Intelligent Design Discussion

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Starman said:

We know that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” Thus the creation reveals the attributes and character of God, not a random undirected process. 

I agree with this, but obviously, there are those that cannot clearly see a Creator in His creation. That's why there are atheists. I do not believe God is implying that He created in such a way to plant physical proof of His divine actions.

To me, I see God's attributes in the work of His hands, just as I have expressed previously in this thread. However, others do not see this as clearly as I do.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

OK it sounds like you’re saying that God front-loaded the process by embedding the necessary information and some kind of intrinsic ability to move toward a pre-defined objective over geological time (like a guided missile). This sounds like “theistic evolution.”

I think that's a definite possibility, as does Michael Behe.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

I need to think further about this, but initially I have some issues: First, this implies to me that God played a passive rather than an active role in creation, not intervening in the process He initially set in motion (or perhaps initiating extinction events).

I disagree. When I see an extravagant Rube-Goldberg machine (fantastic example here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w), I do not think of the creation of the machine as a passive process, at all! I am amazed by the precision, care, and skill it took to put it all together.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

Secondly, theistic evolution must adopt the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory and the faith statements needed to compensate for the lack of geological and experimental data for macroevolution

I do not believe there is a lack of geological evidence for macroevolution. You'll have to explain a little more of what you mean by lack of experimental data for macroevolution. There are observed cases of speciation, but I'm guessing you might mean lack of experimental data for major changes in body plan, etc. Is this correct?

1 hour ago, Starman said:

Theistic evolution then requires the same level of credulity.  I’m not necessarily denying the idea of common descent etc. but believe that intervention is required –natural processes are wholly inadequate to explain large scale phenotypic changes.

What experimental data would you use to demonstrate the requirement? The biggest premise ID proponents repeat is essentially that a structure or phenomenon is really complicated, so it couldn't have evolved by itself - without any data to support that assumption.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

This is a good discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a patient manner

Likewise! I just wish I hadn't responded to the trolls...

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

ID is God creating living cells and that is no where in The Bible

Steven... against my better judgement, I will respond to your bizarre statement in the hopes you will actually think about what you are saying. However, I can't guarantee further responses to equally inane comments.

1. None of the Biblical authors knew what a cell was.

2. If God created all living things, and you and I both believe He did, then He created living cells.

[enoob57]

49 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Steven... against my better judgement, I will respond to your bizarre statement in the hopes you will actually think about what you are saying. However, I can't guarantee further responses to equally inane comments.

1. None of the Biblical authors knew what a cell was.

2. If God created all living things, and you and I both believe He did, then He created living cells.

see this is the problem with your ability in knowing God's Word.... God instructed Moses the writing of the Pentateuch; are you suggesting God did not know the difference from a whole completed man and cells? Or that He was pressured to conform to their ignorance?

yes and He explicitly says how He did so... from the clay God fashioned the form of man and with His Breath (Spirit) man became a living soul (that of mind, will and emotion... You just can't fit that in a evolutionary model of any type without departing from the Scripture... The whole balance of sin and dearth has to be altered as well and now you've rewritten what salvation is and God's Word is so poorly written that science has to determine what it should have said... This is what theistic evolutionist are doing and it is contrary to the direct statement of God

2 Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV
It is The Word of God to renew our mind not science to renew God's Word

Col 3:10

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
KJV

Surely you are not suggesting That God began in cells or even He began at all...

Rom 12:2

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
KJV

Theistic evolution is conforming to this world and that is without debate or controversy....

[Starman]

One.Opinion

I disagree. When I see an extravagant Rube-Goldberg machine (fantastic example here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w), I do not think of the creation of the machine as a passive process, at all! I am amazed by the precision, care, and skill it took to put it all together.

Given the referenced video you seem to be likening creation to a magical machine that has been programmed to execute a divine instruction set which generates specific biological products on a pre-defined timeline.  Critical events on the timeline might include bursts of speciation (e.g., Precambrian) and extinction events leading to new speciation events etc. Is this the idea?

If so, I’m not sure why you are wedded to the necessity of strictly natural processes being in play, and God taking a strictly hands-off approach.  This seems to be an odd, unnecessary assumption. Going with my understanding of your analogy I would see the laws of physics and natural processes as like the operating system that runs in the background, with God intervening at various points to personally “steer” the machine.  The interventions might be seen as catastrophes in the geologic record, or infusions of new biological information (genomic changes) seen as macro evolutionary steps (e.g., dinosaurs destroyed to make way for the age of mammals etc.).  I resonate more with an active rather than a passive God. 

