Creationism and life in general

[MindOverMatter2]

Did I say that the theory of evolution is false? Everything about it?

ID does not say evolution is false. It says that a better answer for the life we see today is that it was designed (goal / purpose / plan / guidance) rather than “random mutations + natural selection.”.

No, ID says that God cannot create a physical reality that governs itself according to natural laws and thus God needs to tweak them. Random mutation and natural selection does not contradict a true understanding of purpose or a plan once understood within the proper context. God created a natural world that acts according to its own nature. The idea that God tweaks the universe doesn’t make any sense when considering that God created a universe that functions according to own nature.

Signature in the Cell is a good book about this subject, as well as abiogenesis.

You need to do some reading. I think the general category is called “evolutionary psychology”.

It is true that there is an atheistic agenda mixed up in this article. However, there is nothing wrong in principle with “evolutionary psychology” or evolutionary ethics once it is understood what is meant by morals in that particular context. There has evidently been an evolution of how we treat each-other as a species. There has been an evolution of how human beings have chosen to survive. Those species that work together for each-others benefit and for the benefit of survival, in general live longer. In the context of physics, this is what is meant by morality, Hence natural selection has a part to play in evolutionary ethics. Our sense of right and wrong is for the most part grounded in our experience of the natural world and our natural desire to survive, in the sense that we learn what is good for us and bad for through our experience of pleasure and pain. There is a “natural morality” that evolves wholly apart from religion. But it is not morality in exactly the same sense that the Catholic faith understands morality. What Christianity would say is that we cannot get a full understanding of what we “ought” to do without knowledge of the creator; which i agree with. In this sense, evolutionary ethics is not a theory of “ought”, but rather it is a natural theory of how physical influences have had a direct effect on the development of laws or rules within societies, and it can give us some understanding of what is good for us in a purely “physical sense” in terms of our survival as a species.

It is wrong to attack ID on the account of other people’s agendas. Enough said?

Its wrong to call ID a science. It is evident to me that God created a natural order that functions according to secondary causes and not according to divine tweaking. Thats what the world looks like to me.

And a God who can’t get things right the first time, and needs to keep trying with random mutations? Doesn’t sound very powerful to me.

The purpose of evolution is to let things evolve by themselves according to there own nature. A non deterministic reality isn’t defined in terms of getting it right the first time; since this is a process which necessarily involves chance and random events. In this context, there is no such thing or need for trying to get things right the first time, since that is not the purpose of creating a natural order.

Why do composers of music actually conduct orchestras playing their music?

Because in this particular context conductors want their music music played in a way that might not have the same presence had not the conductor been there.

Why would they intervene when the score is there, laid out, and the orchestra could follow it without the composer doing the conducting?

Because in this particular context it is in some way beneficial for there to be a conductor.

Does that mean that God would create a naturally evolving universe that cannot naturally evolve by itself? No. God created a naturally evolving universe.

Keep reading the literature. You’ll run across it. And it will be a scientist who is pushing the idea. When you see it, please give the guy a call and tell him he’s wrong, please (for both of us!).

I can’t help but think that such things wouldn’t be happening if there was not such a strong religious opposition to natural evolution in the first place. Religious people such as yourself have helped to create the illusion that there is a conflict between science and religion, so of course some people are going to take advantage of that. They have you to thank.

You are so engrossed in interpreting everything I say as an attack on evolution that you are missing everything…

You are in fact saying that the universe did not naturally evolve, but that it instead was tweaked. You have also said that the idea of a naturally evolving universe is contradictory to the catholic faith.

The TOE says that everything about humans, intellect, emotions, moral values, etc. - it ALL is in the genes.

It depends on the context. I don’t see why that would be a problem for Catholicism. The church would say that we all have a natural sense of moral law, its written in our hearts. It therefore does not surprise me to find that these things are in our genes.

 

[inocente]

There are such people probably. I haven’t seen any here. Have you?

Not amongst the regulars on this thread, but answering more generally might get me banned.

But there are many people who understand Evolution very well, and still have doubts that it can do everything claimed by its supporters.

I’m a big fan of doubt, anyone with a mustard seed of doubt is a good guy in my book.

