Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[Al_Moritz]

According to atheists evolution did happen by chance,

False.

“Chance” only plays a role in random genetic variation; the ensuing natural selection is a non-random process, guided by the interaction of the organism with the environment. Therefore, interpretations of evolution as an overall “chance process” – with the necessarily resulting scenarios of ludicrous mathematical improbability – are based on misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Natural selection works as a filter for random genetic variation. Adaptive improvements select out the organisms with genomes carrying beneficial variations, and these genomes serve as template for further variations, the beneficial ones of which are again selected, and so on. Step by step, through slow cumulative selection over many generations of living organisms, numerous random variations thus can non-randomly accumulate within a single genome, each one of them beneficial. Non-randomly means, not by chance, since through natural selection each random variation is filtered for being correlated in a favorable manner to other functions of the genome, including those of other preceding random variations.

The overall cumulative effect will be of considerable magnitude over vast timescales, leading to new functions and structures: macroevolution as a sum of the accumulation of very many steps of microevolution (manifestation of small genetic changes after selection by the environment).

From all the above it should be clear that a sudden, improbable chance accumulation of genes, which together would lead to complex structures all at once, is not considered to play a role in this very gradual process.

If God had the capabilities to just put our world into existence why would He make everything evolve over time? The Holy Spirit didn’t, by some evolutionary process, conceive Jesus in Mary’s womb. Nor did the blind, sick, and lame heal through some time-consuming process generated by Jesus’ touch.

For God evolution is not a time-consuming process. God is – or from the viewpoint of philosophical concept, has to be – infinite, non-material (i.e. non-corporeal as well) and eternal. He lives outside the dimensions of space and time; after all, He created them in the first place. As a consequence, everything in the domain of time can exist for Him in an instant: God does not need to ‘wait’.

 

[Al_Moritz]

If God had the capabilities to just put our world into existence why would He make everything evolve over time?

It seems you see God as someone who creates like a human engineer would build things. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe.

Many atheists also see God as an engineer: if humans are the pinnacle of visible creation, why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth? Why should we have this vast universe instead with 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars?

 

[vz71]

It seems you see God as someone who creates like a human engineer would build things. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe.

So which vision of God is more accurate…

The one that says God created me from a distance of billions of light-years.
Or the one that says God made me personally.

I cannot say.
I see appeal in the omnipotence of a God that can direct our very existence from billions of light years away.
But there is also appeal in the ‘thumbprint’ (for lack of a better word) of God upon us in a personal way.

 

[Darryl1958]

Please, only vote if you’re Catholic.

I’m just trying to attain a statistic. Please be honest.

The Apostle Creed, with its "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,** Creator **of heaven and Earth…, makes us all creationists above and beyond anything else, and so that is the most honest vote that I can make. Whether the earth was a literal seven day creation, or intelligent design, or evolved; all are merely theories on how this came about, and are secondary to the credal belief in God the Creator.

I tend to go where the evidence leads on these questions of how, knowing full well that a theory is only as good as the next discovery of evidence.

Belief in God as Creator however, is the very substance of faith. Such faith is based first and foremost in the grace of God, but also on a reasoning process that does not limit itself to material evidence and empiricism as the path to truth.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So which vision of God is more accurate…

The one that says God created me from a distance of billions of light-years.
Or the one that says God made me personally.

I cannot say.
I see appeal in the omnipotence of a God that can direct our very existence from billions of light years away.
But there is also appeal in the ‘thumbprint’ (for lack of a better word) of God upon us in a personal way.

Since God sustains creation and the working of the laws of nature in every moment of existence, since He sustains the being of things, He is very close to His creation at all times. I therefore don’t necessarily see “from billions of lightyears away” vs. “personally” as a fruitful contrast of options.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Apostle Creed, with its "I believe in God, the Father Almighty,** Creator **of heaven and Earth…, makes us all creationists above and beyond anything else, and so that is the most honest vote that I can make. Whether the earth was a literal seven day creation, or intelligent design, or evolved; all are merely theories on how this came about, and are secondary to the credal belief in God the Creator.

