Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[tonyrey]

I agree with you Tony, the options aren’t mutually exclusive.

Thanks dear gal! It’s good to know some one agrees with me.

 

[buffalo]

I pointed out at the outset that it is a false trilemma because God designed and created the laws of nature which enabled life to evolve.
The point is that his prediction is based on the metaphysical assumption that natural processes are sufficient to explain all the complexity in biological systems.

!

What is wrong with this?

You - "I pointed out at the outset that it is a false trilemma because God designed and created the laws of nature which enabled life to adapt. "

 

[wanstronian]

It always astonishes me how matter did it without having to use anything but itself. Now that must be the most powerful force that exists - even though it doesn’t know what it’s doing! So it **is **possible to get not only blood but sense out of a stone…

Yes, it’s quite clear that this astonishes you. So much so that you apparently have to call upon an inexplicable supernatural force to release you from the discomfort of your ignorance.

 

[buffalo]

It always astonishes me how matter did it without having to use anything but itself.

Now that takes a lot of faith.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, it’s quite clear that this astonishes you. So much so that you apparently have to call upon an inexplicable supernatural force to release you from the discomfort of your ignorance.

It is highly irrational for one to have such faith that no supernatural exists. You have painted yourself into a corner. An honest search for truth and knowledge is needed.

 

[wanstronian]

Do you think God would need a keyboard?

I don’t know. You’re the self-claimed expert. You didn’t answer my question. Here it is again:

How did God “breathe” the super language of DNA into the “kinds”?

Also: What are the “kinds” - this description doesn’t sound very scientific? So what are they, and what’s the process for differentiating between them?

Come on, Mr Science - stop ducking questions and start answering them.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know. You’re the self-claimed expert. You didn’t answer my question. Here it is again:

How did God “breathe” the super language of DNA into the “kinds”?

Also: What are the “kinds” - this description doesn’t sound very scientific? So what are they, and what’s the process for differentiating between them?

Come on, Mr Science - stop ducking questions and start answering them.

I do not know the mechanism of his breath. How God enters time and how He transmits information is unknown. This may always be a gap unless He decides to reveal it. Perhaps when you pass it will be known.

Kinds - Wait until the genetic maps become clearer. My prediction is this will be a much better classification system than we are currently using. As you well know the tree of life has fallen since it couldn’t sync with the DNA findings.

 

[wanstronian]

Now that takes a lot of faith.

It is highly irrational for one to have such faith that no supernatural exists. You have painted yourself into a corner. An honest search for truth and knowledge is needed.

Okay, I see what you’re doing here - another theist favourite: “you have just as much faith as we do.”

Only that’s not the truth, as I’m sure you know. What I have is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. This is not the same as “faith” that the supernatural does not exist. It does not take “faith” to fail to believe in something. To call it faith is to hide behind a fallacy.

I don’t have much choice other than to assume that your reversion to disingenuous equivocation is a sign that you can’t actually answer any of the questions I’ve asked you in relation to your claims.

Which is what I expected.

 

[wanstronian]

I do not know the mechanism of his breath. How God enters time and how He transmits information is unknown. This may always be a gap unless He decides to reveal it. Perhaps when you pass it will be known.

Then by what rationale can you claim that he did what you say he did?

Kinds - Wait until the genetic maps become clearer. My prediction is this will be a much better classification system than we are currently using. As you well know the tree of life has fallen since it couldn’t sync with the DNA findings.

Right - so you don’t know the answers to any of my questions.

Yet you have this little catchphrase going on, which you associate with what you call a “scientific theory,” yet not one part of your definition of “IDvolution” is scientifically testable.

I don’t think there’s anything more to discuss, do you? As they say, you’ve got nothin’.

p.s. I like your “prediction” - it amounts to “scientific knowledge will improve.” That’s not exactly going to send ripples through the scientific community!

 

[tonyrey]

Only that’s not the truth, as I’m sure you know. What I have is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. This is not the same as “faith” that the supernatural does not exist. It does not take “faith” to fail to believe in something. To call it faith is to hide behind a fallacy.

Your faith is that the “natural” can explain itself - without you ever having to explain what the “natural” is - an ambiguous term that covers every eventuality. How would you define it? The things you can see, hear, touch, smell and taste? Or what?

 

[buffalo]

Okay, I see what you’re doing here - another theist favourite: “you have just as much faith as we do.”

Only that’s not the truth, as I’m sure you know. What I have is a lack of evidence for the supernatural. This is not the same as “faith” that the supernatural does not exist. It does not take “faith” to fail to believe in something. To call it faith is to hide behind a fallacy.

I don’t have much choice other than to assume that your reversion to disingenuous equivocation is a sign that you can’t actually answer any of the questions I’ve asked you in relation to your claims.

Which is what I expected.

No, according to the odds actually you have more faith in materialism considering the odds against it. The odds of materialism are so miniscule. You know it, but you still hang on to the itty bitty thread of hope. Again the search function is easy to use. Use it.

I borrowed from the atheist playbook and you do not like it.