I’m sorry, I thought the reference was obvious. If I offended you (or “Baptists”) that was not my point.

It’s me that needs to say sorry. Another thread got me over-sensitive. Sorry.

What you quote above is not science / engineering, it is theology. Which is fine if that’s what we want to discuss. What God has done can be discerned by science. Why he did it, or whether it is “good intelligent design” or not - who are we to judge?

Bartelt’s point is that ID needs criteria for deciding whether a design involves intelligence. Without any criteria it’s meaningless as science – we could point at a lump of rock, pile of sand or anything else and say it’s intelligently designed, there’s no way to falsify the hypothesis. And without criteria there’s no way to separate an intelligent design from an evolved design, ID can’t be scientifically distinguished from the ToE, it’s becomes merely one theological interpretation of the ToE.

But when we look at real life, many “designs” show no sign of what would be recognized as good engineering standards, instead they show every mark of having evolved. At this point ID retreats and says that although it specifically postulates an intelligent agent it’s grossly unfair to expect it to say what it means by intelligent. Well, no way José is it unfair, the word’s even in the title.

To insist that God must have used evolution because it is inherently sloppier than intelligent design (and what we see - all that "junk DNA and all is sloppy - seems to diminish God IMO.

In passing, I believe much of what was called junk DNA has now been found to be functional and it’s likely the remainder is too. Not up on it, but to my IT ears it sounds like it’s compressed - in the same way it would be very hard at first to recognize MP3 as encoded music.

*With intelligent design, we can say that we might not yet realize how good the design actually is. With evolution, the assumption is from the start that God is sloppy, and/or needs to try over and over until finally man pops out.

I would like to state that the whole idea that we know if ID is true or evolution is true based on the “sloppy factor” is not a good way to look at things. But it seems to come up a lot even though its a red herring.*

I take the opposite road - imho evolution is an extraordinarily intelligent way to design. For one, our messy mix of emotional and rational thought with all its faults is breathtaking compared to any computer. If our minds were well-designed with no emergent properties we might never have been able to relate to God.

 

[tonyrey]

I was pretty sure I already answered them all previously.

Someone PM’d me today for links about mind and brain, I’m no specialist but cobbled some together as a start point into a field where loads of work put to bed the correlation between brain and mind many years ago:

Imaging overview - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimaging

Brain atlas - med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/home.html

See for yourself at UC Berkeley - learningandthebrain.com/Event/iGeneration/UC-Berkeley-Brain-Scan-Tours

Berkeley can tell you what you’re looking at - wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/03/mri_vision

Brain as a network - cam.ac.uk/research/features/neuro-tweets-hashtagging-the-brain

Journal - asnweb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3317

Tools - loni.ucla.edu/

Susan Greenfield made an interesting BBC series about the state of the art as of 2000, which includes a round-up of many pieces of work.

YouTube playlist - youtube.com/view_play_list?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_42494&p=18D1C6A6672EE0D0

From memory most of the series is on evidence but she theorizes about free will and consciousness in the last episode.

The most that neuroscience can establish is that the mind is related to the brain. If you wish to believe the mind is produced by the brain you also have to believe we are biological machines without self-control, the power of self-determination, moral responsibility and the capacity for unselfish love. On that happy note I shall leave you and agree to disagree…

 

[ricmat]

No, ID says that God cannot create a physical reality that governs itself according to natural laws and thus God needs to tweak them.

No. ID doesn’t say that. Please stop saying things like that.

It’s not a matter of what God could do, or what God needs to do. He can do anything, and needs to do nothing.

What ID says is “this is most likely how God did it.”

Random mutation and natural selection does not contradict a true understanding of purpose or a plan once understood within the proper context.

We’ll just have to disagree on this one. IMO “random” and God’s plan are contradictory. Yes, I know the arguments about contingency, etc. I continue to disagree however, but respect your viewpoint.

God created a natural world that acts according to its own nature. The idea that God tweaks the universe doesn’t make any sense when considering that God created a universe that functions according to own nature.

Do you think that God designed the laws of nature?
Do you think that God never intervenes in his creation?

Its wrong to call ID a science. It is evident to me that God created a natural order that functions according to secondary causes and not according to divine tweaking. Thats what the world looks like to me.

