Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Some may promote that as the ideal, but it's one that will never be achieved. Rather than a "throw the bums out" approach that appeals to some magical absolute truth that no human can ever identify, it's simply a matter of stating what methods you will accept and what you will not. Those who agree with you become your circle of scientists. You give them certificates and if you have enough political clout, only those in possession of your certificate will be allowed to practice in the noted fields.

In other words, the more robust science is the one that admits everyone is influenced by something (rather than elevating some supposed superior group that isn't influenced by anything) and attempts to sort through those assumptions, play one off the other, test them, etc. Then you let the chips fall where they may, hold people accountable for what they claim & practice, and so forth.

Science and the scientific method is a process, not some kind of 'Mens Club', or such. With respect to any bias, the method is designed to minimise as much of this bias as possible (i.e. double blind testing, etc.), not to double-down on it as if it were a badge of honour. - as @ViaCrucis says:

If the same methodology is used and different conclusions are reached, then we should examine why that is so. But when we discover that the methodology was faulty, that the data was cherry-picked, or manipulated, or being misinterpreted, then we can conclude that the methodology was, in fact, faulty, and the findings excised. Not all conclusions are equal. Good science means following the method faithfully and allowing the data to determine the conclusion; insisting on a predetermined conclusion and mishandling data to reach that conclusion is not science.

I'd like to also add that the Science is in fact repeatable by other Scientists who ought to achieve the same (or statistically similar) results when repeating the experiment as detailed in the Science being duplicated. @Resha Caner , if you do in fact believe YEC 'Scientists' are doing actual science, could you point out any of their scientific research that we can replicate to get similar results that would validate it? After all, if the scientific method is observed then the data and results/conclusions will hold up to scrutiny, no matter what your personal bias is. If they're scientists, then they'll be using the scientific method, that's why they'd be called 'Scientists'.

 

[Resha Caner]

Science and the scientific method is a process, not some kind of 'Mens Club', or such. With respect to any bias, the method is designed to minimise as much of this bias as possible (i.e. double blind testing, etc.), not to double-down on it as if it were a badge of honour.

Indeed, the hope - the intent - is to minimize bias. But to pretend human differences play no role, or that there aren't some very longstanding debates that have remained unsettled for centuries, is naive. It always amuses me how often the "Scientific Method" is touted like something stolen from Mount Olympus by Prometheus. There is no "Scientific Method" in the singular. At best that is a philosophy. When implemented, it becomes scientific methods (plural) - as anyone who has actually worked with developing scientific standards well knows.

If I asked you to conduct a study in my field (mechanics) on the existence of jump phenomena in systems with cubic stiffness, and gave you only the abbreviated instructions to observe, form a question, develop a hypothesis, conduct a test, analyze the results, and derive a conclusion, how far would that get you?

... cherry-picking, manipulating, misinterpreting, and outright lying about data in order to reach the desired conclusion isn't science.

That's true, but that wasn't the statement I commented on. It was your comment that a Buddhist scientist would get the same answer as a Christian scientist, etc. And that if they didn't, well, they weren't scientists. That's a "No True Scotsman" argument.

Maybe the Buddhist and the Christian would get the same answer, maybe not. There are many historical examples of differing backgrounds driving scientists in different directions. That didn't make their work unscientific. Likewise, creationism has some legitimate scientific questions. Unfortunately, so far they've all fallen down on logistical details - and, more unfortunately, some people then take up the ideas like a campaign slogan, which is not at all helpful.

If the same methodology is used and different conclusions are reached, then we should examine why that is so.

I've seen it happen. And indeed we should investigate why it happened. But there is always an assumption that one person's experiment will repeat and the other will not. Such simplistic thought experiments are entertaining, but rarely helpful or conclusive. My experience is that sometimes both repeat their results, and sometimes neither repeats their results. The details involved are legion, and simplistically resorting to "Well, he's a creationist" (or some such dismissive label) isn't helpful.

As I said, I've got my own objections to YEC (as well as evolutionists), but I sometimes have the misguided hope that people will learn to talk about their opponents appropriately.

