Yes, you're correct, but that sort of thought process would support Theistic Evolution rather than creationism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, you're correct, but that sort of thought process would support Theistic Evolution rather than creationism.It is easier if you are designing from scratch, but design by modification is more tricky. You have to keep intermediate forms viable too. Are some of the design flaws there because the optimum is simply not reachable through modification? 'If I was going there I wouldn't start from here' sort of thing?
Interesting -- we must be talking to different sets of creationists. Got any links? Thanks.
I think you'd be stretching quite a bit to claim that our bodies are perfect for anything. They're certainly sufficient, but hardly perfect.
Good point -- but if your point is that we can't possibly know what God would do if he were to design something, then don't turn around and claim (as many creationists have in the last decade) that life is indicative of a creator.Deamiter, for the first time, I think I can say you missed my point entirely. You aren't God. You can't possibly understand God's reasoning. What's to say we aren't perfect for what we were designed to do? You're still looking for this worldly king. What exactly would make a perfect human? No need to blink? No need to use the bathroom? Perfect vision (no holes)? There's a lot of compensation in our body that has to be there for it ALL to work. I think once we start to envision our idea of a perfect human it falls apart very quickly.
Might make a difference if you realized that Ham has one m in it, not two.I haven't seen it much since I moved to posting in OT from open C&E. Still, while modding C&E, I encountered the claim rather regularly (though to be fair, most creationists dropped the claim after it was discussed at length).
As for promenant creationists, if you google "Ken Hamm good perfect" you'll find a number of citations of his claim that the Bible's "good" was in fact perfect until Adam messed it up. I can't find a really good source (found 4-5 second-hand quotes so far), and I need to get to work, but it fits with what I've read of Ken Hamm in the past.
If we keep looking at the body as the Jews looked for a savior we'll never find what we're looking for.
Scotishfury09 said:Deamiter, for the first time, I think I can say you missed my point entirely. You aren't God. You can't possibly understand God's reasoning. What's to say we aren't perfect for what we were designed to do? You're still looking for this worldly king. What exactly would make a perfect human? No need to blink? No need to use the bathroom? Perfect vision (no holes)? There's a lot of compensation in our body that has to be there for it ALL to work. I think once we start to envision our idea of a perfect human it falls apart very quickly.
To explain that, just think of a book like an encyclopedia or a computer program like Windows 98. Computer programs don't write themselves; they need computer engineers. A computer program has a very complex set of instructions. Richard Dawkins, the arch Darwinist promoter and atheist, admits forthrightly that a single cell in your body has more information in it than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. That information is what coordinates the activities of the cell. Now, you know how impossible it would be to produce an encyclopedia by mixing letters at random until they came together in a certain way.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Neither of these things can be explained by the Darwinian theory. They don't even try to explain them; all they do is huff and puff and bluff and say, "You're not allowed to challenge our scientific fact." This dogma is not science at all. None of it has been demonstrated by experiment, which is what would have to happen for it to be truly scientific.Maybe some here can TRY to explain what they dont wanna explain in the article
Actually they do kinda:jeffweeder said:Computer programs don't write themselves
To which I'd ask, was there any intelligence involved in getting the mousetrap modified to work?Most effective in our debate was Ken Miller's attack on Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity." According to Behe, some biological entities are so complex that they simply could not have come about through the slow natural process of natural selection. Or by any natural process for that matter. They must therefore have come through "intelligent design." By way of example, Behe instanced the mousetrap: a contraption for killing small rodents, and something made of five separate parts (the base, the spring, etc.). Take any one of these parts away and the trap fails to function, argued Behe. It must therefore have been planned and put together at one point in time, and started life right out as fully functioning for its intended purpose. (It was not for instance a door stopper adapted for another end.)
Miller turned up for our debate with a mousetrap, or rather with two mousetraps. One in its original five-part form and one with a piece missing but the other parts bent so that it still functioned. With great effect, at a crucial point in the debate -- just after Behe had given an exposition of his thinking -- Miller whipped out his mousetraps, original and modified version, and showed just how lethal for Mickey and Minnie his modified trap could be. Of course, the New Creationists fought back, but really we all knew that that was the end of that line of argument. And more. Since the mousetrap example had been shown so obviously fallacious, strong doubts were now seeded about the worth of the other parts of the Creationist case. Miller was terrific, and we all knew it.
- Michael Ruse
Good point -- but if your point is that we can't possibly know what God would do if he were to design something, then don't turn around and claim (as many creationists have in the last decade) that life is indicative of a creator.
If absolutely anything could be evidence of design, you've just made the word 'design' to be obsolete as you might as well just call it reality and quit implying that we should be able to deduce a designer from any set of observations.
'Perfect' can be used in different ways as I understand it. It can mean 'without defect' as the Paschal lamb needed to be (and therefore Christ himself as our atoning sacrifice), or it can mean 'fit for purpose', a design/engineering concept. As has been touched the hebrew word for perfect is not used in Genesis, the word used for 'good' carries the notion of God taking pleasure in his creation. We can say that Creation is perfect then if we accept that it was as God intended it to be. I even started a thread on this some time ago when a certain Creationist said he didn't care what the original Hebrew said, he was more interested in the 17th century english translation he preferred.
PS - there's two 't's in scottish. and why are you furious?
But it's a valid argument that stems from the logic of Intelligent Design. If one set of complex/efficient features can be attributed to a designer, then another set of uncomplicated/inefficient features should be attributable to either a lousy designer or to no designer at all! As Deamiter said, if you can attribute any feature, no matter how complex or efficient, to design, then the notion of Intelligent Design has become useless because it explains nothing in its attempt to explain everything!I'm sorry, I'm not really trying to argue either way, I'm just tired of this "stupid designer" argument.
But it's a valid argument that stems from the logic of Intelligent Design. If one set of complex/efficient features can be attributed to a designer, then another set of uncomplicated/inefficient features should be attributable to either a lousy designer or to no designer at all! As Deamiter said, if you can attribute any feature, no matter how complex or efficient, to design, then the notion of Intelligent Design has become useless because it explains nothing in its attempt to explain everything!
That's why its best to get rid of the idea altogether, rather than box God into arguments for complexity. God is in everything: the simple and the complex. We must take that much on faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?