Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[Guest kingdombrat]

Just now, David1701 said:

It was not just the water.  There would have been massive and fast movements of Earth's plates, creating enormous tsunamis.

Agreed!

[David1701]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, let's see what a knowledgeable YE creationist has to say about that...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You responded to me; but the quote was not something that I wrote.

[David1701]

10 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I agree, but a rushing great amount of water at once would literally carve out more landscape than what sitting water for 6 months could erode away.

I very much doubt that the water was just "sitting".  There would probably have been considerable turbulence.

[The Barbarian]

8 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You responded to me; but the quote was not something that I wrote.

Yes.   My post was about the quote, not you.

 

[Alive]

Our house is on a hill. When it rains really hard during the storm (tornado alley) season, water runs very quickly from high to low areas. Such happened during the flood on a massive scale and along with 'fountains of the deep' and land mass changes--I visualaize a huge massive washing machine like action of great power. There were also 'flows' moving in different directions that would clash.

There is a spot or two in the Pamlico Sound where I have kayaked where at times the tidal waters at an inlet clash with moving Sound waters--the result is a 'washing machine' affect. Its quite something to paddle through. I picture that sort of thing on a 'flood' scale. It would be terribly disruptive/destructive. Then again in reverse, in many ways, when the waters were receding...in that case with land mass changes, much raw earth and rock would be exposed to the cataclysm. Within that were huge massive boulders, chunks of land, trees, etc scouring around and caroming.

Quite a mess.

Could just be my imagination because I wasn't there.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

There is a spot or two in the Pamlico Sound where I have kayaked where at times the tidal waters at an inlet clash with moving Sound waters--the result is a 'washing machine' affect. Its quite something to paddle through. I picture that sort of thing on a 'flood' scale. It would be terribly disruptive/destructive. Then again in reverse, in many ways, when the waters were receding...in that case with land mass changes, much raw earth and rock would be exposed to the cataclysm. Within that were huge massive boulders, chunks of land, trees, etc scouring around and caroming.

Quite a mess.

There's actually a place in North America where that happened on a huge scale.   

The Channeled Scablands at one time were a relatively barren and soil-free region of interconnected relict and dry flood channels, coulees and cataracts eroded into Palouse loess and the typically flat-lying basalt flows that remain after cataclysmic floods within the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Washington.^[1][2] The channeled scablands were scoured by more than 40 cataclysmic floods during the Last Glacial Maximum and innumerable older cataclysmic floods over the last two million years.^[3][4][5] These cataclysmic floods were repeatedly unleashed when a large glacial lake repeatedly drained and swept across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Plateau during the Pleistocene epoch. The last of the cataclysmic floods occurred between 18,200 and 14,000 years ago.^[6]

...

"The channels run uphill and downhill, they unite and they divide, they head on the back-slopes and cut through the summit; they could not be more erratically and impossibly designed."^[7]

The debate on the origin of the Scablands that ensued for four decades became one of the great controversies in the history of earth science. The Scablands are also important to planetary scientists as perhaps the best terrestrial analog of the Martian outflow channels.^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands

Of course, being formed by catastrophic floods, rather than gradual erosion, they are entirely different than the Grand Canyon.

 

[teddyv]

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

It was not just the water.  There would have been massive and fast movements of Earth's plates, creating enormous tsunamis.

Would you accept that there was miraculous, divine protection over the ark and the earth itself during the Flood?

[Starise]

7 hours ago, Alive said:

Our house is on a hill. When it rains really hard during the storm (tornado alley) season, water runs very quickly from high to low areas. Such happened during the flood on a massive scale and along with 'fountains of the deep' and land mass changes--I visualaize a huge massive washing machine like action of great power. There were also 'flows' moving in different directions that would clash.

There is a spot or two in the Pamlico Sound where I have kayaked where at times the tidal waters at an inlet clash with moving Sound waters--the result is a 'washing machine' affect. Its quite something to paddle through. I picture that sort of thing on a 'flood' scale. It would be terribly disruptive/destructive. Then again in reverse, in many ways, when the waters were receding...in that case with land mass changes, much raw earth and rock would be exposed to the cataclysm. Within that were huge massive boulders, chunks of land, trees, etc scouring around and caroming.

Quite a mess.

Could just be my imagination because I wasn't there.