My approach to the OP was a bit case specific.

It was, and I think that was the right thing to do. I've always found your answers to be respectful and well-considered. You don't seem to let all the vitriol pull you in. And I say that even though I disagree with you on many things.

This is why I don't view the "scientists" of AIG and others like them as to be trustworthy or even upholders of the scientific process.

Oh, no doubt AIG's goal is political rather than scientific. It's too bad that they've drawn in some capable scientists and ruined their reputations as a result. The problem is that someone who has questions that don't fit the approved mold (been there on many occasions) starves for funding. The offer of money from AIG is too tempting for some. I expect they thought they could take the money, answer the questions they wanted to answer, and remain "pure". That's a hard thing to do - been in that boat as well.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Indeed, the hope - the intent - is to minimize bias. But to pretend human differences play no role, or that there aren't some very longstanding debates that have remained unsettled for centuries, is naive. It always amuses me how often the "Scientific Method" is touted like something stolen from Mount Olympus by Prometheus. There is no "Scientific Method" in the singular. At best that is a philosophy. When implemented, it becomes scientific methods (plural) - as anyone who has actually worked with developing scientific standards well knows.

I'm sorry, but the Science you don't seem to trust has literally catapulted us out of this world and brought us back down again. It has afforded us the opportunity to live longer, healthier lives, enjoy far less infant mortality and brings food to the table we didn't have to go spear in the back paddock ourselves, it allows us to talk to each other from opposite sides of the globe and we can enjoy knowing the global affairs of diverse countries and cultures from the comfort and safety of our own homes at a whim, etc.

If I asked you to conduct a study in my field (mechanics) on the existence of jump phenomena in systems with cubic stiffness, and gave you only the abbreviated instructions to observe, form a question, develop a hypothesis, conduct a test, analyze the results, and derive a conclusion, how far would that get you?

No idea. That said, let's talk about something mechanical I might get more out of - Let's say we want to get the best intake runner length for a fuel injected precision-built race engine under load between 6,500rpm and 8,000 rpm operating range - are you saying that we couldn't work this out using the scientific method? Admittedly this is a simplistic example that doesn't even have a null hypothesis, but the method of experimentation would give solid numbers off a dyno that could be analysed by anyone else to achieve the same (or similar) results, even if we do have some sort of bias. Compare that with picking up a workshop manual and notes from a mechanic that used to race Model T's when they were the new thing in town and using the information found in it without question, simply because the guy won all the races back in his day - which method would you choose? The scientific method isn't perfect, but for all its failings, this is literally the best way we have to come about facts and true things about the reality we all share.

The best science comes from the acknowledgement we all have biases and takes great care to minimise the effects of bias everywhere possible (double blind testings, etc.) - If you can't incorporate controls to minimise bias and/or the method can't be reliably reproduced by someone else, regardless of their biases then you aren't doing science properly & should probably go get a job with AiG or the Discovery Institute. If you're going to disregard all the advancement of science because it isn't perfect, then I'd challenge you to give all the luxuries you enjoy because of it, away.

 

[tas8831]

$$$, what else? Honest people that want to investigate the world, even with the bias of the desire to find evidence of deities, etc., won't outright fabricate results. After all, if your desire is to learn and spread that knowledge, knowingly making stuff up is completely counter to that desire.

Agreed in large part - but I think that these professional YECs also seem to think that deceiving their target audience or gaining converts is a plus for them in terms of their salvation. After all, wasn't is a prominent figure in Christianity that wrote something to the effect of telling lies to gain converts is OK?

 

[tas8831]

@Resha Caner , if you do in fact believe YEC 'Scientists' are doing actual science, could you point out any of their scientific research that we can replicate to get similar results that would validate it? After all, if the scientific method is observed then the data and results/conclusions will hold up to scrutiny, no matter what your personal bias is. If they're scientists, then they'll be using the scientific method, that's why they'd be called 'Scientists'.