I’ll address the macroevolution evidence question later.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Starman said:

Given the referenced video

The video is an analogy, don’t read too much into it. I merely used it to show that my belief in God’s divine action in setting up His natural laws can absolutely be an active process, and not a passive one.

You seem to be missing one of my main points. A Creator outside the limits of time can work in the dimension in time, as well as space. His actions can be simultaneous, and not a “wind it up and let it go” sort of action.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

If so, I’m not sure why you are wedded to the necessity of strictly natural processes being in play, and God taking a strictly hands-off approach.

I’m not wedded to this thought at all.

First, as I’ve explained, I don’t see God’s approach as hands-off. I’m clearly not married to a misconception.

Second, I would gladly give up my TE view if I were provided with ample evidence for a theory that better supports the available data.

1 hour ago, Starman said:

I resonate more with an active rather than a passive God.

So did God, at some point after He created the universe, set a large asteroid in a trajectory to hit the earth? Why is that more tenable (scientifically or theologically) than God creating conditions at the beginning of time that would eventually result in the formation of an asteroid that would strike the earth?

[dhchristian]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

So you completely lack the knowledge base to discuss the thesis or the antithesis in remotely intelligent fashion, but automatically assume a synthesis must be far worse. Perhaps this is a conversation better-suited to those that are familiar with the general principles of the thesis and the antithesis.

Such is the Hegellian dialectic my friend. A half truth and a half truth do not add up to the whole truth, what ends up happening is you arrive at another half truth worse than the first two, because the errors in both the thesis and the antithesis are in the assumptions that you begin with which are never addressed. I Already tried to make you see the contradiction in theistic evolution in that it is actually an Oxymoron of a term because there is nothing theistic in it because it denies an omnipotent God who can create Humans and animals with age, and can also do the same for the earth. What I have said is just such simple common sense but your mind cannot comprehend the simplicity of it, just like your counterpart still fails to comprehend the fact that everyone in the Bible was a Young earth creationist. You are stuck in an intellectual bubble from which you are unable or unwilling to free yourself from. I Know this because I have been there myself, took years to free my mind from that Mindset. Think of it this way, the following verse still applies to this.... At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes (Matthew 11:25, NKJV)

The Truth is common sense, not convoluted logic. The problem is they do not give PHD's to people with common sense, instead they have to complexify the matter so that they can appear to be an "expert" on the matter, and wave their credentials around at us who live in the real world. 

 

[Starman]

One.Opinion

You seem to be missing one of my main points. A Creator outside the limits of time can work in the dimension in time, as well as space. His actions can be simultaneous, and not a “wind it up and let it go” sort of action.

Sorry, I have no idea what this means – simultaneously in and outside of time.  Perhaps, I’m too simple minded. God is either interacting directly with His creation in the realm of time and space or He has withdrawn himself and is executing His will through intermediaries (this happened several times in the history of Israel). 

Not only is the idea of theistic evolution speculative, with no biblical basis,  but it portrays a nonbiblical view of the Father, which is perhaps closer to Deism. Scripture reveals a personal God, intimately involved with that which He has created. I think these ideas arise from an inverted theology in which the view of God is shaped by one’s scientific preconceptions, rather than the scientific perspective being informed by God’s revelation of himself.  The result is the truth is turned upside down - the evolutionist claims that God and design are an illusion resulting from the power of natural selection, when in fact naturalistic evolution is the illusion created by the spiritual vacuum which occurs when people lose a connection with the living God.  I’ll get off my soap box now.

So did God, at some point after He created the universe, set a large asteroid in a trajectory to hit the earth? Why is that more tenable (scientifically or theologically) than God creating conditions at the beginning of time that would eventually result in the formation of an asteroid that would strike the earth?

This is very speculative and there is no answer to such a question. But, given the choice I lean toward a more active, anthropomorphic view of God since that is the way He is portrayed in Scripture.  Taking this idea to an extreme, I suppose you could say that the acts of divine judgment in the Bible, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc., were set in motion before the beginning of time, rather than as a result of God’s reaction to disobedience.  You’re not saying that but the idea is no more silly than talking about asteroids set in motion at the Big Bang.  This line of reasoning is no longer productive – time to move on.

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, Starman said:

Not only is the idea of theistic evolution speculative, with no biblical basis

Evolution is hardly speculative. Small-scale evolution is directly observable and evidence in the fossil record, genomes, comparative anatomy, and geographical distribution of living things all support the idea that evolution does not reach boundaries, but is a continual process. If evolution exists, it is clearly theistic.

There is also no biblical basis for atomic theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity. Are you consistently applying the criteria of "must have biblical basis" to these other theories, as well?