And likely where most of our oil and natural gas comes from. Old buried vegetation and animals on a massive scale. We are running our cars on fermented dinosaurs.

[Mike Mclees]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:48 AM, bcbsr said:

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

I recently attended an institutional wide meeting of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in which there was an open discussion of sponsorship of non-scientific talks by SAO. The main concern had to do with lectures which alluded to religious ideas. For being a government institution Smithsonian is not allowed to take official stands in the area of religion. Yet given the controversies we have today with the Intelligent Design vs Evolution, Young Earth Creationism vs the measurement of ages of the the universe, the earth, species and civilization which scientists have derived, it would seem desirable that there would be some public discussion between the two sides. For there seems to be generally a great deal of misunderstanding concerning these issues.

For example many scientists are ignorant of the distinction between the Intelligent Design movement and that of Young Earth Creationism. So also many of those movements are ignorant of the facts constituting evolution as well as the facts concerning the issue of the age of things.

For decades, long before the intelligent design movement, I've been using and continue to use what today is referred to as Intelligent Design in discussing evidence for God's existence. The Bible also advocates the idea of such evidence being available.  "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20 The Bible advocates the idea we should be able to infer God's existence from the evidence in nature. The idea is that scientific observations of nature would seem to suggest the existence of God.

I found it interesting that at the SAO meeting many of the scientists in expressing their personal opinion were troubled by the idea advocated by the ID community - namely that the scientific evidence "seems to suggest" an intelligent designer.  Yet the idea of some fact of science "seeming to suggest" another fact is part of the scientific process. For example SAO is involved in the search for extrasolar life - life outside our solar system. In the process of doing so they're looking for earth-like planets, and in analyzing the light reflected from its sun they're looking for spectra associated with organic processes. For such would "seem to suggest" the presence of life.  So I don't see what their problem is with the Intelligent Design position.

Intelligent Design in the Classroom?

One of the objections to "Intelligent Design" being taught as science is that it purportedly adds nothing to science. In other words for them to infer that "God did it" ends the search for explanation and scientific inquiry. Yet by analogy consider the fact that through scientific means we are searching for extrasolar life - and ultimately even intelligent life. Now what if evidence of such intelligent life is discovered? Should we not teach that fact in the class rooms for fear that it would end all scientific inquiry into the question? And what if an intelligent designed is inferred? It still leaves open the question for scientific inquiry as to how God did it. Or if the religious implications are the concern then just leave the term "God" out of the discussion and speak simply of an intelligent designer and let people infer what they may.

Young Earth Creationism

But as for Young Earth Creationism, the YEC gang tends to have a much different perspective on science and on this idea of making inferences. The YEC position is much more an argument over the interpretation of Genesis than it is about the interpretation of scientific facts. Science is about what happens. It's inferences deal with what will happen in that it is predictive and what did happen in that it deals with the realm of history. But religion also deals with the realm of history, and in that realm there may be conflicts between science and religion. The facts of history and life inferred from indepth scientific investigations do not "seem to suggest" what is advocated by the YEC position. Much as with the Flat Earth position the YEC position is counter-intuitive to the known facts derived by scientific inquiry. Their only strength is in keeping people ignorant of the facts by misrepresenting and underrepresenting the facts while shielding themselves from skepticism under a cloak of religious zealotry. For more on YEC see http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/yec.html

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

While the present movement which refers to itself as "Intelligent Design" or simply ID presents itself as if in conflict with "Evolution", the idea of an intelligent designed being inferred from the facts of nature does not necessarily conflict with evolution per se. It disturbs me that, due to indoctrination, most Christians have misconceptions as to what constitutes "evolution" and the facts of evolution, as if evolution implies atheism. First of all there's a difference between the fact of evolution and the theories as to how evolution occurred. I mention some of the facts of evolution at http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html#Evolution To bottom-line it the fact is that the evidence "seems to suggest" a common biological line of descent not only within species but between species. In other words if one were to study the scientific data objectively, one would would be led to infer the evolutionary theory of common origin. While many may argue that such a theory conflicts with the Bible, such arguments are not really about the facts of science but about interpretations of the Bible.

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.

