Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

[bluetrinity]

Originally posted by seesaw
No, cause in the bible god loves everyone why would he give people stuff that hurts and kills people.

You are mistaken about what the bible says.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Strickly speaking, evolutionary theory doesn't really care where the original life came from. Rather, evolution deals with how life changes and adapts to a particular environment.

Yes, abiogenesis and evolution tend to get lumped together a lot, but they are still independent lines of research. If it was proved that God or aliens or whatever created the first life on Earth, this would only affect abiogenesis, not evolution.

Well in order to establish whether or not God can possibly exist would require quite a bit of reconciliation between them.  I believe they are more dependent on each other than most think.  If aliens were responsible for life here on earth, evolution would still have a hard time explaining why things work the way they do, just like they do now when they dismiss God as the first-cause.  I have a problem with people blatantly dismissing God on "scientific" reasons and claim science and God cannot co-exist.   This is the heart of my effort.

 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Well in order to establish whether or not God can possibly exist would require quite a bit of reconciliation between them.  I believe they are more dependent on each other than most think.  If aliens were responsible for life here on earth, evolution would still have a hard time explaining why things work the way they do, just like they do now when they dismiss God as the first-cause.  I have a problem with people blatantly dismissing God on "scientific" reasons and claim science and God cannot co-exist.   This is the heart of my effort.
 

I don't see how evolution would have problems explaining why life is the way it currently is, if the origins were extraterrestrial in nature (indeed, some people even theorize that life may have arrived here "accidentally" from space).

I asked a question before, though, that you didn't answer: Where does the line fall between what has to be designed and what does not?

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by lucaspa
You are no longer discussing evolution or science, but are arguing your corner of the atheism vs theism debate.  What you seem to object to is that some people and SOME scientists have tried to use science to bolster atheism.

I simply object to an ideology that suggests God is unnecessary. 

Originally posted by lucaspa
The correct approach here would have been to see if they were representing science correctly.

Exactly.  I find it disturbing is most people can’t possible reconcile the idea that what is accepted as “scientific” can in fact misrepresent “science”.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Instead, what you did was simply take their word that what Dawkins, Atkins, Provine, etc. said about deity was the word of "science".  So now you are down on science and fighting atheism on the wrong playing field.

To a degree this is true, but I’ve pointed out the evolutionary model and their protagonist try to advertise that God is unnecessary and “illogical” by default due to science.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Smilin can quite easily be both a Christian and accept evolution as a scientific theory.  At least half the evolutionary biologists in history have done so, starting with Darwin.

You are somewhat right, but the implications and application of the popular evolution model cannot be reconciled without conflict.

Originally posted by lucaspa
The issue is how a Creator "intelligently designed".  It is not enough to "design" in the abstract.  Your watch is not just designed, but manufactured.  Any hypothesis of biological organisms as "intelligently designed" has as its necessary component that the organism is assembled/manufactured by the Creator in its present form.

First off your last part is an assumption that is not necessarily true if you are seeking to see if something was just created and to show intelligently designed is responsible, ignoring the means.  You are taking my analogy of the watch out of context.  I just want to know if science IS ABLE to determine a statement “intelligent design” because Smilin seems to think one cannot use science to determine “intelligent design” period.
Actually, I believe the details here to be quite trivial but the bottom line is that whatever the mechanism is, science is ABLE to show intelligence and distinct design to everything.

Originally posted by lucaspa
And then, like an artifact, it doesn't change.  Evolution is also viewed by the majority of Christianity as a how a Creator designed. In this view, the "Creator" used the secondary process of natural selection to do the designing.

First, natural selection does not actively “design” anything, and certainly cannot be attributed for "enginnering".  A designed appearance is a by-product of its unrelated work of ousting bad material. This is the difference between say, a sculptor who has material to shape and work with already, and an engineer who has to materialize, design, and construct.  But I’m not trying to go here.  The bottom line is science should reflect such a model and the way evolution is published today implies NO CREATOR, RANDOM, NATURAL PROCESSES which are quite contrary to Christian beliefs.  I’d love for them to explain their salvation while maintaining this model.


