Creation or Evolution

[edwest2]

You are backing an idea that you call scientific yet it has no evidence to support it. On the other hand, you don’t want evolution, which has a massive amount of evidence to support it, taught in school. Who is being political, Ed?

Crying “censorship” does you no good. There is nothing to censor.

Peace

Tim

I’ve read enough that convinces me that there is real merit to the ideas proposed. The evolution I don’t want is the purely political and atheist variety.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

No, I just jumped in at the end. I noticed that you made a rash comment that could not be supported. You corrected it somewhat from that point though (you’d say now that “ID is **only **politics, or **only **faith, or **only **philosophy or only some combination of those”.)

In any case, it doesn’t help your argument to make those kinds of absolute statements – they’re easy to refute.

It also leads me to believe that you’re overstating other points in your arguments – not thinking reflectively enough about what you’re saying.

If that makes you feel better, believe that. I actually stand by what I wrote initially. There is no scientific basis for ID. It began as a political movement to return creationism to the public school system in the US and currently has exactly the same amount of scientific evidence it began with.

As far as refutation, I haven’t seen anything that would remotely suggest that I am wrong. Perhaps you can provide the scientific evidence for ID?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

I’ve read enough that convinces me that there is real merit to the ideas proposed. The evolution I don’t want is the purely political and atheist variety.

That isn’t very convincing. The political and atheist varieties are part of your perception, not reality.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

What do you suggest I say to the next person who tells me we are all animals, nothing more? Or to the next person who tells me they no longer believe in God because they believe evolution without God made them?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

What do you suggest I say to the next person who tells me we are all animals, nothing more? Or to the next person who tells me they no longer believe in God because they believe evolution without God made them?

Tell them that they are wrong and explain why. That’s what I do. Just don’t ignore the science or you will be wasting your breath.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

“don’t ignore the science”? It always gets back to that? I think this sort of problem has more to do with a hardness of heart than with a lack of understanding about science.

Thank you for your advice.

Peace,
Ed

 

[abukamoon]

“Science” explaining our origins is similar to their estimates of how many millions of planets must have intelligent life, in the universe. You can construce a very elaborate theory, but if that theory is based on a persumption, it is worthless.

And that, is a good explanation for the evolutionary theory. I have yet to hear a believer in evolution tell of how Charles Darwin discovered evolution. Rather, he assumed that all manner of life could come about by natural forces, and set out to “prove” it.

That’s not the way science works. And that’s why evolution is bad science. Evolution is defended with religious ferver. This is not something we would expect to see in the scientific arena.

So I don’t see evolution as a conflict between faith and science. Rather, I see it as the struggle between two opposing religious views. One view is based on revealed religion, and the other on scientific “theory”.

 

[Shredderbeam]

“Science” explaining our origins is similar to their estimates of how many millions of planets must have intelligent life, in the universe. You can construce a very elaborate theory, but if that theory is based on a persumption, it is worthless.

And that, is a good explanation for the evolutionary theory. I have yet to hear a believer in evolution tell of how Charles Darwin discovered evolution. Rather, he assumed that all manner of life could come about by natural forces, and set out to “prove” it.

Science has a rather rich history of noticing a phenomenon, and coming up with a hypothesis to explain it. That is what happened in the case of Darwin.

 

[edwest2]

In the particular case of evolution, it is worth noting the conflict. It is clear that the Church believes something occurred but the necessary connection to divine providence needs to be made, This is not done by the biology textbook.

Still, the almost fanatical defense of evolution reveals its purely ideological side: we are nothing but animals or gentically controlled automatons who reproduce and die. This does not speak to our true identity and our relationship to God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I actually stand by what I wrote initially.

It doesn’t make me feel better to see you contradict yourself again. You already “revised” your opinion. Now you’re reversing that and going back to what you said at first (that is is “only political”).

So, again – I’d like to see the proof for that. Otherwise, what you wrote initially has been refuted.

As for scientific evidence for ID, Michael Behe has two books with plenty of evidence. You could try The Privileged Planet also.

Just yesterday I posted an article from the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences which gave evidence in support of ID.

The presence of information in the universe is evidence for ID. Physicist Gerald Schroeder in his book, “The Hidden Face of God” points this out:

A single consciousness, an all-encompassing wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, those that explore the molecular complexity of biology, and those that probe the brain/mind interface, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to have within it a level of information, of conscious wisdom. The puzzle I confront in this book is this: where does this arise? There is no hint of it in the laws of nature that govern the interactions among the basic particles that compose all matter. The information just appears as a given, with no causal agent evident, as if it were an intrinsic facet of nature.