…]

Belief in God as Creator however, is the very substance of faith. Such faith is based first and foremost in the grace of God, but also on a reasoning process that does not limit itself to material evidence and empiricism as the path to truth.

I agree. However, the term “creationist” usually has implications other than all of us being creationists in a wider sense.

 

[vz71]

Since God sustains creation and the working of the laws of nature in every moment of existence, since He sustains the being of things, He is very close to His creation at all times. I therefore don’t necessarily see “from billions of lightyears away” vs. “personally” as a fruitful contrast of options.

Billions of lightyears away would seem an accurate portrayal if one wishes to think of God having planned it all in advance and then left creation to run as opposed to the tinkering God that fiddles with creation on an ongoing basis.

 

[ricmat]

False.

“Chance” only plays a role in random genetic variation; the ensuing natural selection is a non-random process, guided by the interaction of the organism with the environment. Therefore, interpretations of evolution as an overall “chance process” – with the necessarily resulting scenarios of ludicrous mathematical improbability – are based on misunderstanding of how evolution works.

No, it’s not.

The new information in DNA - according to the TOE is created by chance alone [if you believe that the standard definition of evolution disagrees with this, please let me know the details].

And those who criticize the “ludicrous mathematical improbability” are on solid ground since if the probability of step 1 (the random DNA mutations) being virtually zero makes step 2 totally irrelevant, no matter how good the natural selection filter is. Not enough time, not enough probabilistic resources. Natural selection is not magic, as some would like us to believe, which can overcome the fact that if the DNA isn/’ there to begin with, it can’t be passed along and it can’t be filtered for advantages.

Show me the DNA sequence from “Lucy” to modern man. You can’t because you base your views on wild speculation, and faith that “evolution did it somehow”. You have no smoking gun, you don’t even have an unloaded gun. You have nothing without the DNA evidence.

non-randomly

accumulate within a single genome, each one of them beneficial. Non-randomly means, not by chance, since through natural selection each random variation is filtered for being correlated in a favorable manner to other functions of the genome, including those of other preceding random variations.

The overall cumulative effect will be of considerable magnitude over vast timescales, leading to new functions and structures: macroevolution as a sum of the accumulation of very many steps of microevolution (manifestation of small genetic changes after selection by the environment).

“Vast timescales.” About 39000 orders of magnitude too short. Sorry, you’re relying on faith here.

Read Signature in the Cell.

It seems you see God as someone who creates like a human engineer would build things. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe.

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I will say that many engineers design grandiose structures

Many atheists also see God as an engineer:

But many more biologists see no God at all.

if humans are the pinnacle of visible creation, why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth? Why should we have this vast universe instead with 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars?

For the same reason Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes to the point of 12 left over wicker baskets full. And the same reason Jesus turned thousands of gallons of water into wine at Cana. Jesus gave us those things, good things, in superabundance. He also gives us the universe in superabundance. Hint: we’re supposed to look in awe at creation so that we are better able to give God glory and praise. And remember that He is God, and we are not.

I suggest you read Genesis 1 and 2 along with the commentary from the Navarre Bible.

We are made in God’s image and likeness, children of God. And yes, the pinnacle of creation. In fact, the reason for creation itself. Why else do you think God created?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

You misread me. I was characterizing the position of many atheists, not mine.

As for the remainder of your post, if you are more interested in the misinterpretations by ID proponents than in the scientific evidence, this is your choice.

 

[rossum]

The new information in DNA - according to the TOE is created by chance alone [if you believe that the standard definition of evolution disagrees with this, please let me know the details].

First you are mischaracterising evolution, it is not “chance alone” because natural selection is not a chance process. Random mutation is indeed a chance process, but natural selection isn’t. The combination of the two is not “chance alone”.

