Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[buffalo]

This would be were I would stand as well. In accepting evolution, we do not have to accept it happens independently of God and outside His will.

To me, ID does the religious world no favors and makes our faith look like it has no credibility. Those who believe do not need to be convinced of God’s power to create or His divinity. Those who don’t believe in God are highly unlikely to be convinced of God’s existence and role in creation by ID which is what it is designed to do.

The question I asked previously and not answered.

Did God know what Adam would look like? Did Adam look as God intended?

 

[buffalo]

ID the science, does not exist.

Source?

 

[buffalo]

Anti-ID scientists who believe in God? I’m not sure what their vocation has to do with it, but if someone believes in God, then presumably they believe that God created the world. If not, then I’m not sure which religion they belong to, and I can’t speculate on every variant of every sect of every religion! After all, they all believe different things, and all believe that only they are right…

In the Wedge document, which was released by CSC (a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, who through Bill Dembski have promoted ID into the irritatingly and unjustifiably popular hypotheis it is today amongst theists).

“Governing Goal” bullet 2: “To replace materialistic explanations [evolution] with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God” (emphasis mine).
“Five Year Goals” bullet 1: “To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.”
“Twenty Year Goals” bullet 1: “To see intelligent design theory [hypotheis, to be accurate] as the dominant perspective in science.”

You can argue the semantics if you’re so inclined, but this is pretty clear cut.

No, I meant, do you believe in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design as the way in which the world came to be?

But your answer is interesting. How do you think we do it? What are the qualifying criteria?

No - I know what ID is, and I know what it claims to be. The two things are not the same.

If ID doesn’t ultimately attempt to answer the question of who the designer is (and when, why and how the design was implemnted), then it can hardly be called science. If it’s not science, it doesn’t get the privilege of being called a theory. It’s a hypothesis only. And quite clearly a religiously, rather than scientifically, motivated one.

But to be fair to ID (sort of), it can’t even establish the basic truth of its claim, so it’ll never be able to advance along a scientific path of discovery. The ID pseudo-theory cannot establish intelligent design. If there’s no design, then there’s no designer, so of course ID can’t tell us who - or what - that designer is.

Let’s be clear: ID offers no explanatory value. It offers no experiments. It provides no method of falsification. It makes no predictions. All it does is say, “Wow, that’s complicated. It must have been designed.”

It is not science, it’s merely the argument from ignorance pretending to be science.

The CRSC (now called the CSC) is a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a well-known pseudo-scientific organisation which exists mainly to debunk the fact of Evolution and to promote religious answers to questions about our origins. I find it difficult to believe you haven’t heard of the DI!

Paper was compiled by a group of people, think Dembski was one of them.

1999, I think (you sure do ask a lot of questions).

In my post, for one.

Read the Wedge document. Read the DI’s rhetoric.

I