Bottom line: from a Christian’s perspective, IF God exists, everything MUST reflect upon it including science and everything related which are His creations.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Ah, but how do you do that?

It was suppose to lead him into a paradox so he would be forced to admit he was wrong.

Originally posted by lucaspa
I submit that you compare the watch with the heath (actually Paley did it, you should give credit) and decide that there are no processes in the heath that can produce a watch.  IOW, it's not the watch alone that leads you to conclude that it was manufactured/designed.  It's also the observation the the environment in which you found the watch could not possibly have produced it.

I know: it’s the scientific methodology utilizing all that information that leads to the conclusion.  This is all I was getting at.  Smilin seems to think science cannot be used to trace everything to conclude simple “intelligent design” – which is independent of the material or subjects.


That’s fine, but is it a “possibility” within scientific limits, to say “this watch is intelligently designed and was created” – created OBVIOUSLY meaning engineered, purposefully put together.  I don’t see why some people here are tying to twist the words around to suit their needs.  Can science determine: is there, or is there not, an intelligence higher than the watch that was responsible for it’s existence in the currently observed form?

Originally posted by lucaspa
The problem for your argument is that the universe does contain processes that will 1) produce life from non-life and

Wrong.  This is still unfounded and is just pure speculation.

Originally posted by lucaspa
2) produce the designs in biological organisms.

Evolution includes probability, randomness and constant change.  Though using facts, you are drawing the conclusion illogically: “I see complex design in nature, and nature is governed by randomness and changes, therefore the randomness and those changes are responsible for the complex design.”  Because it’s also excluding other possibilities that could be concluded just as equally.

Originally posted by lucaspa
The first is chemistry and the second is natural selection.  The reason you spend so much effort trying to deny natural selection is because it does produce design, so you have to deny that it does before you can conclude that organisms are manufactured artifacts.

I never denied natural selection. And no, natural selection has not been shown to be responsible for the actual design appearance directly, just that design and natural selection co-exist in the whole process (see my previous comment).

Originally posted by lucaspa
Yes.  But you cannot conclude that biological organisms are "created" by the same criteria because 1) we can see new species evolve and 2) we can observe that natural selection yields design.  So science has looked at your issue and decided that biological organisms are not manufactured artifacts.  Science has actually done what you asked and falsified intelligent design.

I wasn’t interested in criteria and I don’t think science is limited by criteria for “creation” because it just simply doesn’t deal with it in the way it is necessary – which is a point we agree on- but NOT being able to address it does not automatically dismiss the possibility. I don’t believe it has falsified it, just presented another ALTERNATIVE to believe concerning the observations of biological processes, and it provides a scientific and detailed explanation for a possible mechanism used by a non-falsifiable Creator.  It cannot be used to discredit Christianity wholly or a Creator at all.

Originally posted by lucaspa
There was a scientific effort put out by the creationists in the 18th and early 19th centuries.  That effort falsified creaitonism.  Modern-day creationists are not putting out any scientific effort. The only effort they are engaged in is trying to conceal that creationism is a falsified theory and has been proven to be wrong.

Quite a nice exaggeration but not properly supported. As a small example: the ICR is not a scientific effort? They have research labs and publications and attempt to refute evolution just the same.  Whether or not they are correct is another issue, but it’s an effort founded on science none-the-less.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Correction. What you find is that many evolutionists (me included) agree that atheism is a religion and that atheism is not supported by science any more than theism is.  Science is agnostic.

Evolution has bias implications and one being that God/Creator is unnecessary by default.  If a Christian follows this dogma, then they would have a hard time explaining a lot of things, most importantly God's existence.

 

 

[Marcel]

Originally posted by TheBear
Also, God would not have us believe one thing, and at the same time, saturate the earth and universe with contradictatory evidence.

God is not the author of confusion.

RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY... HELLO???

 

[XtremeVision]

 

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I don't see how evolution would have problems explaining why life is the way it currently is, if the origins were extraterrestrial in nature (indeed, some people even theorize that life may have arrived here "accidentally" from space).

