ID deniers vs Romans 1 regarding those "without excuse"

[Speedwell]

I believe that is correct.

Whether they accept evolution or not.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it does not stop inquiry.

Saying that ultimately "God did it" does not prevent inquiry

Agreed.

Knowing the basic outline of the facts does not prevent us from studying to find more details

Knowing that God created humans means that the study of the human eye yields more praise to God for His wisdom and provision. It does not result in "so whatever you do - do not study the human eye" -- and never has gone that direction.

 

[BobRyan]

You should check out Wilhelm Schmidts "The Origin and Growth of Religion". He argues the very first primitive religions were in fact, monotheistic, stemming from the inference of God from nature, just as Paul argues in Romans. Man's first question, as he built himself shelters, etc... was "if I made this, who made that?" (that being the creation). This Primitive High God, as he called him, was seen in the earliest anthropological evidences, though his name and the practices surrounding him, differed. But it's the same situation as in Romans, which doesn't require knowledge of the Gods name, only that he is. Other theories apply evolutionary thought and assume a movement from polytheism to monotheism, seeing the latter as more sophisticated and therefore a later development, but what could be more simple than "if I built this, who built that?"

True - the "who built that" question comes up if you see a house that has amazing features and you say "I know who built my house... so who built that one over there".

It would never occur to you that meteorites simply landed on that piece of dirt and over time constructed such an amazing home.

 

[Paulos23]

Agreed.

Knowing the basic outline of the facts does not prevent us from studying to find more details

Knowing that God created humans means that the study of the human eye yields more praise to God for His wisdom and provision. It does not result in "so whatever you do - do not study the human eye" -- and never has gone that direction.

If ID proponents didn't insist in irreducible complexity and that something is designed just because they think it is, you would have a point.

But they do insist on it, and they dont look further. They want to shift the science teaching to their religion.

Yes, many scientists believe, but they didn't stop from finding the facts. ID just want to claim God did it and stop.

 

[RDKirk]

If ID proponents didn't insist in irreducible complexity and that something is designed just because they think it is, you would have a point.

But they do insist on it, and they dont look further. They want to shift the science teaching to their religion.

Yes, many scientists believe, but they didn't stop from finding the facts. ID just want to claim God did it and stop.

I acknowledge that there is a current strand of people who try to use the concept that way. They're wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it does not stop inquiry.

Saying that ultimately "God did it" does not prevent inquiry

Agreed.

Knowing the basic outline of the facts does not prevent us from studying to find more details

Knowing that God created humans means that the study of the human eye yields more praise to God for His wisdom and provision. It does not result in "so whatever you do - do not study the human eye" -- and never has gone that direction.

If ID proponents didn't insist in irreducible complexity and that something is designed just because they think it is, you would have a point.

How does that in anyway stop a biologist from studying the structure and function of the eye as a Christian?? it is done every day.

But they do insist on it, and they dont look further.

On the contrary - a great many Christians study biology - "facts" observable biology, structure and function "story telling not needed" to see something under a microscope and study structure and function.

The ID statement falls far below the Romans 1 minimal statement God says is known to pagans (who have no access to scripture at all) regarding the subject of origins. ID is not distinctively a Christian statement.

 

[BobRyan]

I acknowledge that there is a current strand of people who try to use the concept that way. They're wrong.

All scientists, all biologists, all medical doctors etc that are Christians who believe in a literal creation week do not make the supposed argument "I cannot study biology because I am a Christian" -- the stories told about bacteria one day becoming a rabbit are not needed to study factual biology , the structure and function of biology that can be observed.

 

[Ophiolite]

How does that in anyway stop a biologist from studying the structure and function of the eye as a Christian?? it is done every day.

I notice you haven't included studying the evolution of the eye. Why is that? (In your own words.)

 

[Paulos23]

Agreed.

Knowing the basic outline of the facts does not prevent us from studying to find more details

Knowing that God created humans means that the study of the human eye yields more praise to God for His wisdom and provision. It does not result in "so whatever you do - do not study the human eye" -- and never has gone that direction.



How does that in anyway stop a biologist from studying the structure and function of the eye as a Christian?? it is done every day.



On the contrary - a great many Christians study biology - "facts" observable biology, structure and function "story telling not needed" to see something under a microscope and study structure and function.

