Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[Uber Genius]

On August 20, 2019 at 12:48 PM, bcbsr said:

As ID claims their arguments not to be based on what the Bible says, but rather upon inferences of science, they cannot argue against the theory of common origin other than in the realm of science. And why should they? There's nothing inherent in the idea of common origin contrary to intelligent design per se. In fact, is there any conflict between evolution and intelligent design to speak of? Not unless you make presumptions about the manner in which God chose to do things.

Well-written post. It is not the idea of common origin that ID argues against, it is the data. There are several key differences between the work of a designer who give the appearance that all is random and there is no designer, theistic evolution, and ID.

TE posits a tree of life that represents gradualism. There will be no sudden appearance of enormously diverse phyla. This is why Darwin was concerned with the Cambrian explosion (yep he knew about it back in the late 1800s). Darwin was also concerned with the lack of transitional forms, as he expected more transitions than stable fossils. Along the same lines he expected a large number of biological structures that were non functioning (in order to get modern eyes, one would have millions of generations of non-functioning light-sensing organs). Similarly, we should see no irreducible complex biological structures (Darwin was tripped up by organs like the eye). What Darwin didn't know that we now know is that life is orders of magnitude more complex than anyone knew in the 1850s or 1950s even. 

ID would predict rapid appearance of new forms suddenly as opposed to gradually (new body plans).

ID would predict few to no non-functioning biological structures.

ID would predict large numbers of irreducible complex biological structures. 

More specifcally on TE we would expect a relatively high chance of functional protein folds appearing randomly thereby producing many new functions for the natural selection process to sift. 

It is helpful to separate out the ramifications of each inference. The ID proponent argues that the data supports their inference and falsifies TE and evolution proper. 

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

TE posits a tree of life that represents gradualism. There will be no sudden appearance of enormously diverse phyla. This is why Darwin was concerned with the Cambrian explosion (yep he knew about it back in the late 1800s).

No.   He did know that there was a lack of known transitionals at the time. Now we have a huge number of them.   YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions dozens of them in his paper, adding that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

13 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

Along the same lines he expected a large number of biological structures that were non functioning (in order to get modern eyes, one would have millions of generations of non-functioning light-sensing organs)

No.   He expected that complex forms like the eye would have to have many functional transitional stages.   Turns out he was right.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species chapter VI

In several phyla we can actually see all the stages of development.   Would you like to see them?

13 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

ID would predict rapid appearance of new forms suddenly as opposed to gradually (new body plans).

Horses, forams, and ammonites show that to be wrong.   But Darwin pointed out why one would expect to see long periods of stasis, with occasional sudden change.    A well-adapted population, in an unchanging environment, would show little change, he wrote.

Hence, long periods of gradual evolution are the exception.   But they exist.   And ID doesn't really rule such things out:

"t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview."

Michael Denton Nature's Destiny

13 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

More specifcally on TE we would expect a relatively high chance of functional protein folds appearing randomly thereby producing many new functions for the natural selection process to sift. 

That's for sure.  You and I have dozens of mutation that didn't exist in either of our parents.   And they are almost all functional.

13 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

ID would predict large numbers of irreducible complex biological structures. 

As does evolutionary theory.   And we know why.   Irreducible complexity can easily evolve.   Would you like to see an observed example?

 

[copenhagen]

I haven't read the previous 16 pages. You don't have to to understand that science and math are based upon reality. Denying reality is delusion. You are able to read and write comments on the internet because of the work of mathematicians and scientists. Any idiot could figure that out.

I'm fine with whatever aspects of the Bible are compatible with the reality of historical evidence and scientific facts, the rest is bunk. 

[ayin jade]

9 minutes ago, copenhagen said:

I haven't read the previous 16 pages. You don't have to to understand that science and math are based upon reality. Denying reality is delusion. You are able to read and write comments on the internet because of the work of mathematicians and scientists. Any idiot could figure that out.

I'm fine with whatever aspects of the Bible are compatible with the reality of historical evidence and scientific facts, the rest is bunk. 

@copenhagen Jesus rising from the dead is counter to accepted scientific facts. Do you consider the parts of the bible that discuss this to be bunk?

