Creationism and life in general

[StAnastasia]

For anyone’s information, one of the best explanations for biblical male images goes to the heart of Hebrew writing. This can be found in an old issue of the magazine Christianity Today. Unfortunately, I am not at home to find the citation. When I say old, it could be close to twenty years. As I recall, Hebrew language is the issue.

The statement by the tribunal of bishops inquiring into the work of theologian Sr. Elizabeth Johnson acknowledges that images which Quest for the Living God discusses, namely those clustered around divine maternity, Wisdom (Sophia), and Spirit (ruah), are all found in the Bible. “The names of God found in the Scriptures are not mere human creations that can be replaced by others that we may find more suitable according to our own human judgment. The standard by which all theological assertions must be judged is that provided by divine revelation, not by unaided human understanding.”

 

[grannymh]

Elizabeth Johnson notes,
“The puzzling thing is that female images found in scripture are criticized as being against church teaching, while other non-biblical images, such as the African American image that ‘God is black,’ are not so criticized. I have tried to fathom why the Statement finds this female language so objectionable, and wonder if it is due to the fact that these images have come newly into speech mainly by the efforts of women. I could be wrong about this. But this is indeed a new phenomenon in the history of Christianity. Long silent and invisible in shaping the public culture of the church, baptized members of the community of the church who are women are trying to reclaim the fullness of their theomorphic and christomorphic identity.”

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/johnson-letter-us-bishops-doctrine-committee

This link prints out 28 pages. I did not have to read every word to get an idea of why the bishops are concerned.
Those interested in this topic can discuss it on this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549353

 

[tonyrey]

May I respectfully ask which “belief in evolution” are you referring to?

That which is accepted by Pope Benedict.

Those who want to bring down Catholicism sometimes use generalizations so as to hide their real intent. This is why Catholic apologetics needs to be updated. For example. Belief in the evolution of bacteria would not, in itself, contradict the Catholic teaching regarding the nature of the human person. Belief in the evolutionary theory that there is no need for a soul’s existence is a direct attack on everything Catholics believe about Adam and Eve and original sin.

I specified the belief that a man and a woman chose to sin for the very first time in prehistory - which implies that I believe in original sin.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve did not live in prehistory. They lived at the dawn of history which places them as the sole parents of the human species. (CCC 289 & 390)

According to wikipedia:

"The three-age system is the periodization of human** prehistory **into three consecutive time periods, named for their respective predominant tool-making technologies; the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No. That’s a wild leap. Most people know that there are many aspects and differing beliefs in Christianity.

Some people do not, and even those who hear otherwise cannot help but feel as if the christian acceptance of evolution is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent a dis-proven Christianity at odds with science…This unfortunate illusion is because of the prevalent and popular belief that Christianity is essentially creationism. It has taken a long time for “other views” to be accepted as genuine and honest expressions of Christianity…When i was an atheist, i did not know that it was theologically possible for Christians to be evolutionists, and that’s partly because anti-evil-science and creationist theology is so popular.
ricmat;7963039:

It would be better to spend our energy on teaching the core beliefs about the resurrection, virgin birth, etc. But, oh wait, those are not approved by science, so people will reject it, and that’s bad for faith.

They are neither approved or unapproved.

Speak the Truth. (T)ruth is not found in science books.

“No choice!” Give us a break here.

There are many who accept science as a rational approach to reality, but still believe in the resurrection, etc. which science says is impossible.

This is precisely what i am talking about. You speak about being honest and yet your claim implies that science has presented a theory which proves that the resurrection is impossible. Anybody who knows what science is and what it studies also knows that science cannot have a say on what is metaphysically impossible, especially given the epistemological limitations of its inductive method. It certainly cannot have a say on the powers of the supernatural. It simply has nothing to say, and the only time scientists have something to say is when paranoid Christians who think science is contradicting their faith start crying about teaching ID in science classrooms and how evil science is.
However i would agree that a natural resurrection goes against the laws of nature, but this is quite different from the Christian idea of a resurrection. You really must learn to distinguish between science writers who like to pretend that their biased opinionated philosophy is approved by science, and real scientists who are only concerned with publishing real scientific theories.