At this point concerning the fact of evolution, science can only tell us that the evidence points to a series of events which led to life as we know it presently. It doesn't really say that such events were likely or unlikely or even the precise nature of those events. Evolutionary science does not take a stand as to whether God did it or did not do it. It only presents the facts. Were such events directed by God? I can only sit back and infer that given the results, the process was a series of unlikely - God-directed - events which led to life as we know it. Thus we can infer an intelligent designer. But such events are often associated with the word "chance". For whether its the issue of mutation or due to environmental cirucmstances one individual's DNA propagating to the next generation or not, "chance" is involved. It disturbs me when well-meaning Christians seem to think that "chance" is contrary to God's working as if "chance" were another God.  Don't such Christians believe that God is involved in the outcome of such events? The God of the Bible is not one who just sits back and watches his creation as one watches a TV. God of the Bible is intimately involved in the outcomes of all things. Even toss a coin. Is the outcome a working of God? It certainly is. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."Pr 16:33 Thus rather than a conflict, evolution may simply be a description of what the Intelligent Designer (God) did.

But as for those who would argue that God didn't do it that way because an intelligent designed wouldn't do it that way, one is simply saying that the scientific evidence does not point to an intelligent designer. Furthermore the Bible shows that often even the godly underestimate God's workings,  like Job 38:4+ the Lord says to Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand ....  Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?  Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!" It seems God is often bigger than many make Him out to be.

Faith & Likelihood

Now as I said science and religion - or the Bible in particular - may clash in the realm of history. Yet there is not necessarily a conflict between the two. For why should there be? The God of the Bible, the God of History,  is also the God of science, as He is also the God of Chance events - and God of everything else as well. But while we may not be able to prove God's existence apart from faith, realize that intuition is part of what constitutes faith. The idea of something "seeming to suggest" another is part of the activity of faith. Such activities of faith we find not only in the realm of religion but even of science and history, though they may not refer to such as religious faith. But in all cases we would hope such faith not to be overly presumptuous, but rather have a firm basis in fact. Of the religious faiths, Biblical faith is arguably the most well founded.

Getting back to the ID idea, what really leads us to conclude an intelligent designer is the issue of likelihood. But while it may be intuitively obvious, the unlikelihood for life occurring apart from intelligent intervention is very difficult to calculate in a mathematical sense. Furthermore consider stochastic events (those characterized by a probability curve) such as the tossing of a coin. While one could claim the probability curve is predictable, one can say nothing of the outcome of individual events. (That's how God really screws up gamblers) Thus one can never really disprove divine intervention into such events.

On 8/20/2019 at 10:48 AM, bcbsr said:

Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

I recently attended an institutional wide meeting of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in which there was an open discussion of sponsorship of non-scientific talks by SAO. The main concern had to do with lectures which alluded to religious ideas. For being a government institution Smithsonian is not allowed to take official stands in the area of religion. Yet given the controversies we have today with the Intelligent Design vs Evolution, Young Earth Creationism vs the measurement of ages of the the universe, the earth, species and civilization which scientists have derived, it would seem desirable that there would be some public discussion between the two sides. For there seems to be generally a great deal of misunderstanding concerning these issues.

For example many scientists are ignorant of the distinction between the Intelligent Design movement and that of Young Earth Creationism. So also many of those movements are ignorant of the facts constituting evolution as well as the facts concerning the issue of the age of things.

For decades, long before the intelligent design movement, I've been using and continue to use what today is referred to as Intelligent Design in discussing evidence for God's existence. The Bible also advocates the idea of such evidence being available.  "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Rom 1:20 The Bible advocates the idea we should be able to infer God's existence from the evidence in nature. The idea is that scientific observations of nature would seem to suggest the existence of God.

I found it interesting that at the SAO meeting many of the scientists in expressing their personal opinion were troubled by the idea advocated by the ID community - namely that the scientific evidence "seems to suggest" an intelligent designer.  Yet the idea of some fact of science "seeming to suggest" another fact is part of the scientific process. For example SAO is involved in the search for extrasolar life - life outside our solar system. In the process of doing so they're looking for earth-like planets, and in analyzing the light reflected from its sun they're looking for spectra associated with organic processes. For such would "seem to suggest" the presence of life.  So I don't see what their problem is with the Intelligent Design position.

Intelligent Design in the Classroom?