I asked a question before, though, that you didn't answer: Where does the line fall between what has to be designed and what does not?

Sorry, I was addressing other posts simultaneously.

Ok, I concede that evolution within itself would not have problems - isolated to explaining “biological changes” - but it would have overhead problems because there is a hierarchy to the whole life process and if evolution attempts to discredit OTHER possibilities without reconciling all of them, it’s unstable science.  This is based upon the fact that evolution tries to ultimately push that a Creator is UNECESSARY for it’s processes, which it is impossible for it to determine so, whether it’s “God” or “Aliens”.

As for your other question, I can only honestly say it’s a matter of “common sense” and general observation.  I will come back with a more elaborative answer later (I am leaving work now).  There is no absolute means to say something is “designed” (unless you first define a way to measure complexity or similar approaches) but there is something to be said for inferring and circumstantial evidence, and if you can conclude otherwise it would be just the same.  I’m sure if the majority of the population considers something to be designed, anything that can be related to such would constitute “design”.  Not being able to specifically define “design” is like asking, “how much pain is too much pain” (not sure how clear that is).  It’s somewhat of a conundrum, but ultimately it’s still ridiculous to make this claim against the case because the same could be used for a myriad of things even science and evolution themselves, in fact, it is.

 

[blader]

XTremeVision:

I'm a scientific Creationist too. These scientists leaving God out of everything makes me angry. In fact, I believe that scientifically, God created everything exactly as it was about five minutes ago. This includes all the books, the thoughts in your mind, your memories, everything.

Those evolutionists are liars. They'll never prove my theory wrong with science. They're just angry because they don't want God to be a part of science, where in fact the truth is that God created everything about 5 minutes and 30 seconds ago, and counting.

 

[blader]

XtremeVision:

I've asked you to defend your view that no possible change can ever increase the genetic information of an organism three times now. You have not done so and have instead ignored my posts. I have read through your posts and no where have you defended that view that no possible change in an organism can ever increase genetic information. I ask you to either show me evidence to this effect in your previous posts, provide evidence, or retract your statement. Thank you.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by blader
XtremeVision:

I've asked you to defend your view that no possible change can ever increase the genetic information of an organism three times now. You have not done so and have instead ignored my posts. I have read through your posts and no where have you defended that view that no possible change in an organism can ever increase genetic information. I ask you to either show me evidence to this effect in your previous posts, provide evidence, or retract your statement. Thank you.

First, I was alluding to the "new information increase" as required for macroevolution (vertical, cross-speciation) to occur, not just a general content increase. I retract the original statement only "as is" for clarification; but my “goalpost” has not moved.


How do you suggest I show or qualify "no increase"? This is illogical. The burden is on you as the affirmative proposer. Hox genes and duplication, mutation, etc all have been shown to be hog-wash examples as, simply put, mutations only reorganize (redirect, recombine, change, whatever) already existing information and duplication is not as empirical and evidential as you put forth (and have not been observed to increase entirely new genes, 100% positive and distinct from the existing), nor do they actually support evolutionary claims and cannot sufficiently show how these processes can overcome the plethora of difficulties and improbabilities.


I am not obligated to show how "something is not". I can only show "something is" that is contradictory another “something is” - that "something is" is what I've stated above, the fact that the actual observations themselves have no been made, and my succeeding references. They just are derived as "suggestions" from “assumptions” that they "may have", "propose", "supports possibilities” and other shaky assertions and speculation. I'm not only speaking of chickenman's own quotation about “hox genes” and “bloc duplication in vertebrate genomes” but others as well like the fruit fly experiment, mice testing, anti-biotic resistance, peppered moths, etc.


The only refutations put forth by the evolutionists are generally outdated, mis-directed generalizations, blanket statements, speculation, strawmen and out-right unfounded denials despite specific and meticulous scrutiny and elaboration, and failure to recognize the dependency of grouping many areas together (e.g. “It’s just a fallacy…crucial fact: beneficial mutations do occur”, “none of the creationist arguments based on information theory that I am aware of adequately address the obvious increase in information”, “has not been accepted with scientific scrutiny”, “abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory”, etc). Proper study and observation will reveal this.