 

[edwest2]

No, that is not what MindOverMatter2 is saying. The point is not that science brings people to the faith, but that people who see Christians arguing either that you must reject standard science in favor of a young earth, or that what we think about science is indifferent, will think that Christians are either ignorant or malevolently opposed to learning and education (Augustine himself spoke on this).

 

[ricmat]

Some people do not, and even those who hear otherwise cannot help but feel as if the christian acceptance of evolution is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent a dis-proven Christianity at odds with science…This unfortunate illusion is because of the prevalent and popular belief that Christianity is essentially creationism. It has taken a long time for “other views” to be accepted as genuine and honest expressions of Christianity…When i was an atheist, i did not know that it was theologically possible for Christians to be evolutionists, and that’s partly because anti-evil-science and creationist theology is so popular.

They are neither approved or unapproved.

This is precisely what i am talking about. You speak about being honest and yet your claim implies that science has presented a theory which proves that the resurrection is impossible. Anybody who knows what science is and what it studies also knows that science cannot have a say on what is metaphysically impossible, especially given the epistemological limitations of its inductive method. It certainly cannot have a say on the powers of the supernatural. It simply has nothing to say, and the only time scientists have something to say is when paranoid Christians who think science is contradicting their faith start crying about teaching ID in science classrooms and how evil science is.
However i would agree that a natural resurrection goes against the laws of nature, but this is quite different from the Christian idea of a resurrection. You really must learn to distinguish between science writers who like to pretend that their biased opinionated philosophy is approved by science, and real scientists who are only concerned with publishing real scientific theories.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree about this.

Have a nice day

 

[Protector]

At the heart of the issue is **our first parents. Two real individuals. **
Protector;:

Talking of which, (Adam & Eve), the Australian aborigines claim to have been around for at least 40,000yrs (backed up by some big names in archaeology).
The following search box question takes you to the site that hotly disputes this claim,
** How long have Aborigines lived in Australia?**

Is the claim feasible? I note that Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement acknowledging evolution, but 40,000 yrs is a long time. Also, what are the “fixed points” that Bl. John Paul refers to?

edwest:

Pope Benedict has given a precise and eloquent description of what the Church currently thinks about human origins. And even refers to the statement by Blessed Pope John Paul II. That statement is often given minus a key part: “…there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.”
Peace,
Ed

Protector.

 

[StAnastasia]

] Talking of which, (Adam & Eve), the Australian aborigines claim to have been around for at least 40,000yrs (backed up by some big names in archaeology).

If you ask a creationist, it’s when Noah dropped them off along with the marsupials on his way home from the flood.

If you ask an anthropologist or archeologist or linguist or geneticist, it’s somewhere between 40,000 and 125,000 years ago. There is room for debate on this, but not later than 40,000 BCE.

 

[edwest2]

Some people do not, and even those who hear otherwise cannot help but feel as if the christian acceptance of evolution is nothing more than an attempt to reinvent a dis-proven Christianity at odds with science…This unfortunate illusion is because of the prevalent and popular belief that Christianity is essentially creationism. It has taken a long time for “other views” to be accepted as genuine and honest expressions of Christianity…When i was an atheist, i did not know that it was theologically possible for Christians to be evolutionists, and that’s partly because anti-evil-science and creationist theology is so popular.

They are neither approved or unapproved.

This is precisely what i am talking about. You speak about being honest and yet your claim implies that science has presented a theory which proves that the resurrection is impossible. Anybody who knows what science is and what it studies also knows that science cannot have a say on what is metaphysically impossible, especially given the epistemological limitations of its inductive method. It certainly cannot have a say on the powers of the supernatural. It simply has nothing to say, and the only time scientists have something to say is when paranoid Christians who think science is contradicting their faith start crying about teaching ID in science classrooms and how evil science is.
However i would agree that a natural resurrection goes against the laws of nature, but this is quite different from the Christian idea of a resurrection. You really must learn to distinguish between science writers who like to pretend that their biased opinionated philosophy is approved by science, and real scientists who are only concerned with publishing real scientific theories.