ID is not proposing any new “natural laws.” ID looks for elements of design in nature. Because ID is not proposing any new “natural laws” does not mean that ID is not science. Read Signature in the Cell, and tell me where it claims to be science, and is not.

ID does not propose that God continually tweaks anything ("Design as a “verb.”) ID is primarily focused on “Design as a noun.” *

The purpose of evolution is to let things evolve by themselves according to there own nature.

Are those natures designed, or are they chaotic?

A non deterministic reality isn’t defined in terms of getting it right the first time; since this is a process which necessarily involves chance and random events. In this context, there is no such thing or need for trying to get things right the first time, since that is not the purpose of creating a natural order.

OK. So those who say that ID is bad theology because it implies that God didn’t get it right the first time should back off too… agreed?

Because in this particular context conductors want their music music played in a way that might not have the same presence had not the conductor been there.

Or it’s because they love their creation so much that they want to participate in its unfolding.

Does that mean that God would create a naturally evolving universe that cannot naturally evolve by itself?

Of course not.

But because God could have done it that way doesn’t mean that God actually did it that way.

You are in fact saying that the universe did not naturally evolve, but that it instead was tweaked. You have also said that the idea of a naturally evolving universe is contradictory to the catholic faith.

I believe that the universe was designed. To you that means “tweaked.” If that’s not what you are referring to, I’m sure what you are talking about. Please provide a link. Perhaps you misunderstood something I said…

Also, a link with regard to your second sentence…

It depends on the context. I don’t see why that would be a problem for Catholicism. The church would say that we all have a natural sense of moral law, its written in our hearts. It therefore does not surprise me to find that these things are in our genes.

I mentioned a few things, and you only responded with one…did you leave the others out for a reason? I’m not accusing, just asking.

I read a quote somewhere that the church disapproves of this idea. I don’t have it at my fingertips. I’ll try to locate it.*

 

[ricmat]

Not amongst the regulars on this thread, but answering more generally might get me banned.

I’m a big fan of doubt, anyone with a mustard seed of doubt is a good guy in my book.

It’s me that needs to say sorry. Another thread got me over-sensitive. Sorry.

Bartelt’s point is that ID needs criteria for deciding whether a design involves intelligence. Without any criteria it’s meaningless as science – we could point at a lump of rock, pile of sand or anything else and say it’s intelligently designed, there’s no way to falsify the hypothesis. And without criteria there’s no way to separate an intelligent design from an evolved design, ID can’t be scientifically distinguished from the ToE, it’s becomes merely one theological interpretation of the ToE.

You make a good point. However, ID is still a work in progress, just like TOE is. Signature in the Cell goes into this in detail. The whole idea of encoded information seems to be promising as one criteria.

But when we look at real life, many “designs” show no sign of what would be recognized as good engineering standards, instead they show every mark of having evolved. At this point ID retreats and says that although it specifically postulates an intelligent agent it’s grossly unfair to expect it to say what it means by intelligent. Well, no way José is it unfair, the word’s even in the title.

There was criticism of the eye being intelligently designed…the optic nerve blocks part of the retina (or something such). But upon further investigation, it turned out that this was actually a better way than the critics “God would have done it this other way because it’s more intelligent”. This is one example, but I’ve seen more. The more we investigate, the more we know. As far as I’m concerned, design is looking good, random mutations explaining everything is looking not so good.

In passing, I believe much of what was called junk DNA has now been found to be functional and it’s likely the remainder is too. Not up on it, but to my IT ears it sounds like it’s compressed - in the same way it would be very hard at first to recognize MP3 as encoded music.

From what I’ve read, it’s even much more encoded than just a simple MP3 file. If I find the article again, I’ll post or PM it to you. Ditto - if you find something more on this subject, please let me know!

I take the opposite road - imho evolution is an extraordinarily intelligent way to design. For one, our messy mix of emotional and rational thought with all its faults is breathtaking compared to any computer. If our minds were well-designed with no emergent properties we might never have been able to relate to God.

I won’t argue that it couldn’t work given enough time. But the facts seem to indicate that 14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short…

 

[Al_Moritz]

MindOverMatter2,

I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts which show nuance and clarity of thinking, and I agree with your emphasis on the importance of not confusing philosophy with science.