Good point. Jeff Tomkins' failed paper declaring humans and chimps to really be only 70% similar (and thus separate creations, and thus evolutionists lie) was inspired by YEC Todd Wood using BLASTn to compare human and chimp and concluding that the evolutionists are right that we are 90+% similar at the DNA level. I submit that Tomkins read that, didn't like it because it is hard to dismiss as evidence, and so set out to find a way to decrease the similarity. And he got caught. And he doubled down and called names when confronted (on Reddit).
So Todd Wood did some 'research', but YEC Tomkins wanted to prop up his evangelical Christianity, so he decided to find a way to un-do the 'damage.' By NOT doing science.

And that is but one example.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sorry, but the Science you don't seem to trust has literally catapulted us out of this world and brought us back down again.

Oh, please. Let's not do this. I make my living using science. Skepticism is a common element, but when that skepticism comes from a particular type of person and regards a particular theory, suddenly it's cast as a lack of trust.

No idea.

Why not? I listed the generalized form of the scientific method for you. If it's such a great method, why can't you answer the question I asked? Anyone can do it - right?

That said, let's talk about something mechanical I might get more out of - Let's say we want to get the best intake runner length for a fuel injected precision-built race engine under load between 6,500rpm and 8,000 rpm operating range - are you saying that we couldn't work this out using the scientific method?

Of course not. But I'll bet you that if we had a fleet of engines with people all working independently, they wouldn't all get the same result. Given that science involves a continual striving for improvement, the solution we have at any particular moment is conceded to be less than perfect - and there are often multiple less-than-perfect solutions that will fit within the defined requirements bands. Picking the one best engine from that pool is a process of debate, concession, and eventual agreement - not a process of reaching the perfect answer.

If science brought everyone to the same answer, then supposedly we could put a series of those identical engines in identical cars with identical autonomous drivers. They would then face the same conditions on the same track, and races would have no winner.

But if you're willing to entertain the notion that the pool would produce a spectrum of answers, I'll ask you: why did that happen?

An interesting example BTW. As it happens my employer is a large manufacturer of a certain type of vehicle, and part of my job is "mechatronics" for the engine.

Admittedly this is a simplistic example that doesn't even have a null hypothesis ...

Simple examples can work as long as we avoid simple assumptions and reasoning that lead to a foregone conclusion. You actually can create a null hypothesis for this example. The reason you may have thought there wasn't one is exactly because of the point I'm trying to make about multiple methods. These multiple methods emphasize different facets of the more general method. Those working toward the engineering end of the spectrum are often working with a null hypothesis that was formulated years - decades - centuries ago. What has changed are the boundary conditions, so engineers focus on the testing step. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. At the other extreme are people with bold new questions who spend a lot of time in the observation/definition phase of the method and do little to almost no testing. That doesn't mean they're not doing science. But it is in that observation/definition phase where differences between people make the most obvious differences in the science being done.

But we also have to be careful that we don't drift into the attitude that everything we do (or that certain enlightened people do) is science. Some people think that way, and that is a fallacy.

The best science comes from the acknowledgement we all have biases and takes great care to minimise the effects of bias everywhere possible (double blind testings, etc.) - If you can't incorporate controls to minimise bias and/or the method can't be reliably reproduced by someone else, regardless of their biases then you aren't doing science properly ...

Don't know why you're repeating this. I already acknowledged there is always a desire to minimize bias. However, it can take a loooooooooong time to get to a point where everything is packaged in a way that allows for a formal description of how that is to be achieved. Biology was once primarily a qualitative science and in danger of going the same wishy-washy route as the social sciences. It's only within my lifetime that I've seen it find a quantitative basis - or at least that quantitative approaches have become more widespread.

... should probably go get a job with AiG or the Discovery Institute. If you're going to disregard all the advancement of science because it isn't perfect, then I'd challenge you to give all the luxuries you enjoy because of it, away.

Again, let's skip these kinds of comments.

 

[Resha Caner]

Jeff Tomkins' failed paper...