I have heard it said that science cannot have any say. Can you tell me why these conclusions are published in textbooks?

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

Textbooks have editors that check the facts and make sure examples are clear. What is the student who trusts his instructor to give him a good education to think?

Protesters outside the recently opened Creation Museum were concerned. One said, “If this gets into the schools, I’ll sue.” I’m not suggesting public schools should teach Creationism.

One poster here brought up the movie Expelled. One reviewer on amazon.com wrote: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

Sam Harris is also concerned about fellow scientists listening to the Pope, especially those who help advise the government regarding scientific matters. He is not shy in telling others that science is actually knowing something while religion is only pretending to know something.

I think Fundamentalist Christians are not the only ones stirring the pot. Everyone should be concerned when science textbooks and scientists speak out against Church teaching.

I’ve always liked science and enjoy keeping up with it but there are too many good examples of science stepping outside of the boundaries it has set for itself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

I am not trying to say that there are no scientists who have an agenda to destroy religion. But that doesn’t mean that what they show us isn’t true. People have a way of taking things out of context and by that they achieve distress among people who choose not to educate themselves. However, Kenneth miller understands that there is two different kinds of purpose. One is a guiding design and one is the metaphysical intended end of some actuality. One is determinism, and the other is open to creative change.

Imagine a canvas upon which the paint manifest its own art, but is still reliant upon the canvas in-order to exists.

In the context of physics, in the sense of secondary causality, I would agree that evolution can “work”, that is to say, “function” without something outside of physical reality guiding it to a specific end. In that sense it is random, it has no purpose in the sense that it does not require an intelligence in-order to function and also in the sense that what it produces in terms of physical essences is not determined. This is to say that the bodies we have might have been different, or that the world could have looked differently. Secondary causes are not intelligent, and thus chance is a real factor involved in the development of the physical world.

However this doesn’t necessitate the idea that an intelligent being didn’t create physical laws in-order to achieve something good; but science cannot tell us if such a being exists. You can create something for a purpose and yet allow that creation to develop according to it own laws without interference. This necessarily involves chance, and we evidently live in a universe full of chance events. Thus in the epistemological context of science, scientists are right to say that there is no purpose guiding those events. There is no design. Of course i would agree that the use of the word purpose is misleading. It reminds me of when they speak of the word “nothing”. When you look in to what they mean, it becomes clear that it is never intended to imply what we understand of them in a metaphysical context.

When a scientists says that evolution can be understood without purpose, they are correct if by that they mean that the universe functions, develops, and evolves according to it own laws of nature, and not by the hand of some interfering pagan deity.

I am not a pagan, are you?

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

Again this correct when seen in the right context.

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

Ed

I agree if the answer is framed in the context of secondary causes. If as a christian you agree that there are such things as secondary causes, you must also agree that random evolution is a necessary product of Gods universe and he intended it to be that way. It is evident to any honest person that the universe functions according to predictable laws and not by the interference of pagan deities.

God is not a pagan deity.

 

[ricmat]

I am not trying to say that there are no scientists who have an agenda to destroy religion. But that doesn’t mean that what they show us isn’t true.

Nobody is saying that scientists are always wrong. But it is quite possible that if they have an agenda to destroy religion, they will use lies as well.
MindOverMatter2;7969396:

People have a way of taking things out of context and by that they achieve distress among people who choose not to educate themselves. However, Kenneth miller understands that there is two different kinds of purpose. One is a guiding design and one is the metaphysical intended end of some actuality. One is determinism, and the other is open to creative change.

Imagine a canvas upon which the paint manifest its own art, but is still reliant upon the canvas in-order to exists.