One of the objections to "Intelligent Design" being taught as science is that it purportedly adds nothing to science. In other words for them to infer that "God did it" ends the search for explanation and scientific inquiry. Yet by analogy consider the fact that through scientific means we are searching for extrasolar life - and ultimately even intelligent life. Now what if evidence of such intelligent life is discovered? Should we not teach that fact in the class rooms for fear that it would end all scientific inquiry into the question? And what if an intelligent designed is inferred? It still leaves open the question for scientific inquiry as to how God did it. Or if the religious implications are the concern then just leave the term "God" out of the discussion and speak simply of an intelligent designer and let people infer what they may.

Young Earth Creationism

But as for Young Earth Creationism, the YEC gang tends to have a much different perspective on science and on this idea of making inferences. The YEC position is much more an argument over the interpretation of Genesis than it is about the interpretation of scientific facts. Science is about what happens. It's inferences deal with what will happen in that it is predictive and what did happen in that it deals with the realm of history. But religion also deals with the realm of history, and in that realm there may be conflicts between science and religion. The facts of history and life inferred from indepth scientific investigations do not "seem to suggest" what is advocated by the YEC position. Much as with the Flat Earth position the YEC position is counter-intuitive to the known facts derived by scientific inquiry. Their only strength is in keeping people ignorant of the facts by misrepresenting and underrepresenting the facts while shielding themselves from skepticism under a cloak of religious zealotry. For more on YEC see http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/yec.html

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

While the present movement which refers to itself as "Intelligent Design" or simply ID presents itself as if in conflict with "Evolution", the idea of an intelligent designed being inferred from the facts of nature does not necessarily conflict with evolution per se. It disturbs me that, due to indoctrination, most Christians have misconceptions as to what constitutes "evolution" and the facts of evolution, as if evolution implies atheism. First of all there's a difference between the fact of evolution and the theories as to how evolution occurred. I mention some of the facts of evolution at http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html#Evolution To bottom-line it the fact is that the evidence "seems to suggest" a common biological line of descent not only within species but between species. In other words if one were to study the scientific data objectively, one would would be led to infer the evolutionary theory of common origin. While many may argue that such a theory conflicts with the Bible, such arguments are not really about the facts of science but about interpretations of the Bible.

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.

At this point concerning the fact of evolution, science can only tell us that the evidence points to a series of events which led to life as we know it presently. It doesn't really say that such events were likely or unlikely or even the precise nature of those events. Evolutionary science does not take a stand as to whether God did it or did not do it. It only presents the facts. Were such events directed by God? I can only sit back and infer that given the results, the process was a series of unlikely - God-directed - events which led to life as we know it. Thus we can infer an intelligent designer. But such events are often associated with the word "chance". For whether its the issue of mutation or due to environmental cirucmstances one individual's DNA propagating to the next generation or not, "chance" is involved. It disturbs me when well-meaning Christians seem to think that "chance" is contrary to God's working as if "chance" were another God.  Don't such Christians believe that God is involved in the outcome of such events? The God of the Bible is not one who just sits back and watches his creation as one watches a TV. God of the Bible is intimately involved in the outcomes of all things. Even toss a coin. Is the outcome a working of God? It certainly is. "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."Pr 16:33 Thus rather than a conflict, evolution may simply be a description of what the Intelligent Designer (God) did.

But as for those who would argue that God didn't do it that way because an intelligent designed wouldn't do it that way, one is simply saying that the scientific evidence does not point to an intelligent designer. Furthermore the Bible shows that often even the godly underestimate God's workings,  like Job 38:4+ the Lord says to Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand ....  Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings?  Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!" It seems God is often bigger than many make Him out to be.

Faith & Likelihood

Now as I said science and religion - or the Bible in particular - may clash in the realm of history. Yet there is not necessarily a conflict between the two. For why should there be? The God of the Bible, the God of History,  is also the God of science, as He is also the God of Chance events - and God of everything else as well. But while we may not be able to prove God's existence apart from faith, realize that intuition is part of what constitutes faith. The idea of something "seeming to suggest" another is part of the activity of faith. Such activities of faith we find not only in the realm of religion but even of science and history, though they may not refer to such as religious faith. But in all cases we would hope such faith not to be overly presumptuous, but rather have a firm basis in fact. Of the religious faiths, Biblical faith is arguably the most well founded.

