• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Freedom777, Oct 23, 2002.

  1. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    +373
    Methodist
    Private
    Originally posted by XtremeVision
    The relevance to intelligent design in biochemistry is plain. Design is evident in the designed system itself, rather than in pre-knowledge of who the designer is. Even if the designer is an entity quite unlike ourselves, we can still reach a conclusion of design if the designed system has distinguishing traits (such as irreducible complexity) that we know require intelligent arrangement. (One formal analysis of how we come to a conclusion of design is presented by William Dembski in his recent monograph, The Design Inference (Dembski 1998)
    .)

    I submit that this analysis of design based solely on the "designed system" is not how Dembski or anyone else infers design.

    For starters, Dembski and the ICR are not saying that the intelligent entity just thought up a good design. They are saying that the "design" is actually a real, assembled or manufactured artifact.  IOW, not only was it designed, but it was made.  Therefore looking at the object alone is not enough to infer that it was manufactured by an intelligent entity. What you have to do is look at the environment the artifact was found in to see if processes in the environment could have produced the object.  Manufacture by an intelligent entity can be inferred only if such processes are absent.  This is one reason  Dembski fails. The other reason is that Dembski does not see that Darwinian selection is an algorithm to get design and thus is a process in the environment of biological organisms that makes them. Thus, when Dembski applies his "explanatory filter" in the monograph referred to, he ends up having to conclude that Darwinian (natural) selection is an intelligent entity.
     
  2. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    +373
    Methodist
    Private
    First, your premise "if evolution is a natural mechanism explaining everything and implies ..." is wrong.  Biological evolution explains the origin of species. 

    We know that when you say "evolution" you mean all of science that conflicts with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.  Which includes gravity and the formation of stars and planets, chemistry and the formation of life, and the Big Bang that gives the material mechanism for the appearance of the universe.  But even in this expanded version, you are still wrong.  There is nothing in any of that which implies that deity doesn't exist.

    Now, as to "not directly and divinely involved in natural affairs".  Christianity gave up, long ago, the "direct" involvement in nature.  Christian theologians long before Darwin had deity acting by "secondary mechanisms", by which they meant the material mechanisms discovered by science. 
    "But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws"  Whewell:  Bridgewater Treatise. 

    Darwin viewed evolution as just another one of these secondary mechanisms: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." Origin of the Species pg. 449.

    To exclude deity from being "divinely involved in natural affairs" is to accept the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without deity. Science can't tell you this. As Gould put it when Phillip Johnson tried to make this argument: "To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature.  We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould  "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge" Scientific American  267(1), July 1992p. 80

    Now that we have disposed of your faulty premise, let's discuss "fall of man, sacrifice, faith, etc."

    Fall of man: There are a couple of reconciliations here. 
    1. The Adam and Eve story is an archetypical story where Adam and Eve simply stand for each and every one of us.  This fits in with Christian theology that Jesus died for our individual sins.  Each of us sins, and not just because Adam did once upon a time.  We do so on our own.  The avoidance of sin even became impossible when Jesus made thoughts sins.  So each of us needs salvation for our own sins.

    2. What is sin?  I submit that it is basically putting our desires and wants above what Yahweh wants.  Well, that kind of selfishness is built into our very genes by evolution.  We are who we are because of our "selfish" genes.  Therefore, we are already "fallen" because God used evolution to design us. The only way to overcome our selfish genes to become close to God is through salvation.

    Jesus:  Evolution in particular and science in general has nothing to say about Jesus.  There are accounts about the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshu ben Joseph.  But there is no physical evidence of any of that left today. Therefore science is unable to comment.

    Faith:  Faith comes, ultimately, from personal experience with deity.  Whether that experience is first hand like Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Spong, and millions of others or it is second-hand from the personal experiences of the people depicted in the accounts in the Bible.  Science also comes from personal experience, but science has consciously chosen to accept only personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions. This is called "intersubjective".  Since personal experiences of deity are not intersubjective, science excludes them from its domain.  That does not mean the experiences are wrong.  It simply means that they cannot be part of science.  Since they are not part of science, science cannot say that the experiences never happened.  Therefore science cannot legitimately comment on faith.
     