I suggest you just read for yourselves to see where the objectiveness is.


BEFORE WE CONTINUE, as requested - I have taken the time to compile a list of “relevant” quotes, taken from their context and shaved down, in order to serve as background information for my statements. However, it’s quite extensive in length, though not completely thorough, and would require a bit of reading (which seems to defeat the purpose as requested by the audience). It is approximately 30 typed pages (15,000+ words) and has been hacked from more than a dozen different sources. As I have shown before, it would be unreasonable and ridiculous to demand more tame support. Take it and address it, or leave it and digress.


Another note we should take into account. Whether or not these sources are “right”, I believe, at the VERY least, this information is enough to cast doubt on current evolutionary claims. I believe them to be reasonably correct (not 100% in all accounts) out of my own objective study and observation. Obviously many will not agree but I find it perfectly reasonable to see there are many practical sides and none should be pushed as exclusionary scientific “fact”.


For evolutionary background I suggest visiting Talk.Origins, particularly http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
And
http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/olson_to_max_1_cl.html
As they serves as the foundation for many of the arguments I to show.

**********
If it is acceptable, I will make a single, dedicated and static web page to display these quotes and references. If not, then I will try and take the time to post them here assuming they will be read and that the information themselves will be addressed (100k+ characters = 8+ pages in this forum).
**********

Remember, as ardently stressed by Aristotle, “What may seem obvious is not necessarily obvious”.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by bluetrinity
Debate doesn't offend me, just your arrogance. Truth certainly doesn't.

Either way. If mutations can be inherited, this a meaningless argument because then the question would obviously be, 1) why did they occur in the first place and 2) how are they passed on. Now your second point appears to have some merit, however, it does not address the question, how and why environmental agents damage DNA or how and why mistakes occur upon cell division. 

DNA is the famous double helix.  The bases in the nucleic acids (phophate -ribose - base) stick out like flat playing cards between the strands of the double helix.  The bases engage in what is called 'hydrogen bonding" between them.  The chemical structure of the bases is such that adenine hydrogen bonds to thymine and guanine binds to cytosine.  There are 2 hydrogen bonds in the A-T pair and 3 in the G-C pair.

Now, mutations occur by several different chemical reactions.  Some chemicals add a methyl group to either guanine or cytosine. When that happens, it destroys one of the hydrogen bonds and makes the guanine look like adenine and the cytosine look like thymine when the DNA is copied. Therefore, the new DNA strand has a A in place of a G and a T in place of a C.  Other chemicals have other modifications that change the appearance of the bases so that, when the strand is copied, the a different base is in the copied strand.

The process of copying the DNA is extremely complicated and is done by a host of proteins/enzymes that catalyze the chemical reactions.  This is not perfect.  Occasionally, the enzymes will insert a base into the copied strand, or delete one.  Sometimes, just because of stochiometry, they will insert the wrong omplementary base.  A G instead of an A.  The hydrogen bonding isn't as aligned in that case, but there is some, so the double helix is still stable.

Sometimes the enzymes will detach a whole segment of DNA from one strand (chromosome) and move it to another chromosome.  At other times, an entire stretch of DNA will be duplicated. That is, instead of moving along the DNA strand, the enzymes will go back to the beginning and copy the whole thing again on the end of the copied strand. These are the ways you get duplicated genes and chromosomes.

It all comes down to the energies of the chemical bonds involved and the specificity of the enzymes.  Neither can be 100% perfect. The energy of hydrogen bonds is low, only about 3.0 kCal/mole compared with the 7.5 kCal/mole of a covalent bond.  So they can be broken easily and they form easily.  No active site on any enzyme is 100% specific.  It can't be.  There are always other chemicals that have almost the right shape to fit the site, and, after all, cytosine is pretty similar to thymide in the type and arrangement of the atoms.