 

[copenhagen]

38 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

@copenhagen Jesus rising from the dead is counter to accepted scientific facts. Do you consider the parts of the bible that discuss this to be bunk?

 

I can accept it as metaphorical or allegorical, but no, I cannot accept it from a scientific (i.e., realistic) point of view. Unless of course, you or anyone else can provide the evidence. the Bible is unsourced as far as I or anyone else can tell, so this task may prove quite difficult. I consider myself to be a cultural christian but I don't take the events of the Bible literally unless there is strong and overwhelming and independent corroboration from documented, credible sources. 

If there is evidence that it actually happened (strong historical evidence to that effect), then yes, I would be willing to believe it. 

The question is, how often is this happening today? If so, how would it happen? How would you, for lack of a better term, re-animate (yeah, schlocky movie ref I know) a dead body? For instance it certainly has happened in instances where a person did not have a pulse for x number of minutes, and then is revived. There are other examples I'm sure. 

However, I can't think of any scientifically or historically documented examples where this happened after someone was dead and buried for several days. Asphyxiation would prevent this occurrence after x number of minutes, easily proven in any situation. The only such cases are of clearly mythical sun gods or other mythical entities of resurrection myth. For instance, I don't believe that "the dead man" aka "the undertaker" a wwe character, was actually ever dead and came back to life although this has apparently happened on multiple occasions inside of a ring in pre-scripted wwe matches. But that's clearly story-telling which is not meant to be taken as literal fact. It's just entertainment. 

So, as I have already stated, I don't consider anything to be factually, historically i.e. scientifically correct unless there is sound documentation and evidence to that effect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon christians to prove that Jesus is the son of god and was resurrected from the dead. Can you or anyone else for that matter prove this actually happened?

The evidence should not be difficult to find. This historical period and the immediate area in which these events would have occurred were documented in great detail by many well known historians so a miracle worker who impacted many thousands of lives should be thoroughly documented by historians. I respectfully await your evidence. 

And don't try to claim that scientific evidence is bunk. You have used and continue to use technologies based upon basic and applied scientific research such as computers, keyboards, laptops, the internet, modems, wi-fi, tv's cars, trains, etc. so you clearly understand that scientific research and basic science are based upon reality. Or else you wouldn't have been able to type up and edit what you did and have the rest of the world be able to read it in the form of pixels active and deactivated on an lcd or led display on their computers. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by copenhagen

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 minutes ago, copenhagen said:

So, as I have already stated, I don't consider anything to be factually, historically i.e. scientifically correct unless there is sound documentation and evidence to that effect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon christians to prove that Jesus is the son of god and was resurrected from the dead. Can you prove this actually happened?

The evidence should not be difficult to find. This historical period and the immediate area in which events would have occurred were documented in great detail by many well known historians so a miracle worker who impacted many thousands of lives should be thoroughly documented by historians. I respectfully await your evidence. 

The premise is sort of flawed. I get where you are coming from, having once been a very science/evidence oriented person (and an Atheist).

If I could prove it to you, that Jesus of Nazareth was alive and healthy, then executed by crucifixion, buried for three days, then raised back to life in perfect health, I would not do it. The thing is, that those who would come to God, come to Him by faith. Demons are monotheists, they know who Jesus is, and who God the Father is, but they are not going to be in their presence for eternity.

When Jesus returns to Earth again, every eye will see Him, but, they will not repent, it is too late then. The have the proof they need to believe,but that is no longer by faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, so proving Him to you, would be a great disservice to you.

However, faith in Jesus does not need to be void of evidence. Most historians (and all rational ones) accept that Jesus was a real person. Why? because the kinds of things we use to learn about history, are mostly documents from the times of the history reported. There is plenty of historical evidence for Jesus existance, things about where He was born, how he lived, who His friends and family lived, places He vistited, things He said, etc. etc. and that from first hand account.

In reality, these things are WELL documented, much better than other things from antiquity. People who reject the resurrection, do so on the basis of bias against what we call the miraculous, they just ignore the evidence of eye witnesses, that is not objective, that is an agenda.