Secondly, evolution can be analysed in terms of information theory. Random mutation and natural selection is a process which copies information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. Hence the source of the information is the environment in which organisms live. For example, the Arctic environment contains the information “white things are difficult to see against a snowy background.” Animals living in that environment have white fur. That information has been copied by an obvious process of random mutation (paler or darker fur) and natural selection (paler fur does better).

And those who criticize the “ludicrous mathematical improbability” are on solid ground since if the probability of step 1 (the random DNA mutations) being virtually zero makes step 2 totally irrelevant, no matter how good the natural selection filter is.

You forget that every mutation is on an already living genome that is capable of reproducing. You do not start from a random point so unless your calculation includes that starting point it is useless.

You also need to bear in mind that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are 2.3 x 10^93 different ways of making a working Cytochrome C enzyme (Yockey, 1992). You are not shooting at one single target but at multiple possible targets. Again, unless your calculation includes the number of possible targets your results will be incorrect.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

Hmmm, that sounds unreliable, because the odds of forming the most simple protein of life in the world by mere chance are even smaller than that. In fact, I will quote my Biology book on this.

"Let’s make it easy on ourselves and assume that the only amino acids in the mixture are the 17 types needed to make this particular protein. In fact, there are about 20 amino acids that are a part of the chemistry of life, but adding more amino acid types would significantly reduce our chance of forming ribonuclease. So, in order to make the outcome more likely, we will restrict ourselves to using only the 17 different types of amino acids that make up this molecule. Making this assumption, we can say that the possibility of forming a protein that has “Lys” as its first amino acid is 1 in 17. Those aren’t bad odds at all. However, the chance of forming a protein with “Lys” as its first amino acid and “Glu” as its second amino acid is 1 in 17 times 1 in 17, or 1 in 289…

“…If you were to complete this calculation, you would find that the odds for making this protein by chance from a mixture of the proper amino acids is approximately 1 in 10150 [a 1 followed by 152 zeros]…” - Dr. Jay Wile, *Exploring Creation with Biology, 2nd Edition *, pp. 151.

Lol, well at least we have a rough estimate there xD.

I didn’t actually mean this to be taken seriously.

 

[buffalo]

It seems you see God as someone who creates like a human engineer would build things. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe.

Many atheists also see God as an engineer: if humans are the pinnacle of visible creation, why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth? Why should we have this vast universe instead with 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars?

I see God as an artist too.

Why is man in the center of the smallest distances and the largest? One could ask why God chose HIs canvas to be so big?

 

[buffalo]

No, it’s not.

The new information in DNA - according to the TOE is created by chance alone [if you believe that the standard definition of evolution disagrees with this, please let me know the details].

And those who criticize the “ludicrous mathematical improbability” are on solid ground since if the probability of step 1 (the random DNA mutations) being virtually zero makes step 2 totally irrelevant, no matter how good the natural selection filter is. Not enough time, not enough probabilistic resources. Natural selection is not magic, as some would like us to believe, which can overcome the fact that if the DNA isn/’ there to begin with, it can’t be passed along and it can’t be filtered for advantages.

Show me the DNA sequence from “Lucy” to modern man. You can’t because you base your views on wild speculation, and faith that “evolution did it somehow”. You have no smoking gun, you don’t even have an unloaded gun. You have nothing without the DNA evidence.

“Vast timescales.” About 39000 orders of magnitude too short. Sorry, you’re relying on faith here.

Read Signature in the Cell.

This wasn’t addressed to me, but I will say that many engineers design grandiose structures

But many more biologists see no God at all.

For the same reason Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes to the point of 12 left over wicker baskets full. And the same reason Jesus turned thousands of gallons of water into wine at Cana. Jesus gave us those things, good things, in superabundance. He also gives us the universe in superabundance. Hint: we’re supposed to look in awe at creation so that we are better able to give God glory and praise. And remember that He is God, and we are not.