Alas many theists seem to think they have to reject certain science, when what they have to reject instead are just the philosophical implications that some scientists infer while overstepping the boundaries of science proper.

The confusion about an alleged incompatibility of randomness with divine providence appears to be part of this problem too, as is lack of being informed what the Church actually says on the issue, e.g. in paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[ricmat]

MindOverMatter2,

I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts which show nuance and clarity of thinking, and I agree with your emphasis on the importance of not confusing philosophy with science.

I agree. Well done, MOM2. [perhaps we should go back to the Linux thread where we agreed as well ]

Alas many theists seem to think they have to reject certain science, when what they have to reject instead are just the philosophical implications that some scientists infer while overstepping the boundaries of science proper.

“Certain science.” So now it’s certain? isn’t Science is ever finding new and better explanations. Or do you disagree?

Alas, many theists reject particular aspects of certain scientific theories based on science. Me, for example. I reject that [random mutations + natural selection] can account for the complexity of the life we see today based on scientific principals. It has nothing to do with theology. Although, when certain people tell me that I must believe in the TOE because it implies a more powerful, etc. etc. God because evolution is so wonderful, then I will usually argue that point just to be contrary.

Alas, many people condemn ID and insist on not learning what it actually is, because they already know its bad science.

The confusion about an alleged incompatibility of randomness with divine providence appears to be part of this problem too, as is lack of being informed what the Church actually says on the issue, e.g. in paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

The issue is not an incompatibility with divine providence and some degree of randomness. The issue is purpose / guidance / God interacting with his creation. I don’t recall exactly where you are on this issue, but many here refuse to say that God planned his universe, or that he guides it, or that he interacts with it (because that would be “tweaking” and imply an incompetent God.)

If God is guiding something, then it is not random. It may appear to us based on our limited intellect to be random, but to God it is not random, therefore it is not random by definition.

Or were you referring to this sentence from that paragraph?In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
So, is God guiding creation, or not? If he is, it’s not random.

or perhaps it was this sentence you referred to above:
A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted.

Yes indeed, the neo-Darwinists ignore and misinterpret “evidence of design” regularly. Shame on them.

 

[Al_Moritz]

“Certain science.” So now it’s certain? isn’t Science is ever finding new and better explanations. Or do you disagree?

Alas, many theists reject particular aspects of certain scientific theories based on science.

I used the term “certain” exactly in the sense that you use it here in “certain scientific theories”.

Or were you referring to this sentence from that paragraph?In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.
So, is God guiding creation, or not? If he is, it’s not random.

I was referring to:

*But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). *

If God is guiding something, then it is not random. It may appear to us based on our limited intellect to be random, but to God it is not random, therefore it is not random by definition.

Not necessarily. I may remind you of my post to you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7893029&postcount=523

 

[grannymh]

MindOverMatter2,

I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts which show nuance and clarity of thinking, and I agree with your emphasis on the importance of not confusing philosophy with science.

Alas many theists seem to think they have to reject certain science, when what they have to reject instead are just the philosophical implications that some scientists infer while overstepping the boundaries of science proper.

The confusion about an alleged incompatibility of randomness with divine providence appears to be part of this problem too, as is lack of being informed what the Church actually says on the issue, e.g. in paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Re: " the Church actually says on the issue"
In church-speak, permission to publish means that this study may be published.

Here are the Church people:

* Preliminary Note
The theme of “man created in the image of God” was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication.

From same link as in post

 

[ricmat]

I used the term “certain” exactly in the sense that you use it here in “certain scientific theories”.

OK - the reason I asked is because the term “settled science” seems very popular, and it has the connotation of “we scientists are certain it is True.” I misunderstood.

Thanks for the clarification.

But if it’s not certainly True, then why must anyone believe it?

I was referring to:

*But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). *

Well - It’s an interesting non-binding opinion of yet another commission.