God does not subject himself to you examining Him on a lab table. So if is unlikely the created will be able to empirically test the creator. If He did then you would undoubtedly question His reasons for doing so.

Now there is plenty of rational reasoning as well as Revelation that gives theists confidence in God.

 

[buffalo]

Then by what rationale can you claim that he did what you say he did?

Right - so you don’t know the answers to any of my questions.

Yet you have this little catchphrase going on, which you associate with what you call a “scientific theory,” yet not one part of your definition of “IDvolution” is scientifically testable.

I don’t think there’s anything more to discuss, do you? As they say, you’ve got nothin’.

p.s. I like your “prediction” - it amounts to “scientific knowledge will improve.” That’s not exactly going to send ripples through the scientific community!

IDvolution and evolution both are philosophy. Your faith is based on your interpretations void of any illumination from the truth of Revelation. That is irrational.

IDvolution is a conclusion reached by using the information garnered from Revelation and modern science. It is relatively easy to connect the dots.

Scientific knowledge is improving, just not in the direction you need to be “fulfilled”.

 

[samiam1611]

Your faith is based on your interpretations void of any illumination from the truth of Revelation. That is irrational.

On the contrary. The Catechism itself acknowledges this: “…man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone…This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation.”

Why would you say it is irrational to not believe in something that’s invisible and supernatural? Even the Catechism describes God as “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable.”

In other words, without revelation, reason alone may not suffice! Faith in the physical world is the only rational thing actually, if one does not recognize that they have been given the “grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.”

Indeed, to some people, the truth has not been revealed yet, so the rational thing to do is accept natural explanations over supernatural ones.
Galileo said it so well: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”

 

[Neildown]

It’s possible there was a physical pre-human state in the creation of the human race.

Look at the development of an embryo. In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo doesn’t physically resemble a fully formed human. It goes through various stages of development.

We don’t know how God physically created Adam. Based on literal interpretations of the Genesis account, it was assumed that Adam was created a fully formed human and he was created in a 24 hour period. I don’t deny God has the power to do that, but we don’t know that Adam physically appeared on the scene a fully formed human or the timescale involved. (Anyone read the book, ‘Did Adam and Eve have Belly Buttons?’)

It is possible that God generated human life through a series of physical stages and at various stages in the process of creation, and other life forms evolved under God’s guiding hand. There is evidence that men at one time had breasts. This is compatible with the Genesis account that woman came from man. However, we do not know how woman physically came to be made from man. (You could argue the Bible says woman was made from the rib of Adam; but that opinion is based on literal interpretations of Genesis.)
None of this means that God did not intend to create human life and two genders. God did intend to create humans in His own image, and two genders. Neither does it mean it all happened by chance through a series of chaos and God had no idea were it was all going.

I suppose what concerns the religious world are the atheistic interpretations of science; were science is used as ‘evidence’ God does not exist and used to attack our faith. Therefore, is understandable why many are opposed to the concept of evolution. I quite like the beginning of the film ‘Watership Down’ as a way of explaining the complexities of the relationship between evolution and creation to children. ‘Lord Frith’ is the god of rabbits who is the source of life. Something goes very wrong in the world and Lord Frith changes the physical appearance of the rabbits; giving them long ears and long legs to serve as a protection against predators. I can relate this to the Genesis account. Following the fall, Adam and Eve now live in a very different physical world and God prepares them for it. May sound a bit mad but one has to prepare children somehow for the inevitable encounter with atheistic interpretations of evolution.

Touche’ - good point - but there is a big difference between an ape-man and an embryo. I have yet to see an ape with a genetic make-up allowing it to evolve into a human as surely as a human embryo does. A human embryo is built to become a human. An ape is built to stay an ape. So is the way of genetic codes.

Personally it is of no true relevance to me, in what way Adam may have been created, were creation the method. God has the power to do anything, so for all we know God could’ve just been having a good day, snapped His finger and made Adam pop out of a pile of dirt. No, I’m afraid I’ve never read that book.

Possible - but I still disagree. Also, I really did not appreciate that visual :doh2:. Are you suggesting that prehistoric men once nursed their children? I pray God would not allow such a thing for the sake of the minds eye.

True, it is possible, and I do not deny that - but I vouch for Creation. Though the Watership Down analogy is nice to think of, I much prefer the tale of how Aslan created a new world in The Chronicles of Narnia. I don’t believe God started everything from some blobs of amino acids that eventually evolved into us and everything else. However I do believe in micro-evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would you say it is irrational to not believe in something that’s invisible and supernatural? Even the Catechism describes God as “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable.”

In other words, without revelation, reason alone may not suffice! Faith in the physical world is the only rational thing actually, if one does not recognize that they have been given the “grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.”

If faith in the physical world is the only rational thing why do you believe in truth, goodness, freedom and love?

 

[minkymurph]

Touche’ - good point - but there is a big difference between an ape-man and an embryo. I have yet to see an ape with a genetic make-up allowing it to evolve into a human as surely as a human embryo does. A human embryo is built to become a human. An ape is built to stay an ape. So is the way of genetic codes.

