Evolutionary nonsense

[Resha Caner]

How is design to be detected in nature in the absence of such evidence?

If you said something like this before, I didn't see it. This is near to what I would say.

In order to identify design, one must define what design is. In so doing, one tacitly defines what is undesigned at the same time. Once someone admits to what is undesigned, one has conceded the argument, which is that God designed everything.

Now, maybe some would be willing to concede that God only designed some life and not all. I know some propose that human life was designed and created, but non-human life evolved. There is still a problem with such a position as it claims to know the mind of God - to know God's design methods. If God told us his design methods in Scripture, then they would have a case, but He has not.

1. An artist chooses to create a painting by randomly throwing paint at the canvas. The finished work is his design, but he incorporated chance into its production.

I see that more as a decision to concede design to chance. Yes, it makes an artistic statement, and the artist purposed that statement, but the paint on the canvas was not designed.

On chance: Proverbs 16:33

To me that seems more to say chance doesn't exist than that God created chance - I can't even give meaning to that phrase "created chance". IOW, it seems to align with 1 Cor 14:33.

One can also consider such "chance" events as a caravan passing by as Joseph's brothers were debating what to do with him. By and large the biblical view is that what seems to be chance in our view is part of some deliberate plan on God's part.

One can only assume it was chance. As such, I suppose it's unlikely we'll agree on this point.

On law: Genesis 8:22 along with Psalm 139:15 and Luke 12:27 and many others, including the whole first chapter of Genesis.

I never disputed that God stipulates natural law, so I'm not sure what you mean to say with these quotes.

[edit] Never mind. I get it now.

IOW, Creation is and always has been doctrine, not a logical conclusion from premises and certainly not a scientific conclusion. Like anything else in Christian theology, like Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Eternal Life, it is something we believe and science is irrelevant to that affirmation of faith.

Why? Why do you put creation in the "science" category and the virgin birth in the "miracle" category? Given parthenogenesis, pseudogamy, X0 and ZW chromosome systems, I don't think it's that hard to imagine their might be some asexual mechanism to produce an XY chromosome.

That's really all you're saying about evolution isn't it? That you're observing the mechanism God used to diversify the species. Well, if God created a male fetus in Mary's womb, I would expect that would be an observable process also.

No, clearly science doesn't actually rule out intelligent agency or it would rule out recognition of human agency too. What it rules out is consideration of any agency without evidence that there is an agent. Basic Occam's razor: don't multiply entities without necessity. IOW, don't consider miracles or any occult action unless you have to.

No, this is what I call the "exclusion problem". By demanding that I define how God would design life so that the evidence can be observed, I am automatically forced to concede the argument. Reference above where I explained why I reject DI as a hypothesis that can be demonstrated.

I can easily imagine cases of design that don't appear to be design: artificial flowers. My mother-in-law once went on a trip and asked my father-in-law to water the plants while she was gone. What she neglected to tell him was that one of the plants was artificial. He spent the whole week watering it because he didn't notice. They've gotten so good at it, that sometimes I have to touch a plant before I know if it's real or not.

Mimicry of nature can become so good as to be indistinguishable from design. As such, asking for evidence of design is just a dodge - something the requester knows can't be done.

You will have to refresh my memory. I have lost track of it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7814322/#post65343921

 

[Smidlee]

Mimicry of nature can become so good as to be indistinguishable from design. As such, asking for evidence of design is just a dodge - something the requester knows can't be done.

Asking evidence of design is like asking evidence that grass is green and the sky is blue. Either a person "sees" the grass as green or they don't. Grass is only green in your head. It's the way our brain interprets the outside world. The exact same thing with design , we are programmed to "see" design and recognize it. Richard Dawkins believes design found in nature is an illusion created by a brain which wasn't intelligent designed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Asking evidence of design is like asking evidence that grass is green and the sky is blue. Either a person "sees" the grass as green or they don't. Grass is only green in your head. It's the way our brain interprets the outside world. The exact same thing with design , we are programmed to "see" design and recognize it. Richard Dawkins believes design found in nature is an illusion created by a brain which wasn't intelligent designed.

I have always found it curious, notice atheists never ask what the Designer is like. You would think if they had no idea what God was like they would be curious what you think God is like, they never ask because they already know.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have always found it curious, notice atheists never ask what the Designer is like. You would think if they had no idea what God was like they would be curious what you think God is like, they never ask because they already know.

Be careful. I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume what unbelievers know about God. Unbelievers use similar inaccurate accusations like, "You know God doesn't exist, but you need the psychological crutch." And some do ask what God is like.

With that said, there is something very curious about those conversations. While saying god concepts are incoherent epistemic vacancies, they speak as if they have an idea of God in mind. I'm constantly having to correct them for attacking things about God I haven't said. I believe the Holy Spirit is working on them, but I try not to attribute any particular motivations to the person. It's never a productive conversation.

 

[gluadys]

If you said something like this before, I didn't see it. This is near to what I would say.

