Questions regarding Intelligent Design

[The Lorax]

There will always be many who raise arguments under the disguise of promoting reasoned discussion, usually in an attempt to disprove the glorious fact of Jesus Christ, Son of God, as if that is not already sufficient reason for the faith that is in us as Christians, but it leads to nothing but supposition based on, as you say, 'a null hypothesis'.

So who do you think is trying to disprove Jesus? Atheists? Scientists? IDers? Guess I'm not sure who this would be, because Jesus Christ and God can't be disproved. Some believe in God and Jesus and some don't, but I can't think of anyone who is trying to disprove them. It seems to be a matter of faith, not proof.

Even if, as you again say, you do not instantly throw out ID as junk science or pseudo-religion, that, I suggest, is because of your innate courtesy.

The problem is finding a place for ID to go. IDers think ID should be part of science...but it isn't clear what, if anything, ID could do in science.

[stan4257]

Does this make sense to you?

Yes it does, and also makes me feel better about where you are at. Just seeing symptoms is always difficult from a distance and yours seemed challenging so, being me, I jumped in.

Glad I did. That's how brothers in Christ get to really know one another, not by pussyfooting around on the peripherals.

Thank you for explaining, but please take great care. You are far too precious to become tangled up and lost again.

[stan4257]

So who do you think is trying to disprove Jesus? Atheists? Scientists? IDers? Guess I'm not sure who this would be, because Jesus Christ and God can't be disproved. Some believe in God and Jesus and some don't, but I can't think of anyone who is trying to disprove them. It seems to be a matter of faith, not proof.

Agree with you that it is impossible to disprove Jesus, but many try and many others who are not so strong in the faith become confused.

And in some places, the majority of those with whom I am in contact spend considerable time, using the bible mostly, in an attempt to disprove Jesus.

But you and I walk arm in arm in the certainty of our faith, and against that nothing prevails.

Thank you for your support.

[the_interactionist]

So who do you think is trying to disprove Jesus? Atheists? Scientists? IDers? Guess I'm not sure who this would be, because Jesus Christ and God can't be disproved. Some believe in God and Jesus and some don't, but I can't think of anyone who is trying to disprove them. It seems to be a matter of faith, not proof.

Agree with you that it is impossible to disprove Jesus, but many try and many others who are not so strong in the faith become confused.

And in some places, the majority of those with whom I am in contact spend considerable time, using the bible mostly, in an attempt to disprove Jesus.

But you and I walk arm in arm in the certainty of our faith, and against that nothing prevails.

Thank you for your support.

That's one of the most beautiful ways I've ever heard it put. I like that: "... you and I walk in the certainty of our faith, and against that nothing prevails."

I should use that as one of the quotes on my signature!

That is true about your statement regarding people using the Bible to make pathetic attempts at disproving it or God and Christianity. I use to be one of those people But I was just poorly misguided.

[the_interactionist]

Question #2: Michael Behe, a biologist, and author of Darwin's Black Box, states that proof of a designer lies in "irreducibly complex" biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Are these biological systems truly irreducibly complex, and if so, how does that prove this basic tenet of I.D.?

Question #3: Behe also claims that these complex systems cannot have been produced by natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore offer no advantage to evolution. I'm not certain of what specific systems Behe is referring to here, or if he means all biological systems as they relate to evolutionary theory. So is this statement true and what is its juxtaposition?

I'm pretty sure that Behe claimed the bactial flagella and the immune response were irreducibly complex. I do not have citations but I am also pretty sure that he has been shown to be incorrect on these 2 at least.

No citations? Do you have any resources at all? Where did you hear of the refutation on these two claims of Behe? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just probing for answers as to where you may have found out about all this in the first place.

Edited February 29, 2008 by the_interactionist

[the_interactionist]

Question #2: Michael Behe, a biologist, and author of Darwin's Black Box, states that proof of a designer lies in "irreducibly complex" biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Are these biological systems truly irreducibly complex, and if so, how does that prove this basic tenet of I.D.?

Question #3: Behe also claims that these complex systems cannot have been produced by natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore offer no advantage to evolution. I'm not certain of what specific systems Behe is referring to here, or if he means all biological systems as they relate to evolutionary theory. So is this statement true and what is its juxtaposition?

I'm pretty sure that Behe claimed the bactial flagella and the immune response were irreducibly complex. I do not have citations but I am also pretty sure that he has been shown to be incorrect on these 2 at least.

No citations? Do you have any resources at all? Where did you hear of the refutation on these two claims of Behe? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just probing for answers as to where you may have found out about all this in the first place.

Sorry, no time to dig out the cites.

Fair enough. I'll take your word for it. Gathering info can be quite time-consuming. Do you have any personal preferences you'd recommend though? Books? Articles? Websites?

Thanks.

[Guest CoachK]

5. Since we exist, our universe will NECESSARILY be suited to us existing. So why on earth is it a surprise when it does? Why find it confusing or interesting? Why be so amazed by how well it suits us that you invoke divine intervention? In other words, the laws of physics don't suit us, we suit the laws of physics.

I am not so concerned with the Earthly environment, because it would make sense according to evolution that we would adapt to the environment if we exist, but what about constants that set up for the Universe to be as it is. For example:

"If the Universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the univers would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed."

What about things that would change the nature of the universe? These are obviously things that nothing could exist in?

Constants like Universe Expansion Rate, Universal Radiation Levels, Gravitational Pull and the Like. All of these had to be perfectly adjusted for the Universe not to Collapse on itself.

[Ovedya]

5. Since we exist, our universe will NECESSARILY be suited to us existing. So why on earth is it a surprise when it does? Why find it confusing or interesting? Why be so amazed by how well it suits us that you invoke divine intervention? In other words, the laws of physics don't suit us, we suit the laws of physics.

I am not so concerned with the Earthly environment, because it would make sense according to evolution that we would adapt to the environment if we exist, but what about constants that set up for the Universe to be as it is. For example:

"If the Universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the univers would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed."

What about things that would change the nature of the universe? These are obviously things that nothing could exist in?

Constants like Universe Expansion Rate, Universal Radiation Levels, Gravitational Pull and the Like. All of these had to be perfectly adjusted for the Universe not to Collapse on itself.

Assuming that statement to be correct, so what? That does not necessarily require God or an Intelligent Designer. Perhaps it just happened that way?

Perhaps it didn't.

[artsylady]

There are a lot of "irreducibly complex" mechanisms like the eyeball that can be less than perfect and still work.

They don't have to be perfect, but all parts have to be fully formed and working otherwise there is no sight.

If you're missing a cornea, you won't see. If you're missing a retina, you won't see, if you're missing an optic nerve, you won't see etc, etc, etc.

[artsylady]

Are you saying blind people have light sensitive spots?

That's how the first eyes began (no one ever said they came all at once and I don't know where you're getting that from).

ID says that they had to have formed and functioning correctly all at once. Evolution of separate parts with no final design in mind makes no sense. People who are blind have a problem with one of these parts in that it is not functioning correctly. People who need glasses, have a problem that can be corrected, with one of these parts.