Personally it is of no true relevance to me, in what way Adam may have been created, were creation the method. God has the power to do anything, so for all we know God could’ve just been having a good day, snapped His finger and made Adam pop out of a pile of dirt. No, I’m afraid I’ve never read that book.

I appreciate what your saying. It has no true relevance in relation to faith. However, my point is that literal interpretations of the Genesis accounts of creation make us look pretty silly in light of scientific evidence. We can’t just ignore scientific evidence; or historical, literary and redaction criticism.

There are different interpretations regarding the mechanism of evolution. A human embryo is and was always destined to become human. Ape embryo’s were always destined to become apes. My understanding of the mechanism of evolution is not that a group of ape stayed apes and another group became human. The simple way to explain it would be that all life came from a core material; a nucleus so to speak, and diversified down different paths.

Possible - but I still disagree. Also, I really did not appreciate that visual :doh2:. Are you suggesting that prehistoric men once nursed their children? I pray God would not allow such a thing for the sake of the minds eye.

No. They would not have been ‘men’ as such if they suckled young. I’m talking about a stage prior to creation of man and woman. It explains why men have nipples. I do believe there is a male animal that suckles young, (I stand to be corrected) and the male seahorse gives birth. But yes, I can understand why it creates a certain image you’d rather not think about ! I suppose it would appeal to women more than men. I personally think sharing the responsibility of nursing children would be great and would love to believe men once experienced childbirth. I once read of a custom in an African tribe. When the woman is in childbirth, the man lies on the roof of the mud hut with a rope tied to a certain part of his anatomy. The woman holds the other end and when she has a contraction, she pulls the rope so the man can experience the pain of childbirth with her. I suggested it to my husband but he wasn’t very keen on the idea. Wonder why?
I also heard someone say in current debates about Jesus that he must have been celibate, as no married man would ever have forbade divorce. Sorry, I’m going off into a tangent now.

True, it is possible, and I do not deny that - but I vouch for Creation. Though the Watership Down analogy is nice to think of, I much prefer the tale of how Aslan created a new world in The Chronicles of Narnia. I don’t believe God started everything from some blobs of amino acids that eventually evolved into us and everything else. However I do believe in micro-evolution.

Well, that’s really the point. It’s possible. I wouldn’t propose it’s a fact. I like the tale of creation in The Chronicles of Narnia as well. I like the part were Aslan gives some animals but not others the ability to talk but not others, and they look different from the one’s that can’t talk although they are the same animal. The story also goes that an ‘evil’ enters the world and because of that, some beasts may turn bad. In which case, they will loose the ability to speak and revert back to being dumb beasts. In an amusing way it supports my theory de-evolution. Anyone who’s seen the Gerry Springer show might know what I mean.

 

[vz71]

Then ID should be considered falsified, because if ever a theory could be “proved”, evolution has been. You only have to actually read the literature, instead of rejecting it out of sight, and you’d see for yourself. But of course, I suppose that will never happen, will it?

I find the amount of boastful pride in the statement surprising.
It is usually those that have the conviction of delusions that are so confident in their conclusion that all others with a different one are accused of being ignorent of the topic.
As a matter of fact, I have read plenty of materials in support of the theory.
I find them lacking.

You’re basically accusing me of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. I can see why this is tempting for you, but the fact is that science is dictated by methodology, not by opinion.

Well, it looks like someone needs to be reminded of their own words.

ID is not science - this is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists.

That is classic science by majority.

 

[rossum]

As in a computer not all memory is used all the time. But it is ready and waiting should it be needed.

DNA is not computer memory.

The claims of useless DNA are no longer sustainable.

You are being lied to by your creationist websites again. Useless DNA has been shown to be useless. There are healthy mice with big chunks of their DNA removed.

I believe the prototypes were more pristine.

I don’t want beliefs. I want objective scientific evidence. I want tested ID methodologies. If ID wants to be science then it needs to do the scientific work necessary to underpin its claims to be science.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

DNA is not computer memory.

You are being lied to by your creationist websites again. Useless DNA has been shown to be useless. There are healthy mice with big chunks of their DNA removed.

I don’t want beliefs. I want objective scientific evidence. I want tested ID methodologies. If ID wants to be science then it needs to do the scientific work necessary to underpin its claims to be science.

rossum

My references are the actual papers themselves.

They may have been backup copies. See the latest research showing the super capabilities of DNA to work around a “removal” of chunks.

Computer memory was just an example. DNA may be memory and so much more.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are being lied to by your creationist websites again. Useless DNA has been shown to be useless. There are healthy mice with big chunks of their DNA removed.

rossum

Here is the article:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=15496924

And here is a useful comment:

jgi.doe.gov/science/highlights/nobrega1004.html

Just look at the vastly different genome size between the two rat strains. Anyone who denies that this is strong evidence for non-essential DNA (apart from the deletion experiment, which is the icing on the cake) can do so only based on prejudiced, fully willing and intentional blindness.