The concept that there might be an attribute as nonphysical as information or wisdom at the heart of existence in no way denigrates the physical aspects of our lives. Denial of the pleasures and wonder of our bodies would be a sad misreading of the nature of existence. The accomplishments of a science based on materialism have given us physical comforts, invented lifesaving medicines, sent people to the moon. The oft-quoted statement, “not by bread alone does a human live” (Deut. 8:3), lets us know that there are two crucial aspects to our lives, one of which is bread, physical satisfaction. The other parameter is an underlying universal wisdom. There’s no competition here between the spiritual and the material. The two are complementary, as in the root “to complete.”

Astronomer James Jeans said: “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and it “begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine … we discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds …” (The Mysterious Universe, p 137)

I find it strange that a Catholic could claim that there is no evidence of God’s design in nature.

St. Paul said it was so obvious that even the pagans could see it – and they had no excuse for not doing so.

 

[Orogeny]

It doesn’t make me feel better to see you contradict yourself again. You already “revised” your opinion. Now you’re reversing that and going back to what you said at first (that is is “only political”).

That doesn’t bother me in the least.

So, again – I’d like to see the proof for that. Otherwise, what you wrote initially has been refuted.

The lack of scientific evidence is the “proof” I need.

As for scientific evidence for ID, Michael Behe has two books with plenty of evidence. You could try The Privileged Planet also.

Those have been shown to be wrong. Flagellum anyone?

Just yesterday I posted an article from the Encyclopedia of Life Sciences which gave evidence in support of ID.

I missed that one. Can you post that link again? Anything from sceintific journals?

The presence of information in the universe is evidence for ID. Physicist Gerald Schroeder in his book, “The Hidden Face of God” points this out:
Astronomer James Jeans said: “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and it “begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine … we discover that the universe shows evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds …” (The Mysterious Universe, p 137)

I find it strange that a Catholic could claim that there is no evidence of God’s design in nature.

I see design, but I see it because I have faith in God. I don’t see any scientific evidence for design.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

“don’t ignore the science”? It always gets back to that? I think this sort of problem has more to do with a hardness of heart than with a lack of understanding about science.

Ed, do you ever read your own posts? You said “Or to the next person who tells me they no longer believe in God because they believe evolution without God made them?”. In other words, you claim that you have people coming to you to confess that they don’t believe in God because of science. If you ignore that science, you have already lost the battle. Is that so hard to understand?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

In the particular case of evolution, it is worth noting the conflict. It is clear that the Church believes something occurred but the necessary connection to divine providence needs to be made,

Right. But as the Pope says, that is not something science can do. Science can only show how it happened, not why it happened.

This is not done by the biology textbook.

And properly so. The Pope correctly said that is not what science is for.

Still, the almost fanatical defense of evolution reveals its purely ideological side:

I never thought of the Pope as a fanatic. You sure about that, Ed? Is is possible that you can’t accept the teaching of the Church precisely because of ideological issues.

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Science” explaining our origins is similar to their estimates of how many millions of planets must have intelligent life, in the universe. You can construce a very elaborate theory, but if that theory is based on a persumption, it is worthless.

As the Pope says, evolutionary theory is based on a large body of evidence.

And that, is a good explanation for the evolutionary theory. I have yet to hear a believer in evolution tell of how Charles Darwin discovered evolution. Rather, he assumed that all manner of life could come about by natural forces, and set out to “prove” it.

Actually, he wrote that God was the originator of life. (last sentence in the 1878 edition of his book)

So I don’t see evolution as a conflict between faith and science. Rather, I see it as the struggle between two opposing religious views.

The Catholic view is that evolution is consistent with Christian faith. What religion opposes it?

 

[reggieM]

I see design, but I see it because I have faith in God. I don’t see any scientific evidence for design.

Could you explain this? You see design, but the design that you see is an illusion and not reality? You see illusions because you have faith in God. Therefore, your religion causes you to see things that aren’t really there? That is like a fantasy world.

Again, I would like to hear your explaination in much more detail here. You’re adamant about how there is “no evidence of design”. But here you admit that you “see design”.

 

[Orogeny]

Could you explain this? You see design, but the design that you see is an illusion and not reality? You see illusions because you have faith in God. Therefore, your religion causes you to see things that aren’t really there? That is like a fantasy world.

Again, I would like to hear your explaination in much more detail here. You’re adamant about how there is “no evidence of design”. But here you admit that you “see design”.

I see design because my faith tells me that God created everything and therefore everything I see is designed by Him. I approach His creation with that understanding and don’t need evidence to support it.

I don’t see design from a scientific viewpoint because I can’t measure it, I can’t test for it, and I can’t falsify the idea.

No fantasy or illusion here. Just faith.