Now, once the mistake has been made, the next time the DNA is copied, it is likely to be copied faithfully, mistake and all. After all, the enzymes doing the job have no way of knowing that a particular base is a "mistake". They aren't intelligent.  So this is the way that mutations are inherited.

 

[Smilin]

Thank you Lucas...
I didn't have the energy today to respond properly...

Xtreme...I'll respond to you hopefully by Saturday.

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by blader
XTremeVision:

I'm a scientific Creationist too. These scientists leaving God out of everything makes me angry. In fact, I believe that scientifically, God created everything exactly as it was about five minutes ago. This includes all the books, the thoughts in your mind, your memories, everything.

Those evolutionists are liars. They'll never prove my theory wrong with science. They're just angry because they don't want God to be a part of science, where in fact the truth is that God created everything about 5 minutes and 30 seconds ago, and counting.

Argumentum ad hominem
 

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
As for your other question, I can only honestly say it’s a matter of “common sense” and general observation.

I'm sorry, but if there's one thing I've learned about science, it's that "common sense" often gets tossed out the window! (think quantum mechanics)

I will come back with a more elaborative answer later (I am leaving work now).  There is no absolute means to say something is “designed” (unless you first define a way to measure complexity or similar approaches) but there is something to be said for inferring and circumstantial evidence, and if you can conclude otherwise it would be just the same.  I’m sure if the majority of the population considers something to be designed, anything that can be related to such would constitute “design”.  Not being able to specifically define “design” is like asking, “how much pain is too much pain” (not sure how clear that is).  It’s somewhat of a conundrum, but ultimately it’s still ridiculous to make this claim against the case because the same could be used for a myriad of things even science and evolution themselves, in fact, it is.

Well, I think if you're going to claim that something is "designed", you need to first specifically define what can and can't be designed.

This is my biggest issue with the whole ID argument. It's all very well and good to say something can't happen naturally, but I'd like to see where nature ends and design begins.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Hox genes and duplication, mutation, etc all have been shown to be hog-wash examples as, simply put, mutations only reorganize (redirect, recombine, change, whatever) already existing information and duplication is not as empirical and evidential as you put forth (and have not been observed to increase entirely new genes, 100% positive and distinct from the existing), nor do they actually support evolutionary claims and cannot sufficiently show how these processes can overcome the plethora of difficulties and improbabilities.

This is what I call the "shell game".  You demand an "increase in information" that is a two step process. Then you move back and forth between the steps, claiming that each step is insufficient and therefore information is not increased.

Increase in information in genomes is a two-step process. The first step is increasing the amount of DNA.  The second step is selection for new capabilities resulting from mutations.

Yes, point, insertion, or deletion mutations change the existing gene.  They do not add a lot of DNA. BUT, they do give new abilities to the proteins that they code for. For instance, Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984.  In this case a frame shift mutation (insertion or deletion of one or two bases) randomly scrambled the existing gene.  The new protein was the active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon), which is not present in any other organism on the planet. A brand new ability.

Now, of course, comes the next step:  selection.  The individual with the mutation enjoys a competitive advantage (for a bacteria) because it now has a food source unavailable to all other individuals of its population. Therefore, it is selected over those individuals when it comes to reproduction, making more copies of itself than other individuals.

Selection ALWAYS increases information. Always. This has been shown by the mathematics guru of the ID movement William Dembski. So, by choosing among the individuals, selection increases information from generation to generation.

duplication is not as empirical and evidential as you put forth (and have not been observed to increase entirely new genes, 100% positive and distinct from the existing)

Gene duplication is very evidential. Observed in real time at this point.  As you point out, gene duplication doesn't give you, instantly, a "100%" new gene from the existing one.  This is part of the shell game.  What gene duplication does do is provide new DNA that can now undergo modification by point mutations becauase it is not needed to keep the organism alive. The original copy of the gene is still producing the necessary protein.  So the duplicated gene can now be modified by mutation to produce new properties/characteristics.  So here is one source of novelty  and new information for evolution.


How do you suggest I show or qualify "no increase"? This is illogical. The burden is on you as the affirmative proposer.

