Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[lesliedellow]

Then why is ID opposed by so many.

Intelligent Design, with a capital ‘I’, as championed by Behe & Co, tries to claim that there are aspects of nature which actually require the existence of God for their explanation. All of the examples they have put forward so far have been explicable without reference to God.

On the other hand, a scientist like Owen Gingerich would be happy to say that what he sees in nature strongly suggests (but doesn’t prove) to him that there must be an intelligent designer. He would be clear, however, that his personal intuition is not science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well you should like that one. It was written by a Christian scientist who had no problem with evolution.

And?

 

[inquiring mind]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

Non-creation or macroevolution is not reality. You may consider it ‘realistic,’ close to reality, but that is based on the limitations of micro-observation and imagination. Non-creationists are certainly not holding a reality trump card… if that’s what you’re suggesting.

 

[Bradskii]

Not in my understanding. In my understanding, the whole process is supernatural in some sense, just because of the fact that it's created and maintained by a supernatural Being. I think they just use the eye as an example because it obviously could not develop by chance.

If the whole process is guided by God, then yes. It's all supernatural. And not 'by chance'. God intended it to happen as it did. There was no chance. God cannot have been surprised by the way things turned out. Yet He reached a point where He realised that the eye (for example) wasn't going to evolve. And He had to step in a specially create it.

That's your position. God can cause the evolutionary process to form any aspect of any being. Except eyes. He has to make an exception for those. He has to step in at some point and fiddle with creation.

Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all?

 

[Speedwell]

Non-creation or macroevolution is not reality. You may consider it ‘realistic,’ close to reality, but that is based on the limitations of micro-observation and imagination. Non-creationists are certainly not holding a reality trump card… if that’s what you’re suggesting.

No, they're just holding all the evidence and that's a pretty high card. But I think that the real gap between creationists and non-creationists is the interpretation of Genesis as accurate literal history.

 

[renniks]

There is nothing wrong with assuming that there was a "law maker." The problem with creationism is that the law maker continues to fiddle with his laws instead of laying back and letting the laws do their job.

Well if I create something I can certainly make any adjustments I choose.

 

[renniks]

Nature runs smoothly most of the time but when natural forces buildup we get hurricanes, floods, volcanoes and many other nasty things. We also get sunny beach days and skiing days and many other nice things.

That's not what I was talking about. I mean why is there enough order to create and maintain living organisms in a world created by random processes?

 

[renniks]

#1 Because ID is not science.
#2 Neither is 'God wiggles atoms'.

Scientists don't care if people believe these things. However, they should not be taught in science class, since it isn't science.

It should be taught because it is science. It uses the scientific method to make the claims it does.

 

[Speedwell]

Well if I create something I can certainly make any adjustments I choose.

The trouble with ID's genetic tinkering idea is that nobody could come up with an example of where it would be necessary.

 

[renniks]

If the whole process is guided by God, then yes. It's all supernatural. And not 'by chance'. God intended it to happen as it did. There was no chance. God cannot have been surprised by the way things turned out. Yet He reached a point where He realised that the eye (for example) wasn't going to evolve. And He had to step in a specially create it.

That's your position. God can cause the evolutionary process to form any aspect of any being. Except eyes. He has to make an exception for those. He has to step in at some point and fiddle with creation.

Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all?

Only that's not my position at all. And I don't think it's Behe's position either. I think that's a misunderstanding.
God doesn't suddenly realize things. He already has all knowledge. He doesn't allow things to change by themselves. As you said, there's no unguided process. So there's no fiddling. It's all a miracle, from the creation of matter onward. The fact that it's so complex only tells us it could not be a process that came about by chance, but that everything is God's design.

 

[Bradskii]

That's how I understand it. Basically saying they are smart
enough to figure out what God wasn't smart enough to do.

It's like singing the praises of a computer programmer. He can literally do anything! He set up our system to run perfectly.

Then why does he turn up each week?

Ah, there are some things that don't work so he needs to come it and fiddle with it now and then.

Omnipotent? Seems not...

 

[Bradskii]

Only that's not my position at all. And I don't think it's Behe's position either. I think that's a misunderstanding.
God doesn't suddenly realize things. He already has all knowledge. He doesn't allow things to change by themselves. As you said, there's no unguided process. So there's no fiddling. It's all a miracle, from the creation of matter onward. The fact that it's so complex only tells us it could not be a process that came about by chance, but that everything is God's design.

You seem not to understand the creationist position. They will tell you that life evolved by natural processes instigated and guided by God. Yet some aspects of life needed to be especially created. Such as the eye.

Ipso facto, God needed to step in. The process he designed couldn't do it. That's not my definition of being omnipotent.

 

[Speedwell]

It should be taught because it is science. It uses the scientific method to make the claims it does.

No, it is based on what they call the "design inference" which is that if they can show that the evolutionary process is inadequate at any point then the only alternative is intelligent design--which is a failure of logic if nothing else.

 

[renniks]

You seem not to understand the creationist position. They will tell you that life evolved by natural processes instigated and guided by God. Yet some aspects of life needed to be especially created. Such as the eye.

Ipso facto, God needed to step in. The process he designed couldn't do it. That's not my definition of being omnipotent.

There's no stepping in if he's already actively creating everything. That assumes he stepped out at some point.

 

[Speedwell]

There's no stepping in if he's already actively creating everything. That assumes he stepped out at some point.

Now you're being a theistic evolutionist again.

 

[AV1611VET]

It should be taught because it is science.

I'm going to have to disagree here.

I know of no known scientific processes that was employed to create the universe during the Creation Week.

 

[Larniavc]

If you can get even a bicycle to make itself, that would be good enough.
No cheating and making the parts first.

I can't show you that. Bikes are not alive, though. I've asked you if you can answer my question about measurements of complexity but you have twice refused.

Will you please answer the question?

 

[renniks]

Now you're being a theistic evolutionist again.

I'm a creationist. But I don't think people get that God was doing everything either way.

 

[renniks]

I'm going to have to disagree here.

I know of no known scientific processes that was employed to create the universe during the Creation Week.

ID doesn't teach the Bible. It merely teaches that life as we know it appears to have a designer.

 

[renniks]

I can't show you that. Bikes are not alive, though. I've asked you if you can answer my question about measurements of complexity but you have twice refused.

Will you please answer the question?

I think you got the idea. If it has multiple components that have to function together to do a task, it's complex.