I continue to believe that:

1. God did not just get things (i.e. the natural laws) started, then back away. That’s Deism (a heresy).
2. God intervenes in the creation that he loves, not because he has to but because he wants to.
3. God’s purpose is inconsistent with “randomness.” Order is the opposite of randomness, and whether you interpret Genesis1 literally or metaphorically, the message is that God personally and continuously intervened and created order from chaos, up to and including the appearance of man.
4. God wants us to appreciate his creation, his design. He does not hide behind a veil of randomness. Otherwise look at the gymnastics one must go through (your quote above) to somehow keep God involved in the explanation. God is not a god of the intellectuals, or a god of the scientists. If one needs to understand your paragraph above to understand God - we’re all in deep trouble.

 

[inocente]

You make a good point. However, ID is still a work in progress, just like TOE is. Signature in the Cell goes into this in detail. The whole idea of encoded information seems to be promising as one criteria.

The difference is that ID is not even a hypothesis until it defines what it means by intelligent, until then it’s far too vague to call itself science.

There was criticism of the eye being intelligently designed…the optic nerve blocks part of the retina (or something such). But upon further investigation, it turned out that this was actually a better way than the critics “God would have done it this other way because it’s more intelligent”.

But after introducing the rather insulting term intelligent agent, an it/she/he, ID comes over all holy and says it’s not for us to judge God. Not only does it refuse to say what it means by intelligent, it wants special pleading. That might be tickety-boo for theologians and philosophers but it cuts no ice with scientists and engineers – we want clear statements that can be empirically tested, not rambling theorizations and please don’t shout at me I’m only a blonde.

From what I’ve read, it’s even much more encoded than just a simple MP3 file. If I find the article again, I’ll post or PM it to you. Ditto - if you find something more on this subject, please let me know!

I did some work on MP3 and it’s truly amazing something that complicated actually works.

I won’t argue that it couldn’t work given enough time. But the facts seem to indicate that 14 billion years is about 39,000 orders of magnitude too short…

I’d have to ask why no one in the life sciences can spot such an obvious problem with the ToE.

All the calculations of this type I’ve seen are dead wrong. One common mistake is to assume total randomness under the guise of a simplifying factor when in reality chemical and biological processes are obviously not totally random, there’s always a distribution of outcomes. Another mistake is to forget that a process may be going on multiple times, for example oceans full of proteins give zillions of opportunities. Another mistake is to put the factors together wrongly. Golden rule - peer review.

 

[inocente]

Devil’s advocate:

1. God did not just get things (i.e. the natural laws) started, then back away. That’s Deism (a heresy).

Scientifically we can’t say.

2. God intervenes in the creation that he loves, not because he has to but because he wants to.

There’s no objective evidence He intervenes.

3. God’s purpose is inconsistent with “randomness.” Order is the opposite of randomness, and whether you interpret Genesis1 literally or metaphorically, the message is that God personally and continuously intervened and created order from chaos, up to and including the appearance of man.

Genesis is a creation account written by men after the fact (a long time after the fact ).

4. God wants us to appreciate his creation, his design. He does not hide behind a veil of randomness. Otherwise look at the gymnastics one must go through (your quote above) to somehow keep God involved in the explanation. God is not a god of the intellectuals, or a god of the scientists. If one needs to understand your paragraph above to understand God - we’re all in deep trouble.

God does hide otherwise everyone would know He exists.

 

[inocente]

There’s [a thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=571767 about the following.) about the following short talk. Personal view - creationism, ID, warring with science and materialism are all diversions. This geek is closer to the truth - the kingdom of God is built by us.

Jim Gilliam - The Internet is My Religion

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well - It’s an interesting non-binding opinion of yet another commission.

I continue to believe that:

1. God did not just get things (i.e. the natural laws) started, then back away. That’s Deism (a heresy).

When people start bullet pointing i can’t help but make a reply.

Nobody is proposing deism. We are proposing that God allows nature to fullfill its own intrinsic ends for which it was created. God created the universe to exibit the laws and rules by which it is governed and God sustains its existence in being inorder to bring about that expression. Divine Sustenance is a kind of intervention but it is not the same thing as tweaking a universe which could have evolved by itself without interference.

1. God intervenes in the creation that he loves, not because he has to but because he wants to.

There is a difference between divine intervention in respect of human salvation, and tweaking the universe. Human beings don’t have to exist, and God has no immediate moral responsibility towards them untill they do.