The ID statement falls far below the Romans 1 minimal statement God says is known to pagans (who have no access to scripture at all) regarding the subject of origins. ID is not distinctively a Christian statement.

I get you don't want to accept the theory of evolution, the 'story' if you will, but it is currently the best explanation for the evidence and what has been observed with DNA and breeding experiments.

There is a story of Kepler showing his orbital calculations to a nobleman, and the nobleman asking where was the hand of God. Kepler replied it was not needed for the explanation. Science is not trying to remove God but ID is trying to force God in by insisting life designed. And that is why it is a science stopper, if you don't understand how life changes over time you miss important pieces of the puzzle in understanding life.

When ID can explain the current body of evidence found and show that their idea explains it better and provides better predictions, then you might have something. Until then, you have an idea being shoehorned in with no good explanation.

 

[BobRyan]

I get you don't want to accept the theory of evolution, the 'story' if you will,

true - I never did go for the story that a prokaryote will turn into a rabbit given enough time and chance and "just so" stories all the way up Dawkin's "mount improbable".

I understand that for atheists and agnostics God's account of origins is not an option and so evolutionism's doctrine on origins is currently the best explanation for them consistent with their world view.

As Dawkins pointed out "it allows for an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Other people choose to "believe in" evolutionism for their own reasons of course.

the evidence and what has been observed with DNA and breeding experiments.

As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

========================


Child: “Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”

Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?

Child: “no you can never see it happen – but it is observed anyway -- it is the science fact of toothfairy and is beyond question"

 

[Speedwell]

One of the most important feature a scientific theory can possess is instrumentality. That is, as a parsimonious explanatory framework for an natural phenomenon, it facilities practical applications and the discovery of new information. This feature is independent of any ontological claims which may made on behalf of the theory. For example. it is possible to construct set of equations based on the Ptolemaic model of the solar system which will predict the courses of its constitute bodies. It is also possible to create a set of equations based on Kepler's heliocentric model. Astrophysicists use these because the ontological claim of heliocentricity is generally accepted. But even if we discovered that Ptolemy had been right all along and the Sun really did orbit the Earth, astrophysicists would still favor Kepler's equations over Ptolemy's, because they are simpler and much easier to work.
The same can be said of the theory of evolution. As an explanatory framework for biology it has proven to possess a highly advantageous degree of of instrumentality, even if you dismiss any ontological claims made for it. The most fruitful way to study biology is as if evolution were true, even if you don't believe it is. A fairly well-known evolutionary biologist who is also a creationist has taken this position and written at length about it--his name escapes me at the moment but one of our colleagues will remind us if you are interested in learning more about it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I get you don't want to accept the theory of evolution, the 'story' if you will, but it is currently the best explanation for the evidence and what has been observed with DNA and breeding experiments.

There is a story of Kepler showing his orbital calculations to a nobleman, and the nobleman asking where was the hand of God. Kepler replied it was not needed for the explanation. Science is not trying to remove God but ID is trying to force God in by insisting life designed. And that is why it is a science stopper, if you don't understand how life changes over time you miss important pieces of the puzzle in understanding life.

When ID can explain the current body of evidence found and show that their idea explains it better and provides better predictions, then you might have something. Until then, you have an idea being shoehorned in with no good explanation.

The story goes with Laplace and Napoleon: Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia

 

[Paulos23]

true - I never did go for the story that a prokaryote will turn into a rabbit given enough time and chance and "just so" stories all the way up Dawkin's "mount improbable".

I understand that for atheists and agnostics God's account of origins is not an option and so evolutionism's doctrine on origins is currently the best explanation for them consistent with their world view.

As Dawkins pointed out "it allows for an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Other people choose to "believe in" evolutionism for their own reasons of course.



As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

========================


Child: “Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”

Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?

Child: “no you can never see it happen – but it is observed anyway -- it is the science fact of toothfairy and is beyond question"

If you think I am an atheist because of evolution, you are wrong. The theory of Evolution works if there is a god or not. It doesn't disprove God, nor does it prove there has to be a god. And that is why ID exists, because some people have to have God in there. But shoehorning God into the theory doesn't make it so. What is observed can be explained solely by the theory of Evolution, ID just adds an additional step that is unnecessary.

 

[Paulos23]

The story goes with Laplace and Napoleon: Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia

Ah, thanks. Guess I heard a mutated version of that.