I suggest you read Genesis 1 and 2 along with the commentary from the Navarre Bible.

We are made in God’s image and likeness, children of God. And yes, the pinnacle of creation. In fact, the reason for creation itself. Why else do you think God created?

And we now know DNA actively fights against mutations and that natural selection is not a creative process. The odds got even worse.

 

[wanstronian]

Correct, the odds are indeed small.

Hello - IDvolution is the conclusion reached by connecting the dots. The conclusion is reached by drawing on most of the very same science you use to claim micro-evolution, aka adaptation (we now are starting to understand exactly what programmed adaptation can do). In comparison science does far more work than is published in fields other than origins. It just so happens all the musings about forbidden subject_____ is well publicized. Actually we have more common acceptance of science except for the narrow areas of human origins and molecules to man belief.

Ah, the old “we use the same science you do, but reach different conclusions” play. Given that you are singularly unable to describe what IDvolution is, it doesn’t sound very scientific.

Baloney - the odds are insurmountable. And the age of the earth just lost .6B years further increasing the odds.

They’re not insurmountable - here we are. It happened. And none - repeat, NONE - of the evidence points towards any kind of design. Not only does IDC have not a single shred of evidence in support of it, the hypothesis itself adds no explanatory value. Positing intelligent design explains absolutely nothing.

Yes - faith - you have it - against insurmountable odds you cling to materialism.

Again with the misunderstanding of “insurmountable.” I “cling to” (I note your loaded words here) materialism because everything that has ever been explained, has been explained within the realm of materialism. No phenomenon has ever been explained that requires materialism to be false. So why invent a supernatural explanation, when none is needed? That’s just poor science, and an absence of common sense.

Why I believe in God and still in science? Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. The “word” of God cannot be in error. Revelation has a guarantor in the Holy Spirit. Truth cannot contradict truth. Now science is the study of the world around us. The reasoning of science is fallible as it is done by limited humans. It is limited by its own definition. Over and over again we see science overturn its own findings. To cling to such a shaky system as a complete description of the world is irrational. Between that and the odds I cannot see how you can cling to it. Perhaps the low numbers of atheists should speak for itself.

“Over and over again we see science overturn its own findings.” With this quote, you show that you completely misunderstand the idea, and consequently the value, of science. If you truly think that the way science self-corrects is a weakness, then you are beyond any hope. And you irreversibly refute your own support of science, for you do not understand what it is. You are a creationist, full stop.

There is so much evidence for God from reasoning. Couple that with Revelation and it is very persuasive.

What you call “reasoning,” should properly be called “wishful thinking.” None of the philosophical proofs for the existence of God hold water, they are all based on baseless premises, faulty logic and/or equivocation. And revelation is just subjective personal “experience,” no more valid than the experience of someone who truly believes he is Elvis. So you’re coupling nothing with nothing and coming up with the answer that you wanted all along. Again, far from scientific.

God has shown His existence and at least one time did subject Himself to an empirical test. This was when He appeared to the Apostles after His resurrection and Thomas did not believe until He put his fingers into His wounds.

Well, I can make an assertion about a similarly improbable event, and I can prove the truth of it no more than you can. If you want to believe in a fairy story then I can’t stop you, but don’t go round telling everybody it’s factual unless you can bring some evidence along with you. People don’t wake up after being dead.

Why do Catholics understand God not to be empirically testable? Think about it - if He came down and appeared in all His glory you may submit, but in what fashion would you submit? His show of force would be convincing, but like a father and a son He would rather you love Him freely.

Very convenient for you, but entirely unconvincing from an objective viewpoint.

If you like we can revisit the Arguments for God and discuss them one by one. My guess is you will summarily dismiss them due to a priori bias.

I will - and have - summarily dismissed all of them - not due to a priori bias, but by pointing out the flaws in logic and the false premises upon which they are based.