1. God’s purpose is inconsistent with “randomness.” Order is the opposite of randomness,

Not neccesarily. Unless you are willing to believe that all physical events are moved by God alone (determinsm is not a Catholic position) you have to agree that there are secondary cuases and thus randomness and chance in nature.

and whether you interpret Genesis1 literally or metaphorically, the message is that God personally and continuously intervened and created order from chaos, up to and including the appearance of man.

Well, if you interpret genesis as a science book its no wonder that you think that this is literally true. Again, let me remind you of the difference between divine intervention (expressing truth and creating miracles inorder bring about and inspire the moral salvation of mankind and faith), and the tweaking of the physical universe (the intervention of a design which serves no purpose but to show off).

4.God wants us to appreciate his creation, his design.

Its because i see meaning and purpose in reality that i worship God.

You keep saying God wants something as if he is seeking to fullfill a desire that is unfulfilled. God eternally expresses his nature which is love. Love is Gods plan, and it is in Gods plan that nature freely acts according to its nature unrestricted, just as God does.

He does not hide behind a veil of randomness.

Nobody said that he did. I said that God created a universe that becomes actual according physical laws which God created. Thus there is both order and randomness in nature. Randomness is a natural outgrowth of the rules and laws that God created.

God is not a god of the intellectuals, or a god of the scientists.

Then your God appears to be the God of the gullible since he does not favor inteligent explanations of reality.

Sorry, i just had to…

 

[Jon_Leveille]

I asked a question earlier, which nobody bothered to answer, and that is probably because there is no answer. It is probably because there are not ten scientific facts in accordance with the Bible, that support the theory of Evolution!!! But the challenge still stands for any Gap Theory or Old Earth Creationists, who wish to post those ten facts!!! Evolution was created as a way for man to deny God “scientifically”. The Theory of Evolution has been disproven over and over, and no matter how much DNA we share with chimpanzees, or chromosomes we share with vegetables, and other animals (humans=46 tobacco=48 bat=44), we are still not anything but human. (“Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”

• "

Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution?
) The computer programs that evolutionists run, claiming that they prove evolution, are actually proof for creation, because it took an intelligent designer, to create the programs just the way they wanted them to!!!
  History has also proven Christianity, historians used to claim that history proved that Nabonidus, was the last king of Babylon, and that since the Bible said that it was a man named Belshazzar or Balthazar, who was the last king of Babylon, the Bible must be wrong. That changed in the 1870’s and 80’s, when the Nabonidus Chronicle, and Cylinder were found. The Chronicle and Cylinder, state that Nabonidus, left his son Belshazzar in control when he left, this also explains why Belshazzar in the Bible only promoted Daniel to 3rd in the kingdom. Because Belshazzar himself was 2nd in the kingdom!!!
  History and Science prove the Bible, there is also the story of Sennacherib, who in the Bible, had his whole army destroyed, at the siege of Jerusalem, by the angel of the Lord, a total of 185,000 men!!! The Historical record of the Assyrians, however states that Sennacherib besieged the city of Lachish, and then went home. Why would he take all the cities leading up to the capital city, and not take Jerusalem? But then again, who wants to be known as the king of Assyria who lost 185,000 men without one fight occuring!!! The Assyrian record, has tons of drawings of the siege of Lachish, a minor city, instead of the city of Jerusalem, which they could have taken easily with an army that big!!! Wouldn’t you try to cover up the fact that you had lost 185,000 men without a fight, at an enemy’s capital! Wouldn’t you play up the fact that you defeated the city of Lachish, rather than have a defeat recorded!! The Egyptians destroyed part of their History, because of the beliefs of one of their pharaohs, why wouldn’t the Assyrians try to cover up a defeat, by erasing it from the history books!!
  God is shown throughout history and science, though man may try to deny it!!!
  May God Bless Your Day

 

[ricmat]

The difference is that ID is not even a hypothesis until it defines what it means by intelligent, until then it’s far too vague to call itself science.

Perhaps you are right. But my main concern is not whether it is science or whether or it is philosophy, but “Is it true?”

I’d have to ask why no one in the life sciences can spot such an obvious problem with the ToE.

They have. You need to read a bit more.

