Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter sea_krait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MindOverMatter2 said:
What do you mean when you say theistic evolution? Doesn’t your addition of “theistic” assume that the theory of evolution by itself somehow undermines the idea of an intelligent cause?
What I mean is that God could have chosen evolution as the way of nature. “Theistic” is used as opposed to “atheistic”: God created absolutely everything *ex nihilo * but He certainly has the power to use any method He wants for changes to occur in nature. It doesn’t undermine a belief in God. Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. As for “intelligent cause”, I’m a little confused by your term. Would you please rephrase it? Thanks.
I see no reason why we should think that evolution as it is understood by scientists is in any way contradictory to Christianity.
Click to expand...
I agree 100 percent. It isn’t contradictory to Christianity in any way.
Click to expand...
 
I haven’t been on CAF for awhile but when I left the only forum in which a discussion of evolution was allowed was “Back Fence.” Is it still banned in this forum? I don’t want to get into any trouble or for anyone else to get into any trouble. :confused:
 
buffalo said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Matthew 4:8 – “Again, the devil took him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.”

That was only possible if the earth is flat.
 
ricmat said:
Note that its not change over time, or even common ancestry that’s a fundamental issue here - the issue is RANDOMness, purposelessness. If there is a conflict between ID and evolutionists, it’s because the evolutionists insist on a random, purposeless process - an insistence which is not based on science. As an engineer, I used science a lot, but never random, purposeless processes.

Random purposeless processes, are however, essential to the secular creation story, because it’s all they have.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes purposelessness would be unacceptable for the theist. I wouldn’t have a problem random happenings because we don’t believe in a God that controls everything; but I wouldn’t accept they have no purpose.
 
buffalo said:
Still dancing around the question - did Adam look like God planned?
Click to expand...
If you read the posts, that question has been asked and answered several times. I responded to that question three times. Perhaps it’s not so much a case of people dancing around the question, but not saying what you want to hear.

I don’t mean to be unkind but you’ve asked this question several times despite the fact it has been answered. You acknowledged the response I made, so I know you read my answer to the question. What part of it do you feel needs further clarification? I’d be happy to expand.
 
tonyrey said:
You have selected** one** particular combination and proportion of elements out of countless other possible combinations and proportions which would not sustain life. You are also presupposing that the chemical elements in our universe are the only possible ones…
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. There is more than “one” combination of chemicals that makes life, even simple life. Have you any idea how many different types of bacteria there are? Each with their own combination of chemicals. This is my argument about the size of the target: you are assuming a miniscule target, and that is definitely incorrect.
Again you are presupposing evolution had to occur, that biological processes had to emerge and that matter **had to **exist. How do you justify your belief in physical necessity?
Click to expand...
The work science has done so far shows that chemistry can result in self-reproducing molecules, see the Spiegelman Monster. Chemistry can make all the parts for RNA. Currently abiogenesis research is working on getting long enough RNA chains to produce something resembling a Spiegelman Monster. Abiogenesis is up to about 120 bases, see Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water, while the Spiegelman Monster is 220 bases.

Once we have an imperfect replicator then evolution can start. All abiogenesis has to do is to get that first imperfect replicator going. Since we are currently 100 bases short, that is below Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound so it is not impossible by that measure: 4^100 = 1.6 x 10^60.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Or the inside of a bowl or sphere. Koreshanity anyone?
Click to expand...
Reading about that I wanted to join up to get the tee-shirt but rats, you can’t anymore.

Googled around and found St. Augustine proved it was absurd to go along with the scientific conjecture of people in the antipodes, a big surprise to all the folk in Australia at the time.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.9.html

Interesting parallel with certain contemporary “proofs”. 😃
 
Around the 16th century some English puritans thought the world was flat based on their understanding of certain verses in the bible, if my memory serves me right.

