Creation or Evolution

[Orogeny]

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.

So I guess you understand my previous post that had you scratching your head. Good.

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

Science isn’t only a thought process. You need to be able to test for design and that test has to be repeatable even by people like Dawkins.

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.

Then come up with a definition of design, a way to test for design and an example where that test can repeatedly identify 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.

Really? Is that what we should have done with snow flakes prior to understanding the chemistry behind their formation?

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?

Because there is no way to test this. I don’t know how many times that has to be said, but there is no way to test for design. If you can come up with a design test that is acknowledged by someone like Dawkins, you will have begun to show ID as acutal science. I could propose that the plants were created by gnomes, but without any way to test that proposal, how can I expect that to be treated as a scientific hypothesis?

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 challenge is out there. Give me a test. A way to falsify the notion that God was involved with creation.

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).

I oppose ID being taught as science because it isn’t science. I have no problem with teaching that God created everything, just that it be taught in religion classes, not in science class.

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”.

You are misstating my objection. I don’t have ANY objection to investigating design. I hope someone is looking into it. I object to teaching that design is scientific when it is not. Remember, for it to be scientific, we must hold out the possiblity that the hypothesis that God created everything is false. I personally don’t hold that as a possibility. Do you?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM,

You bring up perfectly reasonable points. Mutation is generally negative in an organism or neutral. What most people ignore is the fact that not only are a great number of morphological changes needed for an organism to go from landdwelling to waterdwelling, there are also other events that stand in the way. It should also be mentioned that some mutations, such as occur today, are useless. A recent television program showed a cow with a third pair of legs hanging uselessly from its forward chest area. Why shouldn’t mutation give organisms three heads? or four sets of eyes?

Then there are the so-called ‘extinction events’ caused by comets. And fire, disease, death by predator and starvation due to fire or flood. The dynamic environments in which organisms were competing was not a lab.

Evolution is more like a fiction story template than a scientific investigation. Popular television programs tell the public that man became more intelligent in relation to his expanding brain size, but this no longer appears to be the case. I think there is more fictional imagination and wish fulfillment involved in the study of evolution than facts.

Scientists also make much about the difference between the early earth and the many changes that supposedly occurred on the way to the present. The coelocanth is still around. It has a very uncomplicated heart that is little more than a muscle that keeps the blood pumping. The heart is classified as “primitive” but what does that mean exactly? It works today.

There is also the very real issue of fossilized trees passing through many rock strata and even coal seams. Rapid burial is not the answer, and if they were exposed for thousands or millions of years to the elements, they would have rotted away to nothing.

There have been reliable reports of creatures described as dragons in recent history, the word dinosaur being of fairly modern origin. There are depictions of what are dinosaurs made by men, but these are discounted out of hand. I suspect that if these depictions were “officially” recognized as helping to prove, whatever that means, evolutionary theory then they would “exist,” but now, it is as if they do not exist because some expert has not labeled them as real.

Keep asking the questions.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Keep asking the questions.

I’ve got a question, Ed. What is the name of the highschool biology textbook that explicity excludes God’s role in creation?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

So I guess you understand my previous post that had you scratching your head.

Yes, that’s why I asked for an explanation and I appreciate the one you gave.

Then come up with a definition of design, a way to test for design and an example where that test can repeatedly identify design.

Apparently, you believe this is something impossible for science to do, right? If so, then why is it impossible for science to define what design is? – It is something that can be observed by human beings, just as SETI looks for signals which meet the criteria of design.

Because there is no way to test this. I don’t know how many times that has to be said, but there is no way to test for design.

Why not?

If you can come up with a design test that is acknowledged by someone like Dawkins, you will have begun to show ID as acutal science.

It’s actual science because it is working on matters that are scientific. According to your notion, only successful experiments count as science. So the researchers attempting to create living organic matter through a lab process are not doing science because it hasn’t worked yet.

Again, please explain why it is impossible to define what “design” is.

I could propose that the plants were created by gnomes, but without any way to test that proposal, how can I expect that to be treated as a scientific hypothesis?

Quite simply. You propose that a Cheverolet is created by gnomes. Through research you discover that it is actually created by the GM company. Thus, your proposal has been tested and falsified.

I propose that a certain thing meets the definition of a “designed object”. I test to see if there is any way that it could have been created by natural processes. If I discover that it could be-- then design has been tested and falsified.

Give me a test. A way to falsify the notion that God was involved with creation.