In the context of physics, in the sense of secondary causality, I would agree that evolution can “work”, that is to say, “function” without something outside of physical reality guiding it to a specific end. In that sense it is random, it has no purpose in the sense that it does not require an intelligence in-order to function and also in the sense that what it produces in terms of physical essences is not determined. This is to say that the bodies we have might have been different, or that the world could have looked differently. Secondary causes are not intelligent, and thus chance is a real factor involved in the development of the physical world.

However this doesn’t necessitate the idea that an intelligent being didn’t create physical laws in-order to achieve something good; but science cannot tell us if such a being exists.

Your last sentence is not clear, but I’ll try to respond. ID does not refute the existence of physical laws. It doesn’t say that there is NO chance involved in nature. Heck, ID doesn’t even refute evolution per-se. It just says that design (purpose, guided somehow) is a more likely answer than random mutations for the existence of complex life. NOTE: ID is about much more than evolution - it includes things like the fine-tuning arguments of the universe, and abiogenesis, for example.

You can create something for a purpose and yet allow that creation to develop according to it own laws without interference.

Yes, and that engine of developmental creation would be quite a design, wouldn’t it?

This necessarily involves chance, and we evidently live in a universe full of chance events. Thus in the epistemological context of science, scientists are right to say that there is no purpose guiding those events. There is no design.

…and that engine of developmental creation would be quite a design, wouldn’t it?

When a scientists says that evolution can be understood without purpose, they are correct if by that they mean that the universe functions, develops, and evolves according to it own laws of nature, and not by the hand of some interfering pagan deity.

I am not a pagan, are you?

Ed isn’t a pagan, and neither am I. Your inference is that God does not interfere with his laws, and everything unfolds in a predetermined sequence. I believe that God does take an interest in the persons he loves, in the things he loves, and actually does interfere at some level. That’s not a pagan concept. It’s a Christian concept. The incarnation is a good example.

BTW - in your post above you mentioned that you are a former atheist who came to religion after you found out that you could accept evolution (paraphrased). I just read a post on uncommondescent.com by GilDodgen - a former atheist who was drawn to God by ID. I just wanted you to know that I respect your faith journey, and praise be to God that you came aboard. But it’s not the whole story. As someone else said, God calls us to him, and the paths can be quite different.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Nobody is saying that scientists are always wrong. But it is quite possible that if they have an agenda to destroy religion, they will use lies as well.

Your last sentence is not clear, but I’ll try to respond. ID does not refute the existence of physical laws. It doesn’t say that there is NO chance involved in nature. Heck, ID doesn’t even refute evolution per-se. It just says that design (purpose, guided somehow) is a more likely answer than random mutations for the existence of complex life. NOTE: ID is about much more than evolution - it includes things like the fine-tuning arguments of the universe, and abiogenesis, for example.

Yes, and that engine of developmental creation would be quite a design, wouldn’t it?

…and that engine of developmental creation would be quite a design, wouldn’t it?

Ed isn’t a pagan, and neither am I. Your inference is that God does not interfere with his laws, and everything unfolds in a predetermined sequence. I believe that God does take an interest in the persons he loves, in the things he loves, and actually does interfere at some level. That’s not a pagan concept. It’s a Christian concept. The incarnation is a good example.

BTW - in your post above you mentioned that you are a former atheist who came to religion after you found out that you could accept evolution (paraphrased). I just read a post on uncommondescent.com by GilDodgen - a former atheist who was drawn to God by ID. I just wanted you to know that I respect your faith journey, and praise be to God that you came aboard. But it’s not the whole story. As someone else said, God calls us to him, and the paths can be quite different.

Hey, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[edwest2]

Quote from MindOverMatter2-

“I agree if the answer is framed in the context of secondary causes. If as a christian you agree that there are such things as secondary causes, you must also agree that random evolution is a necessary product of Gods universe and he intended it to be that way. It is evident to any honest person that the universe functions according to predictable laws and not by the interference of pagan deities.”