8 hours ago, Starman said:

but it portrays a nonbiblical view of the Father, which is perhaps closer to Deism. 

I know you are reading my words, but you seem to have difficulty comprehending them since you keep claiming my view is deistic. Perhaps you have a preconceived notion of what you think TEs believe and that is skewing your perception of what I am actually saying.

I do not disagree with this in the least.

9 hours ago, Starman said:

I think these ideas arise from an inverted theology in which the view of God is shaped by one’s scientific preconceptions, rather than the scientific perspective being informed by God’s revelation of himself.

I cannot control what you think, but I can explain what I think. My view of God is shaped primarily by the reading of His Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit. I have already explained to you that my view of His creation reveals not only His power and beauty, but also His intimacy with all aspects of His creation. Somehow, you have ignored this.

9 hours ago, Starman said:

Taking this idea to an extreme, I suppose you could say that the acts of divine judgment in the Bible, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc., were set in motion before the beginning of time, rather than as a result of God’s reaction to disobedience.

You are correct - this is indeed taken to the extreme.

9 hours ago, Starman said:

This line of reasoning is no longer productive – time to move on.

I was responding to your assertion, friend. The fact is, we don't know. You can certainly postulate that God did nudge an asteroid toward earth roughly 65 million years ago, and I certainly can't deny it, but it is no more sound in any way than suggesting that an omnipotent God could have set it up at the time of the Big Bang.

[enoob57]

24 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

My view of God is shaped primarily by the reading of His Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

according to scholarship this is a false statement...
got questions quote

Quote

A literal reading of Genesis shows that birds were created with sea creatures on day five while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view that birds evolved from land animals. The literalist account says birds preceded land animals. The theistic evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.

https://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

As this shows theistic evolutionist not only use allegory but outright ignore God's Word when it does not support Darwinism...

[Starman]

One.Opinion

Evolution is hardly speculative. Small-scale evolution is directly observable and evidence in the fossil record, genomes, comparative anatomy, and geographical distribution of living things all support the idea that evolution does not reach boundaries, but is a continual process. If evolution exists, it is clearly theistic.

 Unfortunately, we are misunderstanding each other a btt which is typical for this kind of communication. My point was not that evolution is speculative but that theistic evolution is speculative, the idea of God frontloading the information etc. to enable creation to move toward a divine goal.  Even if one were to define such a mechanism it can never be observable, testable etc. – so TE is pure speculation. 

No intelligent person can doubt microevolution since it is supported be an abundance of data, and is to some extent observable in the lab.  I feel pretty strongly that macroevolution is in fact highly speculative and not well supported by either empirical or theoretical data (arithmetic genetic models).  We may get into some of those details in this convo, but the more I study the subject the more I’m leaning toward a rejection of the possibility – perhaps you can turn me around.

There is also no biblical basis for atomic theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity. Are you consistently applying the criteria of "must have biblical basis" to these other theories, as well?

I was obviously not clear in my statement about the need for a biblical basis.  My point is not that scientific ideas need to be validated by the Bible but rather that, unless I’m misunderstanding TE, the idea of a God who operates mainly through natural law is not a biblical concept (correct me if I’m wrong).  Therefore, when I’m looking for a viable theory I will tend to choose one that is resonant with the way God is conveyed in Scripture. I understand you don’t see it that way.

I know you are reading my words, but you seem to have difficulty comprehending them since you keep claiming my view is deistic. Perhaps you have a preconceived notion of what you think TEs believe and that is skewing your perception of what I am actually saying.

I cannot control what you think, but I can explain what I think. My view of God is shaped primarily by the reading of His Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit. I have already explained to you that my view of His creation reveals not only His power and beauty, but also His intimacy with all aspects of His creation. Somehow, you have ignored this.

Yes, perhaps I’m misunderstanding your view and that of TE in general.  However, I don’t see “intimacy with all aspects of His creation” in TE.  But I don’t doubt that you do.  For what it’s worth I’m not questioning the authenticity of your Christian experience or calling you a deist.  We are clearly worshipping the same God.  This is not personal.

I was responding to your assertion, friend. The fact is, we don't know. You can certainly postulate that God did nudge an asteroid toward earth roughly 65 million years ago, and I certainly can't deny it, but it is no more sound in any way than suggesting that an omnipotent God could have set it up at the time of the Big Bang.

Yes, we don’t know – no truer statement.  My ignorance about God and the way He created is the one thing I am absolutely sure of.   Job’s response to God at the end of his ordeal seems apt here:

“Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?  “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!  “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Then Job answered the Lord and said,

 “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth.  “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.” Job 38:1-4; 40:3-5

 Let God be true and every man a liar.