So only success is science? If a particular hypothesis fails a falsification test, suddenly what the person was doing isn't science? That's a faulty view of what science is.

I will add that I am unfamiliar with the particular paper you reference. It may well have been a bunch of hokum, but I see this attitude all the time - a foregone conclusion that if someone calls themselves a creationist, they can't possibly do science, so we'll cherry-pick the obvious examples of people calling themselves creationists and failing to confirm a hypothesis as "proof".

@Bugeyedcreepy ... my apologies for overlooking the question that @tas8831 is referencing. That was an oversight on my part. Before answering, I'll have to point you back to some of my other comments. First, I am not a YEC and disagree with their premise. Second, failing a falsification test does not mean someone isn't doing science. If you share that attitude with tas8831, you share his fallacy. Third, this is not an all-or-nothing thing. I view evolution as more a field of study (a collection of many theories) rather than a single theory. Fourth, my specialty is mechanics, not biology. So, I'm not claiming expertise in biology. In fact, it doesn't really interest me. I've only looked at it because so many people talk about it that I felt compelled to be informed.

So, rolling all that together, you'll not find me rejecting every theory in biology point by point simply because someone chose to place the label "evolution" on it. In the same way, you'll not find me touting some particular study by a creationist as the thing that will sink the evolutionary ship. All I said was that I think creationists have raised some legitimate questions. An example would be Dembski's early work on intelligent design before it became a political football. As I also have said before, unfortunately his idea runs aground and will never make it to a test.

I've even formally formulated my own hypotheses and proposed them to some selected scientific organizations. I got a lot of encouraging feedback until it came time for someone to pay the bill, then my own ship ran aground due to a series of procedural details ... and I burned out on trying to push it further.

 

[tas8831]

So only success is science?

Did you stop reading at that phrase?

because right after that, I explained:



"... declaring humans and chimps to really be only 70% similar (and thus separate creations, and thus evolutionists lie) was inspired by YEC Todd Wood using BLASTn to compare human and chimp and concluding that the evolutionists are right that we are 90+% similar at the DNA level. I submit that Tomkins read that, didn't like it because it is hard to dismiss as evidence, and so set out to find a way to decrease the similarity. And he got caught. And he doubled down and called names when confronted (on Reddit)."

One can also read it about it in detail here:

Dropbox - Tomkins-BLAST.pdf

Lots of science 'fails,' but when you purposefully rig analyses to get the results you hope to get, it seems more like fraud, to me.

 

[Resha Caner]

... when you purposefully rig analyses to get the results you hope to get, it seems more like fraud, to me.

Agreed. But what I see most often here is that when someone claims a result that differs from the conventional answer, they are accused of "purposefully rigging" that result. Proving intentional deception is very difficult to do, and I doubt you have evidence that would meet a legal test. Why must we so often assume that those who are different from us have evil intentions?

The paper you mention may have been poor science. It may have been a game with definitions. Feel free to reject the conclusions and discuss why, but all the other stuff just isn't necessary. In fact, it approaches defamation. So, unless you see a need to press a fraud case against this guy, I'd let it drop.

Did you stop reading at that phrase?

No, I read your entire post. I didn't want to descend into an argument over chimps. IMO YEC needs to give that one up. So we're biologically similar to chimps. Big deal. I knew that when I was 5 years old, so I don't need DNA to "prove" it. I've also been aware for a long time that there are important differences between us and chimps.

IMO, the hangup on chimps is a holdover from exceptionalism ideas (white exceptionalism, western exceptionalism, Christian exceptionalism). To be marked as similar to a chimp is taken more as a personal insult than anything to do with evolution.

Similarity does absolutely nothing to establish common ancestry. It's a reasonable trigger to go looking for common ancestry, but it does nothing to establish it. If common ancestry is what you want to argue, evolutionists have much better arguments than similarity.

But, as I said, I don't really want to digress into that discussion. I was more interested in hearing you answer my question: Does failure mean a creationist wasn't doing science?