What do you mean by “involved”?

A very simple test to falsify the notion that “God is the creator of Life” is to show that life can be created in a laboratory.

One way to falsify the notion that all living things can be explained through evolutionary processes is to show that there are some things that evolution cannot explain (as I just did).

I oppose ID being taught as science because it isn’t science.

Well, that’s an interesting opinion, certainly. Your philosophical views about what is or isn’t science have whatever value anyone wants to give them. But your view of what is or isn’t science cannot be proven by science itself.

You are misstating my objection. I don’t have ANY objection to investigating design. I hope someone is looking into it.

The investigation of design in nature is a scientific process itself. It therefore can be taught in science class and it is science – just as much as abiogenesis experiments are science, even though they are not successful in producing life.

Remember, for it to be scientific, we must hold out the possiblity that the hypothesis that God created everything is false. I personally don’t hold that as a possibility. Do you?

I think people do believe that God did not create anything and, in fact, that God does not exist. So, for those people, I have to accept their point of view in order to argue that God does exist and God did create everything.

I cannot say that it is impossible for God to not have created everything without some evidence for that.

Personally, I see a lot of evidence – some I already showed.

We begin by understanding the definition of God as the necessary and greatest (most perfect) being to which the universe and life points for fulfillment. Within that perfection, we know God as pure intelligence.

So, evidence for God is the origin of the universe, first of all. The order and symmetry in the universe making conditions on earth perfect for life (in the most improbable manner). And we see life itself and the diversity of life forms all reflecting the intelligence of the Creator.

 

[Orogeny]

Apparently, you believe this is something impossible for science to do, right?

Wrong. That’s why I put the challenge to you to come up with a scientific definition of design, a test that can show that something is designed and examples of things that have been tested and shown to be designed.

Why not?

Because design has not even been defined. You are an advocate for design as science. Come up with a definition and a test. If you can convince people like Dawkins that the definition and the test are valid, you have entered into the realm of science.

It’s actual science because it is working on matters that are scientific.

So is astrology according to Behe. So was alchemy. Should we teach those two subjects to our highschool students during a science class?

According to your notion, only successful experiments count as science. So the researchers attempting to create living organic matter through a lab process are not doing science because it hasn’t worked yet.

You don’t understand what a sucessful experiment is. An experiment that fails can add as much information as one that succeeds. What experiment has been undertaken to show design? What is design? How can it be tested?

Again, please explain why it is impossible to define what “design” is.

I didn’t say it was impossible. It has not been done by people who have staked their careers on it.

Quite simply. You propose that a Cheverolet is created by gnomes. Through research you discover that it is actually created by the GM company. Thus, your proposal has been tested and falsified.

Yeah, but what if GM is just a gnome company? The point is is that you can test my hypothesis. You can’t test for ID because a) design hasn’t been defined, and b) there is no test for that undefined design. If you can’t test for it, you can’t falsify it.

I propose that a certain thing meets the definition of a “designed object”. I test to see if there is any way that it could have been created by natural processes. If I discover that it could be-- then design has been tested and falsified.

Well, in that case, I give you the snow flake. It has a natural explanation. Design has been falsified. Or are only certain things designed?

Your proposed method fails because it can’t determine if something IS designed. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that it could have been created by natural processes? Do you think you know every possible process?

What do you mean by “involved”?

That was in response to your post where you stated “We know already (by faith) that God was involved in creation.”.

A very simple test to falsify the notion that “God is the creator of Life” is to show that life can be created in a laboratory.

Nope. That would at best show that we found a possible way that He did it.

One way to falsify the notion that all living things can be explained through evolutionary processes is to show that there are some things that evolution cannot explain (as I just did).

Although you haven’t shown anything of the sort, evolution is easily falsified. It just so happens that even though there are a lot of people who have been trying, no one has been able to do that yet.

Well, that’s an interesting opinion, certainly. Your philosophical views about what is or isn’t science have whatever value anyone wants to give them. But your view of what is or isn’t science cannot be proven by science itself.

Huh?

The investigation of design in nature is a scientific process itself. It therefore can be taught in science class and it is science – just as much as abiogenesis experiments are science, even though they are not successful in producing life.

What are you investigating? What is design? What experiments are there to show design?

I think people do believe that God did not create anything and, in fact, that God does not exist. So, for those people, I have to accept their point of view in order to argue that God does exist and God did create everything.