In order to identify design, one must define what design is. In so doing, one tacitly defines what is undesigned at the same time. Once someone admits to what is undesigned, one has conceded the argument, which is that God designed everything.

Exactly my point stated much more succinctly. And if one equate "design" with "creation" (not an error made by professional IDIsts, but often by some of their followers), this leads to saying God did not create everything.

Now, maybe some would be willing to concede that God only designed some life and not all. I know some propose that human life was designed and created, but non-human life evolved. There is still a problem with such a position as it claims to know the mind of God - to know God's design methods. If God told us his design methods in Scripture, then they would have a case, but He has not.

Again, I am in full agreement. Besides there is no evidence that humanity arose through a different design method than other living creatures, either in scripture or in science.

I see that more as a decision to concede design to chance. Yes, it makes an artistic statement, and the artist purposed that statement, but the paint on the canvas was not designed.

As I said to Papias, IDists seem to take the position that a decision made by an intelligent agent is enough to qualify the result as "intelligent design" regardless of the quality of the design. The same appears to apply to the method of producing the design, though it is difficult to tell as they strenuously avoid any discussion of how mental designs get made into physical form.

Personally, I think the difference between TE and ID would be bridged if IDists would concede that the Designer may choose a process of evolution as the mode of production of what he/she/it/them mentally conceived.

To me that seems more to say chance doesn't exist than that God created chance - I can't even give meaning to that phrase "created chance". IOW, it seems to align with 1 Cor 14:33.

It certainly seems to imply a dual view: from a human perspective "time and chance" happen to all (Prov. 9:11), but from a divine perspective all happens according to God's plan. The only conclusion one can draw from this is a strict determinism.

But I wonder if God, like our artist of random paint splashings, might allow for some real chance elements in the operations of creation, much as a computer programmer might factor in some randomly generated elements. That is just speculative on my part

I never disputed that God stipulates natural law, so I'm not sure what you mean to say with these quotes.

I think the wording of the scriptural passages suggests more than stipulation; it suggests to me an active divine participation in the operation of natural law.

Why? Why do you put creation in the "science" category and the virgin birth in the "miracle" category? Given parthenogenesis, pseudogamy, X0 and ZW chromosome systems, I don't think it's that hard to imagine their might be some asexual mechanism to produce an XY chromosome.

Good point. Basically we can never really distinguish miracle from natural process. We see a blossom on an apple tree in spring and assume it came to be there "naturally", but for all we know God caused it to appear miraculously. We see Christ blessing 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, and sending the disciples to feed 5,000 people. Afterward 12 baskets of leftovers are gathered up. We assume a miracle, but it could just as well be some natural phenomenon we don't have a handle on yet.

That is why I keep insisting that God is the God of nature and not just the God of miracles. If we do not keep to that focus, we may one day run out of miracles for God to have done, for all that we can see is "natural".

That's really all you're saying about evolution isn't it? That you're observing the mechanism God used to diversify the species. Well, if God created a male fetus in Mary's womb, I would expect that would be an observable process also.

I am not sure that it would necessarily be observable; possibly only the result (a male foetus) would be observable, with no indication of how that could be.

No, this is what I call the "exclusion problem". By demanding that I define how God would design life so that the evidence can be observed, I am automatically forced to concede the argument. Reference above where I explained why I reject DI as a hypothesis that can be demonstrated.

Basically, I think we are saying the same thing here. It is because I believe in God as the Creator of "all things, seen and unseen" that I reject the design inference, because that inference, to be demonstrable, has to show not only what is designed, but what isn't. And in Christian theology, as I understand it, there is nothing God has not created/designed. The design inference, to have validity, has to concede that chance and law are excluded from the work of God. That is a concession that I do not think a Christian should make.

I can easily imagine cases of design that don't appear to be design: artificial flowers. My mother-in-law once went on a trip and asked my father-in-law to water the plants while she was gone. What she neglected to tell him was that one of the plants was artificial. He spent the whole week watering it because he didn't notice. They've gotten so good at it, that sometimes I have to touch a plant before I know if it's real or not.

I have had the same experience, and in some cases I am not even sure after I have touched the plant.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7814322/#post65343921

Thanks, will go check it out again.

 

[Resha Caner]

We may share some similar views, but I think there are also significant differences between us. I may not have said it well, but I think disorder (randomness, chance) is an absence of God rather than a creative tool of God. And while we may agree that one cannot discern God's design through science, further that God is responsible for natural law as well as any direct intervention, I believe Genesis tells us that his choice was direct creation.

The conflict between the scientific story and Genesis as a narrative of direct creation is what motivates me to consider alternatives for biology. That some portray that interest of mine as a sacrilege is amusing to me.

First because they think such a position as unreasonable. From the view of an unbeliever I can understand why, but I don't understand why believers would chide me for thinking God's Word is a wisdom that stands above man's reason.