 

[KWCrazy]

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It is essentially the construction manual for living things.
If two living things have 80% of the same DNA, that demonstrates:
A. Common design
B. Common descent
C. Common characteristics.
Think about it for a moment.

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.

 

[Willby]

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It is essentially the construction manual for living things.
If two living things have 80% of the same DNA, that demonstrates:
A. Common design
B. Common descent
C. Common characteristics.
Think about it for a moment.

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.

This is a very common misconception.
Biologists are not simply pointing to similarities and saying therefore common descent, you are right that could be indicative of common design.
What biologists are actully refering to is the pattern of that 'same' DNA.
What is repeatedly and consistantly found is that the similarities and differences of both coding and non-coding DNA show a nested hierarchy.
What is more they show the same nested hierarchy (*).
This is exactly what common descent should look like, branching processes must lead to nested hierarchies, common design on the other hand has no necessity to end up like that.
The common descent conclusion is not based on a presumption but on the observed results.

Here is an example of the sort of work biologists actually do 'at the coal face' of analysing DNA in this case using ERV insertions.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences


* Not exactly the same, the nature of mutation and some other well known biological effects do put some 'noise' in the data but that 'noise' is predictable and understood.

 

[Resha Caner]

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.

I'm pretty sure I know how evolutionists will answer this, but I like your phrasing and how you put these side by side.

 

[Ophiolite]

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view.

Odd. Another mind reader who believes they know how I formed my views. My world view is based upon a judicious consideration of the evidence over many years. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming, the evidence for intelligent design, flaky at best.

What you don't know is that there is a portion of my thinking that would prefer intelligent design over common descent, for a whole host of reasons, most of which are unimportant here. I want intelligent design to be true. I would go out and celebrate uproariously if there were even a sniff of its authenticity. But sadly reality and the evidence prevent this. I have to go with the demonstrable power of common descent to explain what we see.

 

[PsychoSarah]

DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. It is essentially the construction manual for living things.
If two living things have 80% of the same DNA, that demonstrates:
A. Common design
B. Common descent
C. Common characteristics.
Think about it for a moment.

Design presumes a designer. Common descent presumes an original progenitor. Neither is proved by the DNA. Both conclusions are based on your world view. The only true conclusion is the observable characteristics. Ancestry is not provable.

Codons are redundant. A designer would have to make organisms similar to each other on a genetic scale meticulously and on purpose to result in DNA that matches up with evolutionary pattens sans evolution. I have yet to hear a single person justify a designer doing that. Especially considering that the non-functional junk also matches up between organisms (do not derail this into an argument against junk DNA, it's irrelevant if it has a function because clearly, the specific sequences of it aren't relevant to any function it could have, seeing as mutations on it don't do anything unless they turn it into a gene).

The "common trends because common design argument" only works if you think the designer was lazy and decided to reuse genes whenever possible. That doesn't even work if you think the designer was both omniscient and omnipotent (for such a being, they'd have the knowledge available to make the maximum amount of variation in created organisms, and the power to apply that knowledge effortlessly).

 

[Resha Caner]

Codons are redundant. A designer would have to make organisms similar to each other on a genetic scale meticulously and on purpose to result in DNA that matches up with evolutionary pattens sans evolution. I have yet to hear a single person justify a designer doing that. Especially considering that the non-functional junk also matches up between organisms (do not derail this into an argument against junk DNA, it's irrelevant if it has a function because clearly, the specific sequences of it aren't relevant to any function it could have, seeing as mutations on it don't do anything unless they turn it into a gene).

The "common trends because common design argument" only works if you think the designer was lazy and decided to reuse genes whenever possible. That doesn't even work if you think the designer was both omniscient and omnipotent (for such a being, they'd have the knowledge available to make the maximum amount of variation in created organisms, and the power to apply that knowledge effortlessly).

It sounds like you're trying to argue that the current data excludes an intelligent designer. If you are, I'll simply note that such an attempt will encounter the same problems as arguing there is data that supports an intelligent designer.

 

[KWCrazy]

My world view is based upon a judicious consideration of the evidence over many years. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming, the evidence for intelligent design, flaky at best.