Getting back to the ID idea, what really leads us to conclude an intelligent designer is the issue of likelihood. But while it may be intuitively obvious, the unlikelihood for life occurring apart from intelligent intervention is very difficult to calculate in a mathematical sense. Furthermore consider stochastic events (those characterized by a probability curve) such as the tossing of a coin. While one could claim the probability curve is predictable, one can say nothing of the outcome of individual events. (That's how God really screws up gamblers) Thus one can never really disprove divine intervention into such events.

Conclusion

Given the present controversies it would be best if all parties were better informed on all these subjects For as Paul writes on a related issue, "They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." 1Tim 1:7

---

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

 

Given the present controversies it would be best if all parties were better informed on all these subjects For as Paul writes on a related issue, "They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." 1Tim 1:7

---

The Berean Christian Bible Study Resources

I'm not educated in biology but have listened to different debates about evolution verses intelligent design. Evolution says all living things are made of sells. The first original cell which was a one celled creature that needed water. They say the earth was to hot for water until it cooled to the right temperature for rain to form. So when the temperature cooled rain developed and so much so that we have the oceans as we have today. Evolutionists' say one celled organisms with the rain and there was no other creatures. Then came cell division which formed different creatures. Here is my question.

Early creatures were as fish that had to be in water to survive. How did it come about that other creatures but they were made of the same cells. Who divided the cells up to make other creatures.? Then they evolved to other creatures there able to live out of their water world and develop on land. We could not count the different living things on the earth but all things are made up of cells that originally only lived in water. Now how did  these cells make themselves into frogs or monkeys or dinosaurs., plants ,trees . bugs and you name it. Last we come to humans.. When i go to the doctors many times you see pictures of all the parts the make up the human body. All of these parts are also made of sells. How did the cells no what part they would be. Our brain is superior over all other creatures of the earth. The mind is another subject by itself.   How do atheist's say we made ourselves? Have they ever been asked that question and have had the   answer? Its like the fine tuned universe. they do not have the answer.

I like to think of a brand new car  in your driveway. How did the car get there? Some one put it there. This is the law of everything.  of course we can ask Lawrence Cross or Dr. Dawkens . 

          

Edited December 7, 2020 by Mike Mclees

[The Barbarian]

52 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

I'm not educated in biology but have listened to different debates about evolution verses intelligent design. Evolution says all living things are made of sells.

That used to be accepted by almost all biologists.   However, there is considerable support for the idea that viruses (which do not have cells) are alive, even if existing viruses (as far as we know) need to infect a host cell to reproduce.   And there are some intermediate cases.   Depends on what you think "alive" means.

The fact that the simplest organelle in living things is the one that is absolutely essential for cellular life, suggests to me that you have it right.   I think cell membranes made possible the first truly living things.    Scientists have produced self-replicating molecular systems, but they are less "alive" than viruses are.

The issue is still being debated.    You might want to look at the first few chapters of  A New History of Life. which has a pretty good review of what is now known.

1 hour ago, Mike Mclees said:

Early creatures were as fish that had to be in water to survive. How did it come about that other creatures but they were made of the same cells.

Remarkably, all cellular life has the same cell membrane.    It's  a simple phospholipid bilayer.    Most cells have since added molecules embedded in the basic membrane, but it's all the same structure.    It is in the DNA of these organisms that changes accumulated over time.

1 hour ago, Mike Mclees said:

Now how did  these cells make themselves into frogs or monkeys or dinosaurs., plants ,trees . bugs and you name it.

Lots of change.   For which we have both genetic and anatomical data showing how most of the transitions worked.   The first huge step was in nucleated cells, which are strictly speaking not single organisms, but are endosymbiotic systems.    You have, in every one of your cells, tiny bacteria-like cells that reproduce with their own bacterial DNA, and without which you could not live.    Nor could they survive outside of your cells.    We occasionally still see this endosymbiosis evolve in various single-celled organisms.

The second change was in the formation of metazoans, multi-celled organisms.   Sponges are right at the point of change.   They are more than mere colonies of cells; they have several different kinds of cells.  But they have no tissues, as other animals do, and a sponge can have its cells separated and they will come back together to reform the animal.

And so on.   It's a long and complicated story.   If you have some specific transition in mind, we might have the data to show what happened.   What would you like to see?