I cannot say that it is impossible for God to not have created everything without some evidence for that.

So rather than insisting that a philosophy be taught as science, develop the science. I have consistently over the years on this forum stated that I would support teaching ID in science class if it can be shown to be science. Until then, it doesn’t belong there.

Personally, I see a lot of evidence – some I already showed.

We begin by understanding the definition of God as the necessary and greatest (most perfect) being to which the universe and life points for fulfillment. Within that perfection, we know God as pure intelligence.

So, evidence for God is the origin of the universe, first of all. The order and symmetry in the universe making conditions on earth perfect for life (in the most improbable manner). And we see life itself and the diversity of life forms all reflecting the intelligence of the Creator.

Those are philosophical arguments, not scientific arguments.

Peace

Tim

 

[Tevye]

That doesn’t bother me in the least.The lack of scientific evidence is the “proof” I need.Those have been shown to be wrong. Flagellum anyone?I missed that one. Can you post that link again? Anything from sceintific journals? I see design, but I see it because I have faith in God. I don’t see any scientific evidence for design.

Peace

Tim

Tim, this is Tevye and you are my first contact. I am retiscent to dive into your thread because it appears that it is so long that what I say may be redundant. Indeed, your tyhread is very interesting and I think i can contribute in a way that should delight you. Come back

 

[Tevye]

Tim, this is Tevye and you are my first contact. I am retiscent to dive into your thread because it appears that it is so long that what I say may be redundant. Indeed, your tyhread is very interesting and I think i can contribute in a way that should delight you. Come back

Ok, I may be speaking to no one in particular so I will mak a premptive statement and hope that Tim or someone else will com and pick up the gauntlet.

First, I believe in the Evolution concept AND the Creation concept. I am a retired engineer and to deny that evolution does not exist would be preposterous. Even Creation is a certainty and I can provide some very convincing proof of it. Is someone intersted? Tevye
I’ll check back later. I will also believe that these threads actually exist when somegood soul will respond.

 

[Orogeny]

Ok, I may be speaking to no one in particular so I will mak a premptive statement and hope that Tim or someone else will com and pick up the gauntlet.

First, I believe in the Evolution concept AND the Creation concept. I am a retired engineer and to deny that evolution does not exist would be preposterous. Even Creation is a certainty and I can provide some very convincing proof of it. Is someone intersted? Tevye
I’ll check back later. I will also believe that these threads actually exist when somegood soul will respond.

Hi Tevye. Welcome!

Of course I would be interested in your evidence for creation. Just so you know, my position is that God created everything. Evolution is how He developed the diversity of life on earth.

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

First, I believe in the Evolution concept AND the Creation concept. I am a retired engineer and to deny that evolution does not exist would be preposterous. Even Creation is a certainty and I can provide some very convincing proof of it.

I think you have it right, for the most part. Tell us about it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
As the Pope says, evolutionary theory is based on a large body of evidence.

(Darwin) 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.

Not atheistic anything. Not even atheistic plumbing. Fortunately, neither plumbing nor evolutionary theory denies divine providence, explicitly or otherwise.

So that’s not a problem for a Catholic. I second request for that Biology textbook that explicitly denies God.

 

[reggieM]

What experiment has been undertaken to show design? What is design? How can it be tested?

Specified complexity is an argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

I didn’t say it was impossible.

How do you know that?

You can’t test for ID because a) design hasn’t been defined,

How does SETI test for intelligent communication?

Well, in that case, I give you the snow flake. It has a natural explanation. Design has been falsified.

Right, that’s what I said. However, we’re only speaking of one aspect of design – namely, the process used to “make” the thing (snowflake) can be seen to be a natural process. However, what created the laws that drive the process?

Or are only certain things designed?

All things are created by God – some directly, others indirectly.

Your proposed method fails because it can’t determine if something IS designed. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that it could have been created by natural processes?

Let’s apply your idea to evolution. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that the fossils you see were not produced by evolution?

Do you think you know every possible process?

I ask the same of Darwinists. Do they consider every possible way an organism could have come into existence and developed? If so, how did they eliminate God’s influence?

Huh?

I’ll put it this way – prove that your definition of science is the true one. Use a scientific method to do it also.

I have consistently over the years on this forum stated that I would support teaching ID in science class if it can be shown to be science.

Some scientists disagree with you and they accept that ID is science. 18% of science educators in the US already teach some level of creationism in classrooms and others support teaching ID in schools also.