ID has its basis neither in science nor religion.
You have considered the evidence to which you give credence and rejected that which you do not. Like many, you believe that we live in a world governed by physical laws. That is not the case. We live in a world maintained by physical laws which serves the interest of its Creator. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can't answer the problem of origination. The origination of anything is a scientific impossibility. That does not prove there is a God. Neither can science disprove that there is a God. There is absolutely nothing that we can and will discover about our environment that could disprove the possibility that God created a mature world and populated it with adult animal species. We can postulate any premise, but we have no time machine.

God created the universe and told us how He did it. Either you believe Him or you do not. If you don't believe in Him and His word, using the Scriptures to invalidate your premise will likely have no effect on you. If you are determined to believe in a naturally caused universe despite the scientific impossibility of it happening, your skewed vision will prevent you from seeing any other possibility.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It sounds like you're trying to argue that the current data excludes an intelligent designer.

Negatory, I even find the idea of a lazy designer that just tossed together what works and bid this planet farewell to be rather amusing.

More that there is a lot of evidence against a designer just constructing all modern organisms as is with them having no relation to any fossil organisms, and that the idea that everything is the same because of a common designer is a weak argument, since it's entirely unnecessary for all these organisms to be so genetically similar.

If you are, I'll simply note that such an attempt will encounter the same problems as arguing there is data that supports an intelligent designer.

I have no issue with the idea of something placing the first life on Earth rather than it developing through natural processes. Alas, there is no evidence that such a thing happened and it isn't something that can be disproven, so the conversation ends there... for a generalized creator with no specific attributes. '

If you want to argue for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator, though, you are out of luck. The life on this planet is too flawed for that to be the case. What omnibenevolent creator would design ecosystems that demand organisms fight and consume each other? What omniscient creator would make the protein production system in cells optimized for RNA, and make the genetic material of all living things DNA? No omnipotent creator would have to settle for unavoidable design issues, because the concept of "unavoidable" wouldn't apply to something that is omnipotent.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have no issue with the idea of something placing the first life on Earth rather than it developing through natural processes.

That's a good start ... though the whole "natural processes" thing is a swamp all its own.

If you want to argue for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator, though, you are out of luck. The life on this planet is too flawed for that to be the case. What omnibenevolent creator would design ecosystems that demand organisms fight and consume each other? What omniscient creator would make the protein production system in cells optimized for RNA, and make the genetic material of all living things DNA? No omnipotent creator would have to settle for unavoidable design issues, because the concept of "unavoidable" wouldn't apply to something that is omnipotent.

I wouldn't attempt the argument you describe because there is a logical roadblock preventing a successful conclusion. However, your complaints against it ignore one of the essential Christian doctrines - that we are living in a fallen world of our own making that doesn't represent what God intended.

As far as an omni-being having the capability to avoid it, I don't accept that one follows from the other. [edit: Appealing to omni-properties doesn't wipe away problems of logic and meaning. You would need to explain to me why God would abandon logic in order to create the world.] As soon as the omni-being decides to allow free will, bad outcomes become a possibility. And creating a world without free will essentially reduces to not creating anything at all - everything would just be God's imagination. So, where we are easily follows from the mere act of creating. If, in your opinion, that means God isn't benevolent, I might disagree but I probably couldn't persuade you otherwise.

... the idea that everything is the same because of a common designer is a weak argument, since it's entirely unnecessary for all these organisms to be so genetically similar.

I can understand why it seems a weak argument when biologists can conceive of possible organisms that wouldn't bear those similarities, but the fact remains that we have no examples of a "natural" system that produces dissimilar organisms. So, being able to conceive of dissimilarity is an equally weak argument.

Nothing I propose would be an attempt to prove an intelligent designer. Rather, my questions have always centered around how the processes we know could produce the life we see without common descent. I've not seen anything to say that couldn't happen.