Ah, the old "burden of proof" nonsense.  There is no absolute burden of proof as you are using it.  Not outside of science and certainly not within science.  In science, every claim has to be tested and supported.  Yours included.

the fact that the actual observations themselves have no been made,

But they have.  I've provided several examples.  Did you read them?

and my succeeding references.

Those references state that the data doesn't exist. That is easily refuted, as I have done, by showing you the data does exist. One of the tragedies of creationism is that people like you get conned by the professional creationists.  You actualy trust these guys and they lie to you in return. 

 

[Smilin]

I'm REALLY wish I wasn't ill today....BOY I'D LOVE to jump in right now... (sniff)

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I'm sorry, but if there's one thing I've learned about science, it's that "common sense" often gets tossed out the window! (think quantum mechanics)

 

Well, I think if you're going to claim that something is "designed", you need to first specifically define what can and can't be designed.

This is my biggest issue with the whole ID argument. It's all very well and good to say something can't happen naturally, but I'd like to see where nature ends and design begins.

I do not think “common sense” can truly be ignored all together, but there are times where semantics need to be sorted out.  I do not think anyone will disagree that a “watch” at least appears designed and that it must be engineered/created, but there may be disagreement for something like “what is considered moral?”.  I do not think we necessarily have to define what can and cannot be designed, but what is required to design something.  It is implied that a purposeful intelligence higher than whatever it is that would be designed is needed at the least.


Honestly, I agree somewhat but this is quite abstract and cannot be treated as a concrete thing in this sense.  QM is far from properly supported to really be considered something as practical as scientific observations today (I do not disagree with QM, I love it in fact).  A cliché: when asked, “if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?” – well duh, we know given the premise that two physical objects colliding will send some sort of wave vibrations (interpreted as “sound”), but the whole philosophical implications cannot be ignored – no one can verify, no one can testify. So is appears to be irrelevant, but understood. Hope this makes sense?  I’m trying not to elaborate too much because I’m actually tired of going in circles for so many years heh.


The reasoning as to how abiogenesis is “simpler” (Occam’s razor) or more reasonable that an “infinite Creator” eludes me! (not that everyone asserts this point)

The bottom line: beliefe in God ultimately requires "faith".  I ultimately rest upon this and do not deny it.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by XtremeVision
I simply object to an ideology that suggests God is unnecessary. 

Fine, then fight the ideology.  Science can't tell you whether deity is necessary for the material processes we observe or not. See the thread Methodological Materialism.  Your argument is with atheism -- a rival faith to your own -- and not with the scientific theory that is evolution.  If you insist on equating evolution with atheism, then you are going to lose your ideological battle. Separate atheism from evolution and you've got a good case against atheism.  Tie atheism to evolution and you are doomed.

To a degree this is true, but I’ve pointed out the evolutionary model and their protagonist try to advertise that God is unnecessary and “illogical” by default due to science.

This is much too broad a brush.  Kenneth Miller and Michael Ruse both accept evolution and reject creationism.  Yet both reject the idea that evolution means saying that God is unnecessary or illogical.  Both are theists. 

the bottom line is that whatever the mechanism is, science is ABLE to show intelligence and distinct design to everything.

Science is capable of detecting manufacture by an intelligent entity.  But the problem is that science can't show intelligent design in many areas because natural selection is an algorithm to get design.  Yes, science can show that organisms are designed, but the "designer" is natural selection, not some intelligent entity.  In fact, one of the problems that got the 19th century version of ID in theological trouble was that many of the designs in nature are not "intelligent".  Any human can figure out a better way to do it. So to ascribe these dumb designs to a deity meant accepting that the Christian deity was stupid. That's not acceptable. Evolution actually got Christianity out of a very bad hole that ID put it in.

First, natural selection does not actively “design” anything, and certainly cannot be attributed for "enginnering".  A designed appearance is a by-product of its unrelated work of ousting bad material.

Misunderstanding of natural selection.  Natural selection preserves good work.  From Darwin:  "But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized.  This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

 The bottom line is science should reflect such a model and the way evolution is published today implies NO CREATOR, RANDOM, NATURAL PROCESSES which are quite contrary to Christian beliefs. 