For an example, let’s look at a snowflake. Is it designed? It can certainly be explained naturally. What test would you run on a snowflake to show that it is designed rather than the result of natural processes? Remember, you don’t have to convince me because I accept that all things are the product of God. You have to convince Richard Dawkins, so an answer that includes faith won’t work. It has to be testable by anyone anywhere.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

For an example, let’s look at a snowflake. Is it designed? It can certainly be explained naturally. What test would you run on a snowflake to show that it is designed rather than the result of natural processes? Remember, you don’t have to convince me because I accept that all things are the product of God. You have to convince Richard Dawkins, so an answer that includes faith won’t work. It has to be testable by anyone anywhere.

Thanks for this explanation. There are two points here that are good. First, the snowflake is a good example. It looks like it was designed. The variety and beauty say something. We believe that God created the world, so we see the snowflake as an example of God’s “handiwork”. But at the same time, we know that natural processes can account for the creation of snowflakes. So we can’t say that “God creates each snowflake”. In this case also, we can’t even say that God “directed” the process because an ordinary process creates this pattern.

But the second point is that you’re providing an excellent example of the thought process that can be used to determine a design.

1st – we see something that looks like it was designed. Why do we think that? Not because we believe in a fantasy or because it’s in our imagination – but because it really looks designed. Can science bring some definition to that? Why not? Science defines all kinds of things – it could certainly define what is meant by “design”. The common example used is for SETI research which tries to define the difference between a “deliberate” communication and one that occurs in nature without design.

2nd – if this thing that we see that looks designed, cannot easily be explained by natural processes, then why not say that science gives evidence that this thing was created with the help of intelligence of some kind – that natural processes cannot create such a thing.

An example I saw recently was the “pitcher plant” which cannot be explained by evolutionary processes.

(found in the Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (read page 6) - math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/carn.pdf)

You might not agree that this proves “design by an intelligent agent” but why would you object to that as one option that science can propose?

We know already (by faith) that God was involved in creation. Why is it impossible to think that some evidence of his creative power can be observed scientifically?

The same is true of astronomy and mathematics. I posted quotes by a physicist and an astronomer that explained that the nature and order found in the universe is evidence of intelligence at work. It cannot be explained by natural processes – not even by natural laws since those laws do not contain the mathematical harmony that is observed.

Again, I don’t understand why you oppose this so vigorously. You know that God created the universe - we confess that by faith. We know that God’s power can be seen directly (in miracles, as Jesus worked and the saints worked).

Personally, I do not think that the use of probability and something like Dembski’s Explanatory Filter are unscientific. When someone points out, for example, that 50,000 morphological changes are required for a land animal to be evolved into a whale – why is that not outside the realm of realistic probability? The problem I see is that nothing in evolution can be called “absurdly improbable” – even the pitcher plant which supposedly evolved competely independently 7 separate times. But that is not realistic and some scientists state that. Like the supposed evolution of the eye independently (convergent evolution) – the pitcher plant apparently had a “fly sensitive spot” that just evolved on its own.

On a personal level though, I just wonder why you have such a hard response against investigations into the design which can be seen in nature. Personally, I do not think that Dawkins has a good answer for it. In fact, he has already admitted that much in nature “looks like it was designed”.

Science cannot explain all of nature, so why must we rule out the possiblity that it was, indeed, designed (shaped) that way and not the process of accidental forces?

 

[edwest2]

Right. But as the Pope says, that is not something science can do. Science can only show how it happened, not why it happened.

And properly so. The Pope correctly said that is not what science is for.

I never thought of the Pope as a fanatic. You sure about that, Ed? Is is possible that you can’t accept the teaching of the Church precisely because of ideological issues.

You ignore the intent of so many threads and posts here that deny God. Denying God is job one. Or does that not concern you?

You are among those here who post constantly about what you call science which is not science but only evolution. You ignore the fact that there are branches of science that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You ignore, it appears for political reasons, the clear connection between textbook evolution which is atheistic and the promotion of atheism here.

You ignore the fact that the Church has the complete answer to the question of human origins. The biology textbook is incomplete.

You ignore Evolutionary Psychology which clearly develops the why of evolution. You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind. There was no direction, no purpose. That is where the promotion of atheism and nihilism come in.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

As the Pope says, evolutionary theory is based on a large body of evidence.

Actually, he wrote that God was the originator of life. (last sentence in the 1878 edition of his book)

The Catholic view is that evolution is consistent with Christian faith. What religion opposes it?

Catholics are not allowed to believe in atheistic evolution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

You ignore, it appears for political reasons, the clear connection between textbook evolution which is atheistic and the promotion of atheism here.

You ignore the fact that the Church has the complete answer to the question of human origins. The biology textbook is incomplete.

You mean the textbook I am still waiting for you to identify?

Peace

Tim