 

[Ophiolite]

ID has its basis neither in science nor religion.
You have considered the evidence to which you give credence and rejected that which you do not. Like many, you believe that we live in a world governed by physical laws. That is not the case. We live in a world maintained by physical laws which serves the interest of its Creator. Science is the study of the physical world around us. It can't answer the problem of origination. The origination of anything is a scientific impossibility. That does not prove there is a God. Neither can science disprove that there is a God. There is absolutely nothing that we can and will discover about our environment that could disprove the possibility that God created a mature world and populated it with adult animal species. We can postulate any premise, but we have no time machine.

God created the universe and told us how He did it. Either you believe Him or you do not. If you don't believe in Him and His word, using the Scriptures to invalidate your premise will likely have no effect on you. If you are determined to believe in a naturally caused universe despite the scientific impossibility of it happening, your skewed vision will prevent you from seeing any other possibility.

I am often befuddled by the tendency of some posters to argue against a point I haven't made. I was not discussing the existence, or non-existence of a God. I made no mention of a God. I was discussing my views on ID and why I think, on balance, that it is unlikely.

You are also, yet again, trying the old and ineffectual mind reading trick. I did not reject the evidence I gave no credence to, for that would be a meaningless tautolgy. Yet you decide you know how I arrived at my conclusions, even though I told you I was prejudiced from the outset to accept ID, wanted to accept ID, just couldn't find any substantial justification to do so.

If you are going to respond again, I would ask you to respect two things:

• Address what I have said, not what you think I said, or what you would like to think I said.
• Don't try to tell me how I formed my conclusions, unless you are prepared to submit detailed evidence to support your assertions as to how I reached them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a good start ... though the whole "natural processes" thing is a swamp all its own.

Because you think the nature of the universe itself was driven by an intelligent creator, I know, same issues apply, though.

I wouldn't attempt the argument you describe because there is a logical roadblock preventing a successful conclusion. However, your complaints against it ignore one of the essential Christian doctrines - that we are living in a fallen world of our own making that doesn't represent what God intended.

That excuse doesn't work if said deity is omnipotent and omniscient. It would have the power to make the world exactly as it wanted, and the foresight to make that state last as long as it wanted.

It's literally impossible to be the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient being and to not be exactly what it intended to make.

As far as an omni-being having the capability to avoid it, I don't accept that one follows from the other. [edit: Appealing to omni-properties doesn't wipe away problems of logic and meaning. You would need to explain to me why God would abandon logic in order to create the world.]

Why would I have to give a valid reason a deity would make anything, when I don't believe in them? I should never have to explain the will of something I don't believe in. You are the one that believes in a deity; if you don't believe it is omniscient, etc., fine, but if you do think it has such properties, then it is up to YOU to find a reasonable explanation for the state of the world because it is a part of YOUR position, not mine.

As soon as the omni-being decides to allow free will, bad outcomes become a possibility.

By definition, free will cannot exist at the same time as an omniscient being, because the future has to be absolute in order for it to be knowable.

And creating a world without free will essentially reduces to not creating anything at all - everything would just be God's imagination.

I wouldn't think free will would make it any less so.

So, where we are easily follows from the mere act of creating. If, in your opinion, that means God isn't benevolent, I might disagree but I probably couldn't persuade you otherwise.

Pfft, an omnibenevolent being wouldn't make hell.

I can understand why it seems a weak argument when biologists can conceive of possible organisms that wouldn't bear those similarities, but the fact remains that we have no examples of a "natural" system that produces dissimilar organisms.

On this planet, no, that would actually defy evolution if that happened, so if that theory is an accurate representation of reality, we'd never see that.

So, being able to conceive of dissimilarity is an equally weak argument.

Incorrect; if I can conceive of it, surely an omniscient being must also be able to think of it, and an omnipotent being would be able to make it reality.

Nothing I propose would be an attempt to prove an intelligent designer. Rather, my questions have always centered around how the processes we know could produce the life we see without common descent. I've not seen anything to say that couldn't happen.

Look, find 1 reason, one single reason, that you would create things, want them to know that they are created, and yet, make it seem like they even could have formed without your intervention.