Your statement has no scientific basis. This includes other statements that God selected two almost-humans and dropped souls into them. I’d like to see the science that confirms this idea.

All I’m seeing is an explanation formed of opinions that seek to reinterpret God’s work in a manner where science gets involved. The goal is to turn Biblical events and the work of God as only following predictable laws. Blessed Pope John Paul II is on his way to becoming a saint. A nun was stricken with Parkinson’s and was cured after intercessory prayers were made. This was rigorously investigated by the Church to rule out other explanations. Miracles still happen today.

The Blessed Virgin Mary has been seen and miracles followed. Jesus Christ used no technology to raise the dead, give sight to the blind and cleanse the lepers.

Pope Benedict had this to say some years back:

“Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.”

Here is the entire article:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

In fairness, he said that faith alone could not explain the whole picture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Hey, lets just agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree until we…don’t want to do that anymore, can’t we?

Actually, your prior post caught me with little time to respond. But I’m sure we’ll have some friendly and interesting conversations in the future.

 

[Protector]

No, there need not be anything anti-theistic about spontaneous generation, unless you insist on excluding God. Remember, with an infinite God a lot of things are possible

 

[inocente]

Sorry tony, been really busy and the thread moved on, but a couple of comments so that your work was not in vain.

How do “complicated underlying mechanisms” acquire intuition, insight, understanding and creativity?

Not by the supernatural. At first I thought this was off-topic, but you’re right to raise it. Does ID say that the intelligent agent designed the mind as a physical or as a supernatural system? If the former then many won’t like it. If the latter then ID is definitely not science. If neither then methinks this is a built-in fragmentation grenade that will birth multiple interpretations.

Isn’t survival a goal?

No, no really. Dawkins in the Selfish Gene aided the idea that survival is a goal, but it’s wrong. In evolution whatever happens to survive is all that remains. Animals with a strong survival instinct are more likely to survive than those without, so the only animals which remain tend to have an instinct to survive. But that’s after the fact, there is no selfish anything that selects goals and directs events.

So there is no evidence whatsoever about the nature of God’s goals in creating a universe which provides the conditions for evolution? Why didn’t He create a universe without evolution?

I’m saying that whatever goals He had and has, people interpret the evidence differently and no one knows the mind of God.

Why do you exclude survival? Isn’t living a function? Isn’t reproduction, nutrition, excretion and experiencing pleasure?
Must all living things have identical functions?

You may be missing my point. In order to draw up a design for a snow leopard, we first need a design brief. The brief tells us the function of the snow leopard, and from that we can make decisions such as the quality of its optical systems, whether they should be binocular to gauge prey distance and so on. Lots and lots of design decisions, all based on the brief. The intelligent agent needs to draw up a different brief for every single one of the species before being able to design them. Reductio ad absurdum.

God did not create the smallpox virus. It was created as a result of the conditions necessary for evolution which do not guarantee immunity from disease.

Is this another fragmentation grenade, ID fans just pick-n-mix?

As Rossum would say, please produce your calculations!

The probability of an eye popping into existence is the probability of zillions of quanta simultaneously popping into existence in precisely the correct configuration. Essentially a probability of one over infinity. And you need this very low probability to argue the eye could only come about by design, the design argument is dependent on very low probabilities. On the other hand trace the evolution of the eye: stage one - oceans full of proteins some of which join to become photoreceptive. Zillions of proteins, zillions of opportunities for this to happen over time. Essentially a probability of one. Stage two, etc. also have high probabilities, at least high indeed compared with ID’s zero. I don’t need to work out the exact numbers, this is orders of magnitude stuff.

Our eyes do not produce colours. They are the effects of different wavelengths of light.

Our eyes do produce colors in response to different wavelengths of visible light. For example, we perceive yellow not just for 570–580 nm, but also for a mix of 630–740 nm (“red”) and 520–570 nm (“green”), while some species of birds have better systems and see red-green as a separate color to yellow.

So the human mind consists of nothing but atomic particles?