Nothing wrong with a priori arguments, but when you’re using them to posit the existence of a phenomenon - particularly one that you claim interacts with reality - you have to back it up with a posteriori empirical evidence. Otherwise, you can posit the existence of any untestable phenomenon you like and call it fact.

No - to the invisible head. This type of argument is bogus and you could do better.

I could, but I don’t need to. The analogy is perfectly sound. One person’s conviction does not consitute fact. It’s as simple as that.

 

[wanstronian]

After studying Revelation, history, Scripture, etc… it is pretty obvious it is real. Events happened and they were recorded. The Deposit of Faith has been handed on intact.

This is just evangelising. It’s meaningless. It provides nothing of substance.

You have no evidence - molecules to man is a worldview and even the top evos know it has real problems. Why do you think ID is such a threat? So fight it at all costs even though you accept the fact design exists. That is irrational.

What is irrational is your belief that the existence of human design is evidence of a supernatural designer. Talk about your non sequitor - this one’s a doozy.

What are these “real problems” to which you refer? Are you talking about the gaps in knowledge? The ones that are only to be expected, like in any scientific theory; the ones that are being filled in all the time, as a result of proper scientific endeavour? They pale into insignifiance next to the problem of IDC - which is that it’s utterly devoid of any substance.

Design exists. Intelligent Design exists. It is all around you. To deny it is foolish.

I don’t deny that intelligent design exists - I can see cars and bridges and tables and sofas. I see no design in nature. I see no evidence that design has ever come from anywhere other than humans, and other animals.

It is also irrational to prohibit science to pursue its study.

I’m not advocating the prohibition of study. I’m saying that all the study so far has not been scientific, and has failed to provide any results. There remains zero evidence for non-human (et al) intelligent design.

There are two possible outcomes here - design exists but not differrentiable because it is the frame itself, or it is a matter of time that we will be able to formulize it. No need to bend science at all, supporting research is coming in faster and faster. How long will you hold out?

Until someone provides some evidence. If your former outcome is true, it will by definition never be discovered as an outcome, so to simply believe it is no more sensible than believing that invisible pixies steal your socks from the washing machine.

If your second option occurs, then I will accept it as long as it has been arrived at scientifically. That’s what science is all about - following the evidence where it leads, rather than pretending it leads to your desired conclusion. If ID is proved true, then I’ll believe it, no problem at all.

2000 year old ghost stories? The lure of secularism and no philosophical training is largely responsible.

Wow - you’re really trotting out the fallacious anti-humanism arguments here! Interesting also that you appear to be deeming secularism a bad thing. Can you point to single objective reason why it is so?

As for your charge of a lack of philosophical training, that’s just snobbery. Nobody ever proved anything with philosophy, so to cite it as a reason for people to reject religion is just idiocy. There are plenty of atheist philosophers - maybe they’re just no highly-enough trained??

One can always tell by the reaction to an idea that starts to gain traction. Thanks for the validation. You would be better off just to ignore it.

As I’ve said previously, I abhor miseducation. IDC is another brand of this, it pulls in the credulous and the needy. No offence.

 

[minkymurph]

So which vision of God is more accurate…

The one that says God created me from a distance of billions of light-years.
Or the one that says God made me personally.

I cannot say.
I see appeal in the omnipotence of a God that can direct our very existence from billions of light years away.
But there is also appeal in the ‘thumbprint’ (for lack of a better word) of God upon us in a personal way.

We don’t know where God directs our existence from. We don’t know where ‘heaven’ is.

God did not ‘make’ any of us personally. Our soul is given to us by God. No one knows what the soul is in physical sense. We receive our body, or flesh, from our parents. It is not created directly by God.

The ‘thumbprint’ you speak of to me, is being made in the image of God.

 

[minkymurph]

Until someone provides some evidence. If your former outcome is true, it will by definition never be discovered as an outcome, so to simply believe it is no more sensible than believing that invisible pixies steal your socks from the washing machine.

What, you mean they don’t? Joking!