Again, you are taking the statements of evolutionists who are atheists and extrapolating evolution outside what it can legitimately say as representing what evolution actually does say.  Separate the science from the people who talk about it.

First, to say that "natural processes" are contrary to Christian beliefs is to accept the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without deity. Where in Christian theology is that stated?  In the Fontispiece of Origin Darwin quoted Butler:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

You are saying that Butler is in error. That "natural" really doesn't require and presuppose an intelligent agent to render it so.  It is your position that is contrary to Christian beliefs.

Second, evolution is not "random" the way that you are using it.  Natural selection is the exact opposite of "random". It is pure determinism.

Third, evolution implies nothing about the existence of a creator. It only says that such a creator didn't create according to a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.

I’d love for them to explain their salvation while maintaining this model.

Easy to do.  Salvation has nothing to do with evolution.  Again, read the final 3 chapters of Finding Darwin's God.

Bottom line: from a Christian’s perspective, IF God exists, everything MUST reflect upon it including science and everything related which are His creations.

But the science doesn't have to prove the existence of God, does it?  It's all in your perspective.  If you believe that God created using the material processes discovered by science, then everything in science does reflect upon it. The problem is not with science, but with your theory of how God created.

That’s fine, but is it a “possibility” within scientific limits, to say “this watch is intelligently designed and was created” – created OBVIOUSLY meaning engineered, purposefully put together.  I don’t see why some people here are tying to twist the words around to suit their needs.  Can science determine: is there, or is there not, an intelligence higher than the watch that was responsible for it’s existence in the currently observed form?

The watch can be determined to be a manufactured artifact because there are no processes on the heath that could produce it.  It had to be manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath.  Biological organisms, no.  Because there are processes in nature that can produce the designs in biological organisms.  Did or does a deity use natural selection as its manufacturing process? Science can't tell you. What science can tell you is that other material processes (such as zapping organisms into existence) are not needed.  You look at that sentence and think "God is not needed".  I look at that and remember Butler and think "science can't tell you whether God is needed or not, but what we can tell you is that God doesn't need another manufacturing process besides evolution." 

 

[XtremeVision]

lucaspa, thank you for IGNORING my conditional ( ) .  You are so respectful and professional....

May I present my references as I noted and will you please address them without making these broad and generalized straw-men arguments?  What are your objectives for this approach anyway?

Originally posted by lucaspa
Selection ALWAYS increases information. Always.

Selection does not increase information.  It cannot be shown to be the source for producing new information.  You see more information now, compare it to "possibly" and "proposed" pre-existing data (without actually connecting them) and declare that the selection was responsible for the increase. I pointed out the false logic in asserting this.  My references address this as you seem to wish to ignore, probably for self-serving, bias reasons in order to make yourself look better.  Oh well.
 

Originally posted by lucaspa
Those references state that the data doesn't exist.

I suggest you read them in their entirety and stop taking things out of context.  This misrepresents our argument to the highest degree.

Originally posted by lucaspa
That is easily refuted, as I have done, by showing you the data does exist.

No, you went off on your own tangent not really addressing the crucial issues they were arguing, did some hand waving and declared it as a refutation.

Originally posted by lucaspa
One of the tragedies of creationism is that people like you get conned by the professional creationists.  You actualy trust these guys and they lie to you in return. 

One of the tragedies of evolution is that people like you...
Oh wait...

 

 

[XtremeVision]

Originally posted by lucaspa

Originally posted by XtremeVision
I simply object to an ideology that suggests God is unnecessary.

Fine, then fight the ideology.  Science can't tell you whether deity is necessary for the material processes we observe or not.

I was trying to point out that this isn't what is advertised and taught and that people seem to think otherwise.  So I treat it as ideology, incorporating the two. The rest of your post is circular because you refuse to see this as my case.

 

 

[XtremeVision]

For the sake of edification:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

http://www.non-contradiction.com/ac_works_b6.asp