  3. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    +373
    Methodist
    Private
    Which stuff? You didn't quote or specify what you are referring to.
     
  4. lucaspa

    lucaspa Legend

    +373
    Methodist
    Private
    I'm not quite sure what level of detail you want here.

    DNA derives from RNA.  After all, DNA is simply deoxyribose as opposed to ribose in RNA.  Nucleic acids are formed by simple chemical reactions wen ribose, bases, and phosphate are present. This happens even in the absence of catalysis by enzymes. Bases and ribose are formed by chemical reaction of ammonia, methane, cyanide, water and other simple compounds.

    The asscociation of the bases via their hydrogen bonds is also simple chemistry.  Now, RNA not only can function as hereditary material but also as enzymes, even to catalyzing its own synthesis.  Also, some proteins, particulary those with a lot of arginine, preferentially associate with RNA/DNA containing a lot of adenine or thymidine while proteins having a lot of lysine preferentially associate with RNA/DNA having a lot of guanine-cytosine.  So there, by simple chemistry, you have the beginnings of protein coding.

    People have looked at the evolution of RNA and protein coding.  One group derived a possible Darwinian route from the RNA world to today's DNA-based protein coding, with all the intermediate steps being useful.  The paper is: AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world.  J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. 

    In terms of mutations and gene duplication, the "why" is simply that no chemical reaction is or can be 100% accurate for reasons I gave in the post.  To make DNA copying 100% error-free would require more energy available for work than is present in the entire universe.  As it is, there are repair enzymes that take care of most of the methylation damage to DNA.  But it can't get all, for the reason listed above.

    The mutation rate observed from experiment and DNA analysis is a little over 1 per individual.
     
  5. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    That document didn't really answer my question. The closest was a vague mention of "irreducible complexity", with no specifics. The rest of it didn't answer anything (unless the answer is that IDer's don't know themselves?).
     
  6. XtremeVision

    XtremeVision Regular Member

    215
    +0
    Non-Denom
    It was simply meant to give some insight and the possible application.
     
  7. XtremeVision

    XtremeVision Regular Member

    215
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Lucaspa, when I refer to evolution explaining “everything”, I meant explaining all the natural process NOW, as in, after the first-cause (i.e. God) not necessarily anything about a "literal interpritation" of Genesis. There are absolute principals which are not dependent on how you interprit the actual phrases. For example, God DID create everything.

    And I wouldn’t claim you’ve “disposed” of my “faulty premise” just yet.

    It seems illogical to understand evolution as natural processes that can explain all current biological/environmental processes (secondary mechanisms, whatever) separate God’s first-hand intervention and still hold true to claims like God’s perfection, the intentional flooding of World to “start over”, God speaking and using people directly, the history, lineage and the many miracles in the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the power of Jesus and his own miracles, and his glorious Resurrection, etc. How do you propose sin was first introduced? Major problems here: you said we are “already fallen because God used evolution to design us” which implies imperfection. Would you say then God had to intentionally introduce the imperfections and death, which is contradictory to the Word that says everything was perfect and good at one time? Would we have been perfect, biologically, from when God first decided to make the world? Death, disease, evil and hatred, character and physical flaws do not represent the work of an infinite, Holy Creator unless you can show they could come along “naturally” and somehow dependent of a perfect Creator’s intents. Why then, would a Creator decide to make a perfect being (Jesus) later on to provide a means to escaping these imperfections? This is quite contradictory to Biblical claims. Even IF the imperfections were somehow introduced, I believe science should be able to show something that would imply this. Since evolution itself is defined as independent natural processes and as you’ve said, only secondary mechanisms of God. If these things defy natural processes then there must be a way to show this as well, like finding a hole in these natural processes, which should be able to be revealed by natural (scientific) means as well.

    Salvation, to “overcome our selfish genes” by “faith” - I find this ridiculous. Overcome a naturally programmed imperfection of ourselves by something unnatural? Sin is part of a spiritual ideology, a spiritual death and is crucial to explaining how a spiritual and faithful relationship can be had with the Creator. I do not see how you can introduce natural processes and natural obstacles to this. I can elaborate more if necessary for anyone who wishes for me to go into detail.

