Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

If you haven't already read it I encourage a reading of Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind". It's a little old by now (advances in science make knowledge obsolete at an incredible rate) but still well worth the read. The section on entropy and the "fine tuning" of the universe in order to support life is amazing. To my knowledge he's not a believer. 

It's not a proof, but the teleological argument is certainly more reasonable than the alternative.   

I'm always surprised that creationists use it, though;   as Michael Denton (an "intelligent design" advocate and a fellow of the Discovery Institute) puts it:

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

[Tzephanyahu]

On 11/28/2020 at 9:35 PM, The Barbarian said:

Could be a way to get a closer relationship with God.

Worth a try?

Haha, the irony!

No, thank you for your advice but I'll still with the Word of God over man-made interpretations of the data we actually have.

I think we should leave the debate there Barbarian. I see that we have very little to discuss.

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Haha, the irony!

No, thank you for your advice but I'll still with the Word of God over man-made interpretations of the data we actually have.

The man-made doctrine of creationism is contrary to the evidence we have.   

And evolutionary theory is supported by the evidence.  Even many creationists and IDers accept that fact.    If anyone doubts this, I'd be happy to provide some examples.

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The man-made doctrine of creationism is contrary to the evidence we have.   

And evolutionary theory is supported by the evidence.  Even many creationists and IDers accept that fact.    If anyone doubts this, I'd be happy to provide some examples.

You clearly believe in the God of the Bible.   You must then accept that His ways are far superior than our own ways.   His Reasoning-Thought-Knowledge-Understanding-Comprehending are far superior than our greatest human minds.   Within the pages of the Bible we read where God has used the little things to confuse the [wise].  With what we read, had Evolution been the specific process of how God took the dust from the Earth, spat in it, formed the human vessel and all capacities, then Breathed life into it.  Wouldn't it say so?   I believe it would since the Holy Spirit is WHOM wrote the Bible.

 

With Evolution, and the way it branches, we BOTH know that is a game of 100% Chance!   As in absolutely no guarantee.   Even the process of "Natural Selection" is equivalent to "Russian Roulette."  In fact, "Natural Selection" is the purest form of Murder there is.  And there is no probability to achieve a sequence "Inherited Genetics" through the process of "Natural Selection."

 

So I ask in a sincere manner, Yes, Science today has verified maybe half of the sequences to assume Evolution is factual (there's still literally millions of Biological unanswered questions we're not even looking at because we've just bought into Darwinism)...But what is to say, with God's ways far superior than our own, that He gave humanity in foresight (like building the Tower of Babel) enough information for us to believe in the process of Evolution just to confuse the Wise?

 

God has made the claim of confusing the Wise.   What better format than the Theory of Evolution to do so.   You are so convinced Evolution is true, you are willing to force it into the "Creation Story."   God could be laughing at you and the wasted trillions of dollars spent knowing Science will never solve this Riddle.

 

Have you ever considered that^?

Edited November 30, 2020 by kingdombrat

[The Barbarian]

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

You clearly believe in the God of the Bible.   You must then accept that His ways are far superior than our own ways.   His Reasoning-Thought-Knowledge-Understanding-Comprehending are far superior than our greatest human minds.   Within the pages of the Bible we read where God has used the little things to confuse the [wise].

I don't think we can blame Him for creationism.   That, humans did to themselves.    Likewise, scientism (the absurd idea that science can test the supernatural) is inflicted by humans on themselves.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

With what we read, had Evolution been the specific process of how God took the dust from the Earth, spat in it, formed the human vessel and all capacities, then Breathed life into it.  Wouldn't it say so? 

He didn't tell us about DNA or neurons or speciation or many other things.   Since Genesis itself tells us that the creation days are not literal ones, we know it figurative, not a literal history.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

With Evolution, and the way it branches, we BOTH know that is a game of 100% Chance!   

No.   Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.   Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

And there is no probability to achieve a sequence "Inherited Genetics" through the process of "Natural Selection."

It's directly observed to happen.   Would you like an example or two?

 

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

So I ask in a sincere manner, Yes, Science today has verified maybe half of the sequences to assume Evolution is factual (there's still literally millions of Biological unanswered questions we're not even looking at because we've just bought into Darwinism)...But what is to say, with God's ways far superior than our own, that He gave humanity in foresight (like building the Tower of Babel) enough information for us to believe in the process of Evolution just to confuse the Wise?

I believe that God is truth, so that argument doesn't work for me.   So far, every test of Darwin's points and their predictions has confirmed the theory.    It's always possible that something someday won't in a way that requires a more accurate theory to replace it.   But at this point, it's hard to see what that might be.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

God has made the claim of confusing the Wise.   What better format than the Theory of Evolution to do so. 

The man-made doctrine of creationism, probably.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

You are so convinced Evolution is true

  Directly observed, after all.   Remember biological evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   You're probably thinking of consequences of evolution like common descent.    It's notworthy that in recent decades, many creationists have come to accept a limited amount of common descent.

55 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

God could be laughing at you and the wasted trillions of dollars spent knowing Science will never solve this Riddle.

I don't think He laughs at creationists or scientists.   Jesus told us what He cares about,and it's not what we think of evolution.

 

Edited November 30, 2020 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

God has made the claim of confusing the Wise.   What better format than the Theory of Evolution to do so.   You are so convinced Evolution is true, you are willing to force it into the "Creation Story."   God could be laughing at you and the wasted trillions of dollars spent knowing Science will never solve this Riddle.

 

Have you ever considered that^?

