of Pandas and People, sometimes with barely any actual change to actual content. In some chapters, text was lifted word for word, with the exception of 'creationist' or 'creationism' being cut and past replaced with the words 'design proponents' or 'intelligent design'. Hilariously, in one case the beginning and end of the original word 'creationists' were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

ID is an explicitly religious doctrine. Kitzmiller v Dover found that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".

ID writer and advocate Michael Behe, during testimony for that case, admitted that a definition of science that included ID would also have to include astrology as science.

Never heard that in my life.

/s

 

[Kylie]

ID, in my opinion, is disrespectful to creationism.

Just out of curiosity, how?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Intelligent Design isn't science.

It's an attempt to smuggle creationism back into the classroom. After creationism got booted out in the late 1980s via Edwards v Aguillard, due to it being an explicitly religious doctrine and violating the Establishment Clause, ID was invented as a 'scientific theory' to take it's place.

The later editions of the creationist 'textbook' Creation Biology/Origins and Biology morphed into the first edition of the intelligent design 'textbook' Of Pandas and People, sometimes with barely any actual change to actual content. In some chapters, text was lifted word for word, with the exception of 'creationist' or 'creationism' being cut and past replaced with the words 'design proponents' or 'intelligent design'. Hilariously, in one case the beginning and end of the original word 'creationists' were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".

ID is an explicitly religious doctrine. Kitzmiller v Dover found that the "overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".

ID writer and advocate Michael Behe, during testimony for that case, admitted that a definition of science that included ID would also have to include astrology as science.

The video from my perspective questions the rationale of "nothing" being behind the universe with its very balanced, and precise order.

Here's another video to consider.

 

[Kylie]

Never heard that in my life.

/s

Here's a source that discusses the kitzmiller v Dover case. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa.)

 

[All Becomes New]

Here's a source that discusses the kitzmiller v Dover case. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa.)

ID is not creationism. I know you atheists don't like that, but it's true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, how?

It attempts to bring science into the picture, dealing mainly with everything BUT what transpired during the Creation Week.

God, as you pointed out, can be most anything.

QV please:

Q: How is ID like and unlike traditional creationism and creation science?

A: ID is the most recent incarnation of creationism. Unlike traditional forms of creationism, ID does not openly rely on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Nor does it take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base of support from creationists with differing views. Like traditional forms of creationism, it claims to have scientific evidence for the existence of design in the biological world; unlike them, it refrains from claiming that the designer can be ascertained to be God. Yet, although some proponents have suggested that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveler from the future, such possibilities are not seriously entertained. In its scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution, ID's arguments are a subset of those used by traditional forms of creationism.

SOURCE