Strictly speaking, atomic particles are only relevant to chemistry. We consist of quanta, and at the same time atoms, and at the same time proteins, and at the same time cells, and at the same time a colony of cells. Supernatural whatsits and thingamajigs don’t fit into this scheme of things.

I am not personalizing nature. I am saying that the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world are not aware of anything.

Agreed, I’m not very good at gods of wind stuff either.

 

[tonyrey]

Sorry tony, been really busy and the thread moved on, but a couple of comments so that your work was not in vain.

No te preocupes! Eres inocente.

Our work is never in vain. It helps to clarify our views and sometimes those of others.

How do “complicated underlying mechanisms” acquire intuition, insight, understanding and creativity?

Not by the supernatural. At first I thought this was off-topic, but you’re right to raise it. Does ID say that the intelligent agent designed the mind as a physical or as a supernatural system? If the former then many won’t like it. If the latter then ID is definitely not science. If neither then methinks this is a built-in fragmentation grenade that will birth multiple interpretations.No one understands how the mind and brain are related but unless you are a materialist or an idealist they must be and their interaction implies that ID must be science to some extent.

Isn’t survival a goal?

No, no really. Dawkins in the Selfish Gene aided the idea that survival is a goal, but it’s wrong. In evolution whatever happens to survive is all that remains. Animals with a strong survival instinct are more likely to survive than those without, so the only animals which remain tend to have an instinct to survive. But that’s after the fact, there is no selfish anything that selects goals and directs events.All animals have a self-preservation instinct from the instant they appear. They are unaware of it but it is a goal nevertheless.

So there is no evidence whatsoever about the nature of God’s goals in creating a universe which provides the conditions for evolution? Why didn’t He create a universe without evolution?

I’m saying that whatever goals He had and has, people interpret the evidence differently and no one knows the mind of God.So our goals and the goals of other forms of life throw no light whatsoever on God’s goals? We can know nothing whatsoever about God from what occurs in the world?

Why do you exclude survival? Isn’t living a function? Isn’t reproduction, nutrition, excretion and experiencing pleasure? Must all living things have identical functions?

You may be missing my point. In order to draw up a design for a snow leopard, we first need a design brief. The brief tells us the function of the snow leopard, and from that we can make decisions such as the quality of its optical systems, whether they should be binocular to gauge prey distance and so on. Lots and lots of design decisions, all based on the brief. The intelligent agent needs to draw up a different brief for every single one of the species before being able to design them. Reductio ad absurdum.In your opinion! It is quite unnecessary to draw up millions of designs for every species and subspecies. The** information **system we call DNA is quite adequate for that task.

God did not create the smallpox virus. It was created as a result of the conditions necessary for evolution which do not guarantee immunity from disease.

Is this another fragmentation grenade, ID fans just pick-n-mix?If you think the universe is not immensely complex with countless coincidences you must regard it as a supermarket with only one product!

As Rossum would say, please produce your calculations!

The probability of an eye popping into existence is the probability of zillions of quanta simultaneously popping into existence in precisely the correct configuration. Essentially a probability of one over infinity. And you need this very low probability to argue the eye could only come about by design, the design argument is dependent on very low probabilities. On the other hand trace the evolution of the eye: stage one - oceans full of proteins some of which join to become photoreceptive.Why and how do they join and succeed in becoming photoreceptive? By sheer Chance?

Zillions of proteins, zillions of opportunities for this to happen over time. Essentially a probability of one. Stage two, etc. also have high probabilities, at least high indeed compared with ID’s zero. I don’t need to work out the exact numbers, this is orders of magnitude stuff.

Your recapitulation of Dawkins has the same radical flaw: the assumption that given enough time anything is possible. Not only are particles prior to persons they are also their progenitors!** You use your mind to prove you are mindless!!!**

Our eyes do not produce colours. They are the effects of different wavelengths of light.
Our eyes do produce colors in response to different wavelengths of visible light. For example, we perceive yellow not just for 570–580 nm, but also for a mix of 630–740 nm (“red”) and 520–570 nm (“green”), while some species of birds have better systems and see red-green as a separate color to yellow.