If God can not and did not do miracles (and all the other things that He has done) why would be bother to worship Him? He provided enough evidence to motive exploration, but not enough that there was no way to deny the facts.

History is not determined in test tubes, it is determined by historical methods. If tou do not accept God and Jesus and the miraculous, it is because to do not want to, and have decided to require a sort of evidence that will not be given to you.

What you can do, is seek God, plead with Him to show you the truth, and to forgive you for doubting and not honoring Him. of course, to ask God for something, you would need to have enough faith to believe that He is there and that He hears you. That is not something I can over you. You can lead a horse to water . . . 

While I a here, is there some reason why, you would want to try to challenge the faith of people, who are quite content with what they believe Why are you at a site such as this?

[Justin Adams]

49 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

@copenhagen Jesus rising from the dead is counter to accepted scientific facts. Do you consider the parts of the bible that discuss this to be bunk?

 

Not to mention the Virgin birth and other COSMIC events that cannot be assayed by human devices...

[Justin Adams]

..and of course delusion or deception. It that self notifying? How do you know if you are NOT deluded?

[ayin jade]

1 hour ago, copenhagen said:

I can accept it as metaphorical or allegorical, but no, I cannot accept it from a scientific (i.e., realistic) point of view. Unless of course, you or anyone else can provide the evidence. the Bible is unsourced as far as I or anyone else can tell, so this task may prove quite difficult. I consider myself to be a cultural christian but I don't take the events of the Bible literally unless there is strong and overwhelming and independent corroboration from documented, credible sources. 

If there is evidence that it actually happened (strong historical evidence to that effect), then yes, I would be willing to believe it. 

The question is, how often is this happening today? If so, how would it happen? How would you, for lack of a better term, re-animate (yeah, schlocky movie ref I know) a dead body? For instance it certainly has happened in instances where a person did not have a pulse for x number of minutes, and then is revived. There are other examples I'm sure. 

However, I can't think of any scientifically or historically documented examples where this happened after someone was dead and buried for several days. Asphyxiation would prevent this occurrence after x number of minutes, easily proven in any situation. The only such cases are of clearly mythical sun gods or other mythical entities of resurrection myth. For instance, I don't believe that "the dead man" aka "the undertaker" a wwe character, was actually ever dead and came back to life although this has apparently happened on multiple occasions inside of a ring in pre-scripted wwe matches. But that's clearly story-telling which is not meant to be taken as literal fact. It's just entertainment. 

So, as I have already stated, I don't consider anything to be factually, historically i.e. scientifically correct unless there is sound documentation and evidence to that effect. In other words, the burden of proof is upon christians to prove that Jesus is the son of god and was resurrected from the dead. Can you or anyone else for that matter prove this actually happened?

The evidence should not be difficult to find. This historical period and the immediate area in which these events would have occurred were documented in great detail by many well known historians so a miracle worker who impacted many thousands of lives should be thoroughly documented by historians. I respectfully await your evidence. 

And don't try to claim that scientific evidence is bunk. You have used and continue to use technologies based upon basic and applied scientific research such as computers, keyboards, laptops, the internet, modems, wi-fi, tv's cars, trains, etc. so you clearly understand that scientific research and basic science are based upon reality. Or else you wouldn't have been able to type up and edit what you did and have the rest of the world be able to read it in the form of pixels active and deactivated on an lcd or led display on their computers. 

Just so you know, Im in the medical field. Im a scientist, with an advanced degree from a reputable university. So I do not dismiss science. 

Thank you for your response though. This explains a lot.

[Uber Genius]

On March 2, 2020 at 11:27 PM, The Barbarian said:

No.   He did know that there was a lack of known transitionals at the time. Now we have a huge number of them.   YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions dozens of them in his paper, adding that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

You mean, "Yes, I agree Darwin struggled with both those issues."

We do not have a huge amount of transitional forms, further the Cambrian explosion is a disaster for gradualism of neo-Darwinian evolution. This is why we saw efforts at modifying that thesis with punctuated equilibrium. 

Not sure why you would cherry-pick YEC references since these experts have a storied history of misrepresenting scientific data.