Beyond that, it seems that you would forbid Catholic schools from teaching that science is the study of the universe that God created and that God directly created the human soul, etc.

 

[edwest2]

An interview with scientist Charles Thaxton that may shed some light on this issue:

intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-07-25T13_49_57-07_00

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

So that’s not a problem for a Catholic. I second request for that Biology textbook that explicitly denies God.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original)

 

[Orogeny]

Specified complexity is an argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. Dembski states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent, a central tenet to intelligent design which Dembski argues for in opposition to modern evolutionary theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

So you are saying that “specified complexity” defines design? Test it. Find something, anything that would pass the test. Find something, anything that would convince someone like Dawkins that you are right.

How do you know that?

How do I know what?

How does SETI test for intelligent communication?

I don’t know. How do they? Perhaps you could use the same test.

Right, that’s what I said. However, we’re only speaking of one aspect of design – namely, the process used to “make” the thing (snowflake) can be seen to be a natural process. However, what created the laws that drive the process?

I can’t wait to see a test for that! I guess you don’t even see why that question illustrates why design cannot be scientific.

Let’s apply your idea to evolution. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that the fossils you see were not produced by evolution?

That’s not my idea, that is yours and you now see why it was not valid.

I’ll put it this way – prove that your definition of science is the true one. Use a scientific method to do it also.

A scientific method to prove my definition of science. Hmmm. I still don’t understand what you are asking. Do you just reject the scientific method because you can’t seem to get design to work in it?

Some scientists disagree with you and they accept that ID is science. 18% of science educators in the US already teach some level of creationism in classrooms and others support teaching ID in schools also.

I know that some scientists have, based on their belief in a literal reading of Genesis, decided to try to make science fit their pre-conceived notions. That is up to them.

Regarding science teachers, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that 82% don’t break the law and teach creationism in science class. I wonder how many of the ones that teach creationism teach in private, fundamentalist schools?

Beyond that, it seems that you would forbid Catholic schools from teaching that science is the study of the universe that God created and that God directly created the human soul, etc.

You sure like to make inferences about me. Your problem is that you are not good at it. Please provide even one post that I have made where I state that.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Find something, anything that would convince someone like Dawkins that you are right.

Apparently, you think that Dawkins is the ultimate measure of truth. Could it be that Dawkins is biased by his own atheism? How do you know that he is not? In other words, just because Dawkins is not convinced by something doesn’t mean that it is wrong.

That’s not my idea, that is yours and you now see why it was not valid.

No, it was your idea. You should go back and read it.

A scientific method to prove my definition of science. Hmmm. I still don’t understand what you are asking.

I’m asking you to prove that your definition of science is true. Yes, use a scientific method to prove that. Or you can use other means to prove that your definition of science is correct in objective terms.

I know that some scientists have, based on their belief in a literal reading of Genesis, decided to try to make science fit their pre-conceived notions. That is up to them.

For those scientists, ID is a scientific process.

I wonder how many of the ones that teach creationism teach in private, fundamentalist schools?

No, that survey was focused on public schools.

You sure like to make inferences about me. Your problem is that you are not good at it. Please provide even one post that I have made where I state that.

You stated:

I would support teaching ID in science class if it can be shown to be science. Until then, it doesn’t belong there.

I then pointed out that it seems that you would forbid Catholic schools from teaching that science is the study of the universe that God created and that God directly created the human soul, etc.

I made that observation because you do not support teaching ID in science class because it “is not science”.

Therefore, I just concluded that you would object to the things I mentioned since they are “not science” either.

 

[reggieM]

An interview with scientist Charles Thaxton that may shed some light on this issue:

intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-07-25T13_49_57-07_00

Peace,
Ed

That looks interesting. I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but the introduction was good.

This episode of ID the Future features part two of an interview with Dr. Charles Thaxton, one of the first intelligent design scientists in the modern ID movement.

Critics of intelligent design often try to frame ID as a political response to court rulings striking down the teaching of creationism. Today origin of life theorist and chemist Charles Thaxton tells the true history of intelligent design as a modern scientific movement fueled by new discoveries and critical examination of the evidence by open minds. Listen in as Dr. Thaxton explains what led him to ID and tells the story behind Of Pandas and People, the textbook that so disturbed Eugenie Scott because “it looks legitimate!”

Charles Thaxton is a member of the American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Scientific Affiliation and a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemistry.