    EDIT - About your explanation to bluetrinity: simply put, pick any idea/principle/fact (doesn't matter) you present and ask yourself "why?" and keep going and you'll find that there is a dead-end (which is kinda where philosophy begins).  I think this is what he was getting at.
     
  8. XtremeVision

    XtremeVision Regular Member

    215
    +0
    Non-Denom
  9. XtremeVision

    XtremeVision Regular Member

    215
    +0
    Non-Denom

    Ok, we’re going to be moving into highly philosophical ideology here, but we’ll see what we can do.  I’m not going to argue the actual material because I believe debating over an abstract idea like “what is 'design'?” is ridiculous, but believe insight can be had.  That’s all I was trying to do.


    According to the above:  If you can look at an “environment” and notice that “environment” is in fact that NOTHING EXISTS, then you are forced to conclude that NOTHING could NOT have been responsible and therefore something BEYOND (intelligence beyond observable means) must have been responsible because it would have to exist outside of our observable means to “observe” the nothingness.  The only way I can see getting around this is to prove the universe has infinitely existed and that “nothingness” is impossible – which actually impossible for us to do itself (hard to word this).  I understand there are working theories for this, but they are ambitiously and hopefully drowned in speculation and theoretically impossible to “prove”.  Why then, is God (an infinite intelligence beyond all comprehension) so illogical?  It seems to be the “simplest” and best explanation to me.


     
     
    Perhaps I do not understand what you are concluding here exactly and whom you are advocating.  So an "intelligent entity" referred to as "natural selection" is more logical than the concept of “God”?  If everything must be present first in order for natural selection to work, how does it explain natural selection itself?  What was it doing before it had to work on that material to make sense/design of all the randomness/chaos? Just looking at this you can see it’s circular and recursive, which just doesn’t make sense.  How would any part of science reconcile this unless two portions were brought together and somehow the big picture was drawn (in a sense opposed to people who say evolution and abiogenesis are totally independent).
     
  10. bluetrinity

    bluetrinity Lost sheep

    +9
    Catholic
    It is fascinating to read about how these mistakes occur, but I still do not understand where the initial impetus for the mistake comes from.
     
  11. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
       Thermodynamics, honestly. Error-correction and perfect duplication are not easy things. They are not an "initial stage".

       So, basically, that's how things are. Imperfect replicators would have emerged first, because a perfect replicator requires a lot of work, assuming it's even possible.

     
     
  12. blader

    blader Evilutionist

    809
    +0
    You still miss the point. I did not ask you for an hypothetical example of a mutation creating new genetic information. What I asked for is an example of ANY change, whether through mutations or other means, that you would consider "increase in genetic information." If you don't even know what an example is, how are you fit to judge what is and what is not increase or decrease of genetic information? Since you have retracted your original statement that "no possible change can increase genetic information," then I would like you to follow up on that and tell me WHAT possible change can increase genetic information. You have agained tried to dodge the question. The burden of proof to show that information can be increased through evolution is up to the evolutionist. However, clarifying what YOU mean when you say "increase in genetic information" is up to you. If you do not clarify this, then we can't even talk about moving goalposts. The goal posts are invisible.
     
  13. bluetrinity

    bluetrinity Lost sheep

    +9
    Catholic
    So what you are saying is that you don't know why mutations happen. We know they do and we can describe how, but we don't know why. Is that right?
     
  14. Smilin

    Smilin Spirit of the Wolf

    +242
    Atheist
    Married
    Examples of diseases sent by God (according to the King James Version):

    1. The last plague inflicted upon the Egyptians (death of the first born)

    2. King Herod being 'eaten of worms'

    3. But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on <B>Pharaoh</B> and his household because of Abram's wife Sarai.

    4.

    2 Chronicles 21
    <SUP>12</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah,
    <SUP>13</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself:
    <SUP>14</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:
    <SUP>15</SUP>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day.

    Just a few examples.