I would have to go with view that in Ancient Israel, they did not think the world was flat. Trade had been established between the Israelites and the Phoenicians. The Phoenicians were excellent sailors and knew the world was round from the horizon.
 
minkymurph said:
Ah, yes purposelessness would be unacceptable for the theist. I wouldn’t have a problem random happenings because we don’t believe in a God that controls everything; but I wouldn’t accept they have no purpose.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

To equate randomness with purposelessness would be to lower ourselves to and embrace shallow atheistic thinking. We should be more sophisticated than that. God may well have planned true randomness in his creation, but it would still have been planned to have a purpose and fall uder God’s providence.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church, who lived in the 13th century:

“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)
 
minkymurph said:
If you read the posts, that question has been asked and answered several times. I responded to that question three times. Perhaps it’s not so much a case of people dancing around the question, but not saying what you want to hear.

I don’t mean to be unkind but you’ve asked this question several times despite the fact it has been answered. You acknowledged the response I made, so I know you read my answer to the question. What part of it do you feel needs further clarification? I’d be happy to expand.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall seeing a clear yes or no answer.
 
minkymurph said:
Yes. What did God intend him to look like?

White with blonde hair? Black? Tall? Small?

None of these?

Is it possible he had a lot more body hair than white westerners?

In a physical sense, we have no idea what God intended Adam to look like. He may not have looked anything like we would imagine him to have looked like. Does a 6 week embryo look like a human? Does that mean it is not human?

Do we know for sure what the physical world Adam lived in was really like? Do we know for sure what the physical world was really like after the fall? The honest answer to these questions would have to be no.
Click to expand...
One post in response to the question ‘did God know what Adam would look like.’
 
minkymurph said:
Yes, God knew what He looked like. Still unanswered is did he look as God intended? (the question was not if we knew, but if God as God intended)

My answer is yes to both. knew and planned it. According to theistic evo then God would have to manage the randomness (therefore not really random) and the selection pressures.

God intended Adam to be made in his image and to be human. This does not necessarily mean God chose to micro-manage every physical characteristic Adam possessed.
We can believe He did, but if we were honest we would have to say we don’t know as no one knows how God physically created anything.

We know that physical and cosmological evolution happens. It is quite possible that in the case of Adam, his physical body came about through a process of evolution. His physical body may also have undergone change following the fall.

The making of the human race was not just a random event as some atheistic evolutionists would argue. It was God’s intention to create humans in his image. However, we do not believe in a God who micro-manages the universe. Jesus himself said time and unforseen events happen. Therefore, randomness may have happened at a molecular level when God created the world and human life because chose it that way
Click to expand...
Definitive answer in another post concerning ‘did God know what Adam would look like?’
 
Just in case anyone is still unsure as to the definitive answer I would give in answer to the question, 'did God know what Adam would look like?

YES
 
minkymurph said:
Just in case anyone is still unsure as to the definitive answer I would give in answer to the question, 'did God know what Adam would look like?

YES
Click to expand...
Yes, did God know what Adam would look like is the easy one.

The question somewhat avoided is - Did Adam look as God planned?
 
rossum said:
You are incorrect. There is more than “one” combination of chemicals that makes life, even simple life. Have you any idea how many different types of bacteria there are? Each with their own combination of chemicals. This is my argument about the size of the target: you are assuming a miniscule target, and that is definitely incorrect.
Click to expand...
Is life in the chemical combination?
How would we know?
Can you prove this assumption?
rossum said:
Once we have an imperfect replicator then evolution can start. All abiogenesis has to do is to get that first imperfect replicator going. Since we are currently 100 bases short, that is below Dr Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound so it is not impossible by that measure: 4^100 = 1.6 x 10^60.
Click to expand...
You speak as though you know how to make life.
Have you been holding out on us?
You are attempting to assign probability based upon current work, but you have no idea where it must go or how it will get there.
And I believe you have been living with these assumptions for so long you do not even realize that they are assumptions
 
buffalo said:
Yes, did God know what Adam would look like is the easy one.

The question somewhat avoided is - Did Adam look as God planned?
Click to expand...
YES

I’ll even saying it again to demonstrate I am not avoiding the question.

YES
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top