There’s another scientist who believes that intelligent design is a “modern scientific movement”. For Dr. Thaxton, ID is science not religion or politics.

 

[Orogeny]

Apparently, you think that Dawkins is the ultimate measure of truth. Could it be that Dawkins is biased by his own atheism? How do you know that he is not? In other words, just because Dawkins is not convinced by something doesn’t mean that it is wrong.

Choose another athiest then. My point is that you have to convince someone who doesn’t believe in God that the design that you say is so obvious is there. If you have a valid definition, a valid test and valid test results, it would be very hard to deny. Go for it.

No, it was your idea. You should go back and read it.

You proposed a test that called for an evaluation of something that you considered designed. You said " I test to see if there is any way that it could have been created by natural processes. If I discover that it could be-- then design has been tested and falsified.". Using your test, you can never determine something is designed because you cannot say that you know all natural processes. Your test fails.

I’m asking you to prove that your definition of science is true. Yes, use a scientific method to prove that. Or you can use other means to prove that your definition of science is correct in objective terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What part of the scientific method do you disagree with? The repeatabilitiy part?

For those scientists, ID is a scientific process.

I see. So science is in the eye of the beholder? Astrologers are right if they claim they are scientists?

I then pointed out that it seems that you would forbid Catholic schools from teaching that science is the study of the universe that God created and that God directly created the human soul, etc.

I made that observation because you do not support teaching ID in science class because it “is not science”.

Therefore, I just concluded that you would object to the things I mentioned since they are “not science” either.

You don’t seem to understand that ID is not equivalent of saying that God created the universe or that God directly created the human soul. ID is a political philosophy designed (no pun intended!) to get creationism into the science curriculum. One does not need to accept ID to have faith. I accept that God created everything and that souls are directly created. I also know that ID is bunk and shouldn’t be taught in science class. If, however, I am wrong and ID is shown to be science, I would welcome it into the curriculum.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Choose another athiest then. My point is that you have to convince someone who doesn’t believe in God that the design that you say is so obvious is there.

I could convince Berlinski who is an agnostic. Or we could see that Anthony Flew who was an atheist recognized design in the structure of cellular life and then became a believer.

You proposed a test that called for an evaluation of something that you considered designed. You said " I test to see if there is any way that it could have been created by natural processes. If I discover that it could be-- then design has been tested and falsified.". Using your test, you can never determine something is designed because you cannot say that you know all natural processes.

Right. I was willing to agree with you that you had refuted my test. But I posed your example back to you regarding evolution. If you had to say that you knew every natural (or supernatural) process that could have developed species from one form to another – then you could never say that evolution was correct, and it could not be taught in schools (tests for evolution would fail). When looking at fossils, you are interpreting what you believe happened. You see similar morphology and other factors and conclude that one thing evolved from another. But how could this be falsified or verified? You would have to know every possible thing that could happen. Could God have created every fossil independently? There’s no way to prove that it didn’t happen that way. So, evolutionists make what they think is a reasonable conclusion – without looking at every possiblity.

The same is true with design. We see something that cannot be explained by natural laws (the miracles of Lourdes, for example) and conclude that this is evidence of the supernatural.

What part of the scientific method do you disagree with? The repeatabilitiy part?

My question was to you to prove that your definition of science was correct. The simple answer is that it cannot be done since you rely on a definition that was created by consensus and that there is no one correct definition that can be proven scientifically. In other words, the notion of “what is science” is a philosophical proposition which can be subject to change. The definition of what is science cannot be validated as true regarding something in reality that says what science is. It’s a subjective category.

So science is in the eye of the beholder?

That was my question. We have authentic, credentialed scientists who say that ID is science. Why am I not free to agree with them? Even if you say that the majority of scientists think something – we know that minority voices can often be correct.

Astrologers are right if they claim they are scientists?

I pointed to people who are considered scientists (by their schools and universities) and don’t just “claim” to be.
But beyond that, I don’t see why the study of astrology cannot be done as a scientific investigation. It’s a matter of studying if one’s birthdate has a discernable effect on personality, etc. That is as much science as many other aspects of psychology.

But that’s really not the main point. The key here is that scientists can differ on what is science and what isn’t. Some scientists believe that climate predictions are not science. There’s a lot of debate about Global Warming studies. Some believe that psychoanalysis is science, other scientists do not accept it as such. Is science in the eye of the beholder? If science gave true and accurate results, why would there be debates among scientists?