    (God has sent disease by the King James Version of the Bible)
     
  15. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    See I always knew god was evil. Sending diseases thats mean. I am glad I am an athiest. :D
     
  16. Smilin

    Smilin Spirit of the Wolf

    +242
    Atheist
    Married
    It's also quite unbecomming to be 'spammed to death' with links instead of you stating your opinions, conclusions, observations etc. (that is if you have any...other than simply linking to your 'proving genesis' website)

    It's also unbecoming when someone answers you,,,you fail to acknowledge them.&nbsp; It's okay to say..I disagree.&nbsp; It's not okay to ignore someone's answers (I dare say because they don't agree with your viewpoint, and then asks the same questions...OVER AND OVER AND OVER.)
     
  17. Smilin

    Smilin Spirit of the Wolf

    +242
    Atheist
    Married
    Still waiting for you to answer my question...or can you?&nbsp; You're not the ONLY one who gets to asks questions mind you.&nbsp; (Or are you capable of answering the question?)....there's a POINT here..if you'll just simple answer...

    BTW..it's OKAY..to admit if you don't know.
     
  18. Smilin

    Smilin Spirit of the Wolf

    +242
    Atheist
    Married
    Excuse me...I have to vent...

    WHAT A CROCK OF...err...(don't feel like being mouth-washed today)

    Wishful thinking is hoping to hit the powerball lottery.

    Can't test evolution heh?&nbsp; Tell that to dog breeders, ranchers, nurserymen, farmers...etc...

    Ever heard of 'selective breeding'....from your statement...No you haven't.&nbsp; Look it up...and then please explain to me..(without evolution, how new breeds are generated without the science of evolution)

    Ever heard of hybrids?&nbsp; Can you explain them without the mechanism of evolution? If you can...Babwa WaWA will interview you on 20/20 :D

    &nbsp;

    But thanks for the totally uneducated, ignorant statement.&nbsp; (I'm guilty of the same tactic as well...just to get a great debate started.)...errrr....this is a tactic..right...???? :scratch:
     
  19. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    :cry: :cry: I am crying right now, people keep saying bad things about science/evolution and they seem to know nothing about it. I am crying cause it hurts that people in this time and day don't even know science. :(
     
  20. Smilin

    Smilin Spirit of the Wolf

    +242
    Atheist
    Married
    <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
    <TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
    <TR>
    <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
    <B>What are you referring to 'secular science'. </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    Xtreme Vision:
    Science that excludes divine/intelligent inspiration as a possible influence.

    Smilin:&nbsp;&nbsp;Science does not deal with theology.&nbsp; Neither does Driver's Education, Anatomy and Physiology, Psychology, English, Creative Writing, Statics, Dynamics, Physics, Thermodynamics, Home Economics, Buisness, Economics, wood carving and pottery classes.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you want&nbsp;inspiration, I'd suggest volunteer work with your favorite charity.&nbsp;



    <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
    <TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
    <TR>
    <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
    <B>I guess there are no 'absolutes' when you turn on any electrical device, listen to your CD player, use your cell phone, use your microwave oven, ..... Shall I continue? </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


    XtremeVision: Are you implying that I said there were none?

    Smilin:&nbsp; You made the claim there were no absolutes with science...NOT ME.&nbsp; Since you've forgotten the claim I made, would you like me to repost it?



    <TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="90%" align=center border=0>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
    <TD><B>quote:</B></TD></TR>
    <TR>
    <TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; FONT-SIZE: 11px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; COLOR: #ffffff; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana,Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #828fa2"><I>Originally posted by Smilin </I>
    <B>If science is a religion...please let me know what 'God' I am worshiping...

    <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/help.gif" border=0> </B></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


    XtremeVision: Whatever your uttermost absolute is.

    Smilin:...I'm not sure what this type of answer qualifies as in debating a topic.&nbsp; If you are referring to 'absolute knowledge'...I've started a poll on that.&nbsp; Be my guest and make your claims there.&nbsp; IMO, you couldn't answer the question (since it would debunk your whole argument), so you hid behind a totally absurd answer.&nbsp; Just my observations.
     
Loading...