Second because science is supposed to be open minded. Again, I can understand those who might dismiss alternative ideas as not worth their time - a wasted investment. But I don't understand those who put so much energy into tearing down alternatives, especially when I get the sense they've not really spent any time seriously considering them.

Third because aside from evolution as a historical motivator, I still don't see what value the idea brings to practical applications (medicine, ecology, etc.). I can see it as a philosophical curiosity, but not as an idea with much practical power. And, like you, I don't see that it bears any salvatory weight. Whichever of us is wrong, God will forgive that transgression.

 

[SkyWriting]

We may share some similar views, but I think there are also significant differences between us. I may not have said it well, but I think disorder (randomness, chance) is an absence of God rather than a creative tool of God. And while we may agree that one cannot discern God's design through science, further that God is responsible for natural law as well as any direct intervention, I believe Genesis tells us that his choice was direct creation.

The conflict between the scientific story and Genesis as a narrative of direct creation is what motivates me to consider alternatives for biology. That some portray that interest of mine as a sacrilege is amusing to me.

First because they think such a position as unreasonable. From the view of an unbeliever I can understand why, but I don't understand why believers would chide me for thinking God's Word is a wisdom that stands above man's reason.

Second because science is supposed to be open minded. Again, I can understand those who might dismiss alternative ideas as not worth their time - a wasted investment. But I don't understand those who put so much energy into tearing down alternatives, especially when I get the sense they've not really spent any time seriously considering them.

Third because aside from evolution as a historical motivator, I still don't see what value the idea brings to practical applications (medicine, ecology, etc.). I can see it as a philosophical curiosity, but not as an idea with much practical power. And, like you, I don't see that it bears any salvatory weight. Whichever of us is wrong, God will forgive that transgression.

As a way to explain the past, evolutionary theory, the documentation of how things change, has predictive value. How things change currently, helps to understand, not prove, how they may have changed in the past.

The study of how things change today, gives us the ability to make genetic changes today. The world would currently be starving if not for genetic changes to our food crops. So there is value there. Understanding genetics allows for advanced identification of tissue matching and predisposition for disease.

Still, the very large idea that all life evolved from one common ancestor is entertaining, but has little value. The story scripture tells is better.

 

[Resha Caner]

Still, the very large idea that all life evolved from one common ancestor is entertaining, but has little value. The story scripture tells is better.

It was this larger idea I referred to. I think of genetics as genetics - as part of biology. Some may use genetics to explain evolution, but evolution isn't necessary to explain genetics.

 

[SkyWriting]

It was this larger idea I referred to. I think of genetics as genetics - as part of biology. Some may use genetics to explain evolution, but evolution isn't necessary to explain genetics.

As long as genes don't interact or cause any changes or new patterns, then true.

 

[gluadys]

It was this larger idea I referred to. I think of genetics as genetics - as part of biology. Some may use genetics to explain evolution, but evolution isn't necessary to explain genetics.

Depends on what you mean.

Where I see evolution intersecting with genetics is in explaining the pattern of genetic similarities/dissimilarities across species lines. We know that within any species, the degree of similarity between any two individuals follows closely the degree of family relationship. Siblings show greater similarity than first cousins, first cousins more than second cousins and so on.

The same seems to apply species-to-species as well. Our genome is more like that of the two chimpanzee species than any other, next to gorillas, then orangutans, then other apes, then other primates, other mammals and so on through the taxonomic order.

Why this should be without a genetic connection to more and more distant common ancestors is mystifying.

And beyond simply giving us a suggested phylogeny, it also seems to offer an plausible explanation for various curiosities in the arrangement of bodily parts and why we sometimes get anatomical anomalies such as human children born with tails.

But if you are simply referring to the Mendelian distribution of character traits from one generation to another, then no, evolution is not necessary to explain that.

What evolution is necessary to explain is adaptation. All of Mendel's laws are based on an assumed random distribution of genes to the next generation. Adaptation requires a non-random distribution of genes to the next generation--something achieved through natural selection. Evolution via natural selection is the only known means of species adaptation.

 

[gluadys]

As long as genes don't interact or cause any changes or new patterns, then true.

Ah, but they do. Much of today's research in the field of genetics is focused on understanding how genes interact with each other.

 

[mark kennedy]

It was this larger idea I referred to. I think of genetics as genetics - as part of biology. Some may use genetics to explain evolution, but evolution isn't necessary to explain genetics.

I agree, as a matter of fact I've been wondering about something like that for a while now. If evolution is when traits change in populations over time, do the genes have to change for an adaptation on an evolutionary scale?

Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene activity that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence.​

Just something to think about...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner
It was this larger idea I referred to. I think of genetics as genetics - as part of biology. Some may use genetics to explain evolution, but evolution isn't necessary to explain genetics.

By SkyWriting
As long as genes don't interact or cause any changes or new patterns, then true.

Ah, but they do. Much of today's research in the field of genetics is focused on understanding how genes interact with each other.

Agreed.