The fact is, much of science is human interpretation of evidence. That’s evolutionary theory itself. There’s room for debate. Some scientists believe that ID is truly science. You don’t for your own reasons, but I’m not the only one who disagrees with you on that.

You don’t seem to understand that ID is not equivalent of saying that God created the universe or that God directly created the human soul. ID is a political philosophy designed (no pun intended!) to get creationism into the science curriculum.

You’ve mentioned this a few times, but I don’t see it as a political issue primarily. Could you explain this more?

One does not need to accept ID to have faith. I accept that God created everything and that souls are directly created.

I see that as a contradiction. God used his divine intelligence to create the human soul. Thus, the soul is not a product of natural materials accidentally combining to evolve. This is certainly an element of ID theory that is not reflected in Darwinism.

If, however, I am wrong and ID is shown to be science, I would welcome it into the curriculum.

Ok, understood, but I was just questioning if you would welcome the teaching of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on science for example, into the curriculum also, since it is not science itself but gives the truths on aspects of scientific study.

 

[rossum]

Specified complexity is an argument proposed by William Dembski and used by him in his works promoting intelligent design.

Specified Complexity has some problems. Evolution can copy information from the environment into the genome, hence the information in a genome is not originated by evolution, but merely copied from the environment. Dembski’s methods cannot distinguish between original information and copied information (he calls it “apparent specified complexity”), so it is difficult to apply them to evolution.

As an example of what I mean, an environment may contain the information “white things are difficult to see against a snowy background.” This information has been copied into the genomes of many arctic animals.

How does SETI test for intelligent communication?

It looks for a very narrow bandwidth signal, essentially a simple monochromatic signal, rather than the wide bandwidth signals we normally see.

Let’s apply your idea to evolution. How do you eliminate ALL possibilities that the fossils you see were not produced by evolution?

A fossil is produced by a geological process. The original organism was produced by biological means - every organism that we see now has been produced by biological means, so it is reasonable to extrapolate this. Some fossils are of young or immature individuals or show annual growth rings again confirming that they originated from the biological processes we see operating now.

I ask the same of Darwinists. Do they consider every possible way an organism could have come into existence and developed? If so, how did they eliminate God’s influence?

While working within science it is not possible to eliminate God’s influence. Science only deals with natural explanations and God is a supernatural explanation.

I’ll put it this way – prove that your definition of science is the true one. Use a scientific method to do it also.

The scientific method does not “prove” anything. All it can provide is the best explanation we currently have. Defenitions merely exist, whether or not they are useful is a different question.

rossum

 

[Tevye]

Hi Tevye. Welcome!

Of course I would be interested in your evidence for creation. Just so you know, my position is that God created everything. Evolution is how He developed the diversity of life on earth.

Peace

Tim

Is it disrespectful of me to shorten your handle to Orgy? Ha-Ha Sounds like you are not a stuffed shirt and I like to have fun but anyway, as a preliminary, I’ve checked the previous dialog by other contributers and the minutia of the questions and answers cause me to believe that the focus has fallen off the page and that time and the continuous hash and rehash of the same thing has evolved the subject. As a means of of reestablishing the focus, I will say that :

1. Given, that in order to accept the notion of evolution, one must examine the basic components to see if what we say about the whole, applies to its individual parts as well. Of course, if what we state about the whole does not apply to its component parts, then the statement is obviously …false. EVOLUTION, I will define for myself, as: that natural process that changes or modifies the original subject matter or mass. This can be just about any object or thing. For instance, if we say that all matter is a basic element or combinations of known or unknown elements, that is the thing we are discussing. With one condition, Given that all conditions are equal in nature and magnitude, and that what applies to one object must also apply to ALL OTHER OBJECTS OF LIKE CONSTRUCTION in the same way!.
   Some sientist contend that all life came from a slime in the seas. That is to say that this slime, through the process of evolution , becomes something else. So long as this slime is the same EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, it will ,in-turn, become another object, the same process continues over time becoming other things ad infinitum.
   If we presume that at the dawn of time, that all slime was the same, then we must conclude, assuming that all conditions and the process of evolution itself continue to remain the same and evolving at the same rate. will become the very same NEW THING.
   I know , I know, that this is not a short subject matter and that I should stop, if I am to obey the agreed-to rules, then I guess I should. I will pick up at this point this after noon. Sorry, bear with me. tevye.