All the calculations of this type I’ve seen are dead wrong. One common mistake is to assume total randomness under the guise of a simplifying factor when in reality chemical and biological processes are obviously not totally random, there’s always a distribution of outcomes. Another mistake is to forget that a process may be going on multiple times, for example oceans full of proteins give zillions of opportunities. Another mistake is to put the factors together wrongly. Golden rule - peer review.

No, they take those things into account. You need to read more. You could start with Signature in the Cell.

 

[ricmat]

When people start bullet pointing i can’t help but make a reply.

Nobody is proposing deism. We are proposing that God allows nature to fullfill its own intrinsic ends for which it was created. God created the universe to exibit the laws and rules by which it is governed and God sustains its existence in being inorder to bring about that expression. Divine Sustenance is a kind of intervention but it is not the same thing as tweaking a universe which could have evolved by itself without interference.

I’m glad to see that you think that God intervenes. There are some here who seem to doubt that.

You seem to believe that God cannot intervene, because that would be against the rules (of nature).

I hope you agree that God intervened with regard to the Incarnation. And miracles. But you limit God’s intervening when it comes to the laws of nature. That seems a bit strange. You can define things how you want, but it still seems a bit strange (to me).

Not neccesarily. Unless you are willing to believe that all physical events are moved by God alone (determinsm is not a Catholic position) you have to agree that there are secondary cuases and thus randomness and chance in nature.

Of course there are secondary causes. You go to the extreme when you say that I believe that ALL events are moved directly by God with no secondary causes.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree in a friendly fashion on this one.

Well, if you interpret genesis as a science book its no wonder that you think that this is literally true. Again, let me remind you of the difference between divine intervention (expressing truth and creating miracles inorder bring about and inspire the moral salvation of mankind and faith), and the tweaking of the physical universe (the intervention of a design which serves no purpose but to show off).

Apparently you didn’t actually read my quote. I said that if you interpret Genesis literally or metaphorically…

God intervening is showing off? Maybe he needs to get our attention. How do you know what God’s purpose is when he intervenes?

Its because i see meaning and purpose in reality that i worship God.

You keep saying God wants something as if he is seeking to fullfill a desire that is unfulfilled. God eternally expresses his nature which is love. Love is Gods plan, and it is in Gods plan that nature freely acts according to its nature unrestricted, just as God does.

God’s desire is that we return his love. That’s why we exist. Part of returning his love is appreciating his beauty and the beauty of his creation. NOT for his sake. But for ours. That’s pretty basic stuff.

Then your God appears to be the God of the gullible since he does not favor inteligent explanations of reality.

There is no science test to enter heaven. There is no intelligence test to enter heaven.

Yes, God is the God of the gullible. And thankfully so. And the God of the stupid, uneducated, poor, unscientific, humble, and so forth. The god who restricts his dominion to the Intellectuals, Scientists, proud, etc., is not my God.

 

[edwest2]

Gentlemen,

Jesus Christ was God intervening. He commanded the wind and waves to cease, instantly. This is something God can do, along with bringing the dead back to life.

I would remind those who believe the Biology textbook that it presents information that shows natural processes alone led to life. Science cannot tack God onto that equation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[inocente]

No, they take those things into account. You need to read more. You could start with Signature in the Cell.

It’s not how much we read but the quality that counts.

Signature in the Cell is written by Stephen C. Meyer. I look for his papers. Sum total zero. As I said "Golden rule - peer review”. Anyone can write a book and sound like they know what they’re talking about, but if he’s talking science he could first have written a paper or two and put them up for peer review and criticism is the usual way. After all he has a degree in physics.

The fact that he didn’t and wrote a mass market book instead means not only that he’s writing fiction but he knows all too well he’s writing fiction.

 

[inocente]

I would remind those who believe the Biology textbook that it presents information that shows natural processes alone led to life. Science cannot tack God onto that equation.

The majority of people are not involved in the life sciences and so knowledge of evolution or ID is of no practical benefit. It doesn’t pay the bills, doesn’t put a roof over their head, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gospel. Yet there are those who drag it center stage, they insist it’s important to Christianity, that we must all take sides, and usually it’s that no True Christian™ can entertain the ToE without a trip to hell.

Say it isn’t so Ed my man, say it isn’t so.