Well if we look at the Biblical account we see that it doesn’t describe the creation of life in an unorganized and unstructured manner. God created life organized in groups according to their
environments and traits and reproducing after their kinds, which is exactly what we see today. Of course, he could have created one huge group and just called it “life”, or even created each animal
individually with totally unique traits and using separate mechanisms to reproduce those traits in their offspring. However, the perspective we see in Genesis, and one that I think is reasonable, is that of a
designer with a sense of organization. And the reason I think it makes sense is because it benefits mankind to live in an orderly environment, if it turns out that mankind is important to the creator.
Evolutionists, as I pointed out, did not predict nested hierarchies, but have observed their existence, adjusted the theory accordingly and then, just as you do, proclaim evolution to be a “powerful explanation”.
The only power involved is the power of suggestion.
That's great, but you don't need hierarchies for design or order; you cannot put cars into nested hierarchies, same with rocks/minerals, and both of those things are designed according to creationism; one by us and one by God the very designer that designed life. So how do creationists and IDers explain the nested hierarchy; why is it a hierarchy and not a mix and match of characteristics like we observe in cars and rocks?
I can understand how ToE doesn't predict the morphological hierarchy in a historical setting as it was discovered before ToE came on the scene, but I have a hard time believing that the twin nested hierarchy wasn't predicted by ToE, can you back up that statement? And I still contend either way that ToE explains the nested hierarchies observed very very well through descent and modification. Descent with modification naturally creates hierarchies, and that is powerful evidence whether it was predicted or not.
Having said that, I don’t think you will find many creationists explain the fossil record as being simply “jumbled up in the flood”, and saying that the fossils should appear as a “hodgepodge of random
organisms thrown in together” gives me the impression that you compare the global flood with a big vat of water and just mix and swirl and let everything sink to the bottom.
I have seen creationists say that the fossil record is there in the order that it is because animals ran away from the flood. And I have seen the creationist experiment that compares the global flood with a big vat of water that did just mix and swirl everything; it was done to show that multiple layers can form from a single flood separating out layers by density. I'm not making up creationist ideas, they are real ideas coming from real creationists.
I’m glad you brought up the Tiktaalik, not to be cheeky and arrogant, but because I think it shows how scientists do not objectively study data when presenting evidence. When the Tiktaalik was first
discovered it was proudly touted as being a missing link, and since the place where they found it was where they expected it to be, it looked like they finally had come up with a genuine prediction.
I remember watching Ken Miller talk about it and being really impressed with what he said, because it was really convincing, and Ken is very convincing in the “matter-of-fact” way he presents his
arguments. Unfortunately for him it was debunked:
It wasn't debunked. The people who found Tiktaalik knew the moment that they found it that it wasn't the direct ancestor to tetrapods. They knew when they found it that it was "late" in the transitional time period that they were looking at, and the true ancestor should be dated earlier. Everyone in the scientific community related to the issue knew this, and knew to look earlier in the rocks. But because Tiktaalik has such ideal characteristics for the transition it was submitted to the public in simplified form as the transition. And for practical purposes you can view Tiktaalik as a transitional fossil, the merit of the argument really doesn't change.
The definition of biological evolution is "any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations".
How did you arrive at the conclusion that we are using it differently?
You said that biological evolution was not a point of contention, but it clearly is as creationism is a rejection of biological evolution, at least in its entirety. So is fish to tetrapod biological evolution or not?
When you say that it is really about faith vs evolution (in the beginning of the thread), do you mean evolution to be only about life, or do you mean evolution to be anything and everything that goes against creationism or something else?
The fact that there are ideas about what gravity is does not mean that we know what it is, and if we did know what it is then there would not be considered a theory. You also have thrown the words
“mysterious” and “supernatural”, but failed to show that they apply to the one and not to the other. Ideas are not enough to make that distinction.
A "theory" in science is not promoted to fact or anything of the sort; a full-fledged "theory" is the highest honor an idea can get in science. The point is that we don't need to attribute the supernatural to gravity, and we do know (at least in part) what gravity is and it is an emergent property of physical characteristics. I don't know how to interpret that as supernatural.
That doesn’t make sense. Admittedly the “entity” would have to have “means, power, and intelligence” that greatly exceeds those that we are familiar with, but the sheer magnitude of these qualities
are not enough to associate them with anything supernatural.
And if there wasn’t a designer, then what do you think had the means, power and intelligence to create the universe? Oh, that’s right… nothing…
I'm just saying, you're ID theory seems to be that a non-supernatural entity has the power, intelligence, and means to create entire universes, detail the properties down to the most minuscule level, have such precision to detail the properties of the solar system to support life, then design and seed millions to billions of various lifeforms on said planet. It just seems... farfetched, especially coming from creationists which think that life is so complex we will never be able to create life, and many creationists believe that we are the only life in existence outside of God, not to mention creationists laugh at the prospect of entities in our own universe seeding life on the planet (think Expelled and Dawkins), but entities outside of our universe that aren't God and aren't supernatural is just hunky-dory. I just see a great disconnect between your ideas and major tenets of creationism held by so many. This isn't a shot at you, your basic idea to me appears to be a must if ID is not about the supernatural, however my entire point here is that ID is inherently about God no matter how you look at it, and God is outside the realm of science.
But seriously, where did these non-supernatural entities come from that designed us and the universe we live in down to the detail? Where they designed too, and by whom? Even more powerful and intelligent entities that aren't supernatural?
I'm not the one saying that power, means an intelligence is required to create universes, you are. You don't know what I believe and I suggest not pontificating on that. We are talking about ID as science so I am restricting my arguments to that of science without incorporating teleology. Teleologically we may all be created by a supernatural entity 10,000 years ago, and science may be able to find evidence supporting that idea, but science by its own parameters of inquiry cannot inquire about the supernatural. To take ID out of the supernatural creates inconsistencies in thinking as it was designed to support a supernatural entity creating everything, and that's part of what I am trying to show.
You have misunderstood me. I’m not saying that I agree with everything Ruse says about the ToE, but that there is a part of it that is scientific (observable, repeatable and testable) and
a part that is religious.
If you disagree then please tell me how to you interpret him when he says “evolution is a religion”?
He makes a clear distinction between evolution the ToE and evolution the religion; Ruse is saying that ToE is purely scientific, and people take the ToE and extrapolate from that, right or wrong, and turns it into what he calls "religion".
I am asking at what point does evolution cease to be science and become religion in your mind, and please be specific with examples if possible. You seem to be saying that parts of ToE that Ruse and I call science is religion and I want clarification because there is clearly an impasse between us.
Edited by D-9, 07 January 2013 - 01:41 AM.