While I subscribe to evolutionary theory I don't force it into Creation story, because there is no need to - it's not there. I see the Creation story as primarily theological and sets the proper worldview, particularly set against the prevailing worldviews and cosmologies of the day. That also makes it just as valid today as it did 3500 years ago.

[The Barbarian]

38 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I got that. The fact is the facts of science are often proven not to be facts.

Facts are just evidence.  Those aren't arguable.    Evolution, which is directly observed to happen, is a fact.    There is a theory of evolution that explains it, and there are consequences of evolution, like common descent.    I think you're a little unclear on what each of these mean.

42 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The man-made doctrine of evolution isn't factual and it doesn't fair much better than the man-made doctrine of creationism.

The theory of evolution differs from the doctrine of creationism, in that evolutionary theory is a verified scientific theory and creationism is a modern revision of scripture.   We call it a theory because its predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence.

44 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Many of its "facts" turn out to be hoaxes, and many of its "facts" get disproven by its own investigators, and after all this time and effort (and money) dedicated to that set of "facts" there is still no set of facts integrating humans into the evolutionary tree of the rest of animalia. It is assumed; it is not a "fact".

I know you believe that, because that's what you were taught, but it's wrong.   Common descent of all living things on Earth was discovered long before Darwin. Linnaeus first produced the nested family tree of living things before anyone suspected what Darwin found.    Linnaeus' prediction was verified first by anatomy,then by the fossil record,and finally by genetics and DNA analyses.

 

[Guest kingdombrat]

14 hours ago, teddyv said:

While I subscribe to evolutionary theory I don't force it into Creation story, because there is no need to - it's not there. I see the Creation story as primarily theological and sets the proper worldview, particularly set against the prevailing worldviews and cosmologies of the day. That also makes it just as valid today as it did 3500 years ago.

Is there proof to this explanation or just an educated assumption?   

 

There are discoveries we make all of the time where we are not only fascinated about how could such primitive thinking people accomplish as such let alone create it in their minds, but that even technically speaking we could not achieve the same results with today's minds and tech.

 

So, it makes me wonder just how advance has Science really become.   It seems more in line with a common thought among those involved rather than the comprehension to fully comprehend and explain.   Prime example would be that Evolution is just as good of an explanation as anything else, so we all therefore accept and believe in Evolution.

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

Is there proof to this explanation or just an educated assumption?   

 

There are discoveries we make all of the time where we are not only fascinated about how could such primitive thinking people accomplish as such let alone create it in their minds, but that even technically speaking we could not achieve the same results with today's minds and tech.

 

So, it makes me wonder just how advance has Science really become.   It seems more in line with a common thought among those involved rather than the comprehension to fully comprehend and explain.   Prime example would be that Evolution is just as good of an explanation as anything else, so we all therefore accept and believe in Evolution.

Proof. I don't know about that. I don't think it's an untenable interpretation of the literature. I'm confident in the current general theories surrounding geology. There are still plenty of unknowns but the broad ideas are quite solid.

I'm not sure what specific things you are thinking of the primitive people accomplished that cannot be duplicated today. I would never accuse the ancient people of stupidity. They simply did not have the full understanding of materials or technology to create the things we are able today. I'm sure the Romans or Greeks of old could go to the moon if they had the same access to knowledge that the scientists and engineers had at NASA.

Scientific inquiry does tend toward specialization which can leave out the big picture at times. As far as the biological evolution, there is really no competing scientific theory right now. Answers in Genesis is attempting to present something but they've got away to go yet, as they are mainly hypotheses. I have not really seen a solid overarching narrative developed yet. Maybe in time, but it's got a long way to go to overturn the current theory.

[Guest kingdombrat]

32 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Proof. I don't know about that. I don't think it's an untenable interpretation of the literature. I'm confident in the current general theories surrounding geology. There are still plenty of unknowns but the broad ideas are quite solid.

I'm not sure what specific things you are thinking of the primitive people accomplished that cannot be duplicated today. I would never accuse the ancient people of stupidity. They simply did not have the full understanding of materials or technology to create the things we are able today. I'm sure the Romans or Greeks of old could go to the moon if they had the same access to knowledge that the scientists and engineers had at NASA.

Scientific inquiry does tend toward specialization which can leave out the big picture at times. As far as the biological evolution, there is really no competing scientific theory right now. Answers in Genesis is attempting to present something but they've got away to go yet, as they are mainly hypotheses. I have not really seen a solid overarching narrative developed yet. Maybe in time, but it's got a long way to go to overturn the current theory.

Let's examine your last paragraph for a moment here.   What if God specifically did pass down via the Holy Spirit concerning He took literal dirt from the surface of the Earth, He spat into it, then as a presumable clay object (since the term for body has been used as clay on numerous occasions throughout the Holy Bible) God formed a human being including every organ and vital system, then He Breathed life into this clay human vessel and it became a life form similar to our own bodies.

 

Let's presume this description is factually 100% as God intended it to be for our understanding.

 

How would Evolution even relate?

How could Evolution even be presented as a possible representation to this Creation Story?

Science would be literally out in left field not even remotely close to anything factual.

 

If the formed from dust, spat into it, and then Breathed life to bring forth life is 100% as God did it as we read in Genesis 1 & 2, then Evolution is just a myth!   And it is not only a myth, but a myth bought and sold by those claiming to be far superior in knowledge than the average human being.

 

I've read where Science believes in an X-Man factor.   If so, there is a lot of make belief going on within Science.

Edited November 30, 2020 by kingdombrat