They are still based on the effects of different wavelengths of light.

 

[grannymh]

Does ID say that the intelligent agent designed the mind as a physical or as a supernatural system? If the former then many won’t like it. If the latter then ID is definitely not science. If neither then methinks this is a built-in fragmentation grenade that will birth multiple interpretations.

I do like the description of ID being a built-in fragmentation grenade that will birth multiple interpretations. This probably accounts for my feeling that it is near impossible to discuss its results.

 

[inocente]

No one understands how the mind and brain are related but unless you are a materialist or an idealist they must be and their interaction implies that ID must be science to some extent.

A magnificently roundabout way of saying dualists have cornered the market on reason.

All animals have a self-preservation instinct from the instant they appear. They are unaware of it but it is a goal nevertheless.

My current goal is to finish this sentence, but that doesn’t mean I evolved with the goal of finishing this sentence.

So our goals and the goals of other forms of life throw no light whatsoever on God’s goals? We can know nothing whatsoever about God from what occurs in the world?

We can know some aspects of God, but I’m still saying that whatever goals He had and has, people interpret the evidence differently and no one knows the mind of God.

In your opinion! It is quite unnecessary to draw up millions of designs for every species and subspecies. The* information ***system we call DNA is quite adequate for that task.

DNA is how it’s encoded, but it’s necessary for the intelligent agent to (name removed by moderator)ut the design, otherwise it/she/he is out of a job. There are millions of species, millions of designs. Doesn’t each require the intelligent agent to draw up a separate design brief?

If you think the universe is not immensely complex with countless coincidences you must regard it as a supermarket with only one product!

Ah, here I’d tend to call these countless coincidences natural phenomena.

Why and how do they join and succeed in becoming photoreceptive? By sheer Chance?

They join because given the right conditions they can’t help themselves. In the same way, rocks form into a sphere when there’s sufficient mass, and we call them planets. They do it naturally because it’s in their nature, not because an intelligent agent designs planets.

We had a dog I named Chance, because he gave me a chance. Christ also gave me a chance, but ID, developed I guess to support belief, requires we talk about photoreceptors instead of the gospel. Funny old world.

Your recapitulation of Dawkins has the same radical flaw: the assumption that given enough time anything is possible. Not only are particles prior to persons they are also their progenitors!* You use your mind to prove you are mindless!!!***

No, what we see is possible, what we don’t see may never be possible. Even given the entire life-span of the universe, a shattered glass is highly unlikely to spontaneously reform. There’s nothing in the laws of physics to say it can’t, it’s just incredibly unlikely. On the other hand, given an ocean containing zillions of proteins and a few thousands of years, some combine, you can’t stop the little fellers. Given quite a while longer, we get to have brains.

Not supernatural thingumabobs. Cast off this dualism bro, set yourself free!

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Some people believe in a literal six day creation. My question is, so what? What practical problem could possibly be caused by this? Oh, I know some people are afraid this might end up in schools. I get that. But so far, I’ve seen zero credible evidence to suggest it is a significant problem.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Ed

… my dear friend ,

… my personal view is change and time are an illusion , they can and do occur in a gradual unfolding way and it will be like this forever literally to us , but god is in eternity and cannot exist in time , and in eternity there is no beginning , end or middle , just " now " , so god must do all his creativity " now " and not over time as we think , but we and our world experience this change gradually unfolding for sure , and we must , as how could we be here , in purgatory and heaven all at once ??? , we cannot , and judging by what we experience the unfolding of change has been very gradual much as sciene says , but in reality one might say there is but one day " now " and all occurs " now " in this one day , hence creation is recorded as happening in this one day being repeated perhaps as if to allude to what i say , that change is an illusion of necessity to us , but with god all change has always been in " now " , there is really no such thing as time as we think , it’s an illusion in my opine ,

… god bless and love you ,

… john …