But what does happen to socks in the washing machine? I put lots of pairs of socks in the washing machine and when they come out, I have all these odd one’s.

 

[chagen44]

As an atheist, I can honestly say that many things about the world are probably unexplainable by science, so either God did it, or we’ll just have to content ourselves with never knowing. (Unless time travel is invented.) So unfortunately I do fall flat on this. However, I don’t think it’s irrational to say that I don’t know! On the other hand, I see “God did it” as a perfect example of the “God of the Gaps.” It’s not irrational, but it certainly is fanciful! It’s a cop out. If we said “God did it” for many other things, science may not have bothered investigating these things, and then we would not have the knowledge that we do have.

There are many many many reasons I see fit to reject the notion of any sort of deity, but I won’t deny that if someone is not content not knowing the origin of the universe and that sort of thing, “God did it” is not utterly irrational.

I may be the exception to the atheists you have talked to before bc I will not state it’s a fact God does not exist. I don’t think it’s provable. Evolution is though, at least to my satisfaction, as well as the scientific community (and some of you).

Um, yes it can be correct. Just bc it hasn’t explained EVERYTHING doesn’t mean the things it has explained are wrong.

Well no, it’s not proof. It’s just an example of how apes could have turned into humans, the more and more they stood up, the more their posture would change you know. Which is why there are species in between us, like neanderthals.

Don’t you think that shows though, that we have a common ancestor?

Well maybe not, but it puts serious doubt on literal interpretations of the story. God didn’t fashion humans from dust or breathe life into them from His nostrils. If God had anything to do with our creation, it was in making primates evolve into humans. And in making primates from Euarchontoglires and Euarchontoglires from Eutheria and Eutheria from Mammalia and Mammalia from Chordata and Chordata from Animalia. We have so much in common with other mammals, it again, just seems so obvious. My dog has lungs, kidneys, a liver, a heart, ears, 2 eyes, which are above her nose which is above her mouth, just like us. We have a common ancestor in dogs too, if you go back far enough. Why else would we be so similar? Evolution just makes sense when you observe reality.

You don’t seem to consider that if we had a common designer, we could share all these traits easily with the lower forms of creatures, and they would be digestible to us as well. It is patently obvious to me that God originated DNA and designed all us creatures to use it as a template for life. The Fall started our downward fall from the perfect form of that DNA and led to errors, malformations and mutations. Remember, things tend toward disorder in our universe and the physical laws that govern our living space, not order and higher function.
Just sayin’.

Chuck

 

[chagen44]

It seems you see God as someone who creates like a human engineer would build things. I prefer to see God as an artist, who apparently found it much more satisfying to let everything develop within a grandiose structure, a vast universe.

Many atheists also see God as an engineer: if humans are the pinnacle of visible creation, why did God not simply put a solar system up there with a nice little Earth? Why should we have this vast universe instead with 300 billion galaxies each containing about 300 billion stars?

I think it was for the “Wow” factor! Who could deny a creator who could put all that out there?

I read your article on recent developments in origins, btw, and am impressed by your scholarship even though I doubt many of your (and your references) conclusions. I just cannot help but feel it is all an exercise in “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. Even if things began as RNA, the stereoisomer problem arises and presupposes that this RNA then developed a reverse polymerase to Make DNA, then the DNA got even more complex and developed all it’s characteristics by chance? What are the odds, after all? Better in my mind to accept what the Bible teaches, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”
Again, just sayin’.

Chuck

 

[buffalo]

You don’t seem to consider that if we had a common designer, we could share all these traits easily with the lower forms of creatures, and they would be digestible to us as well. It is patently obvious to me that God originated DNA and designed all us creatures to use it as a template for life. The Fall started our downward fall from the perfect form of that DNA and led to errors, malformations and mutations. Remember, things tend toward disorder in our universe and the physical laws that govern our living space, not order and higher function.
Just sayin’.

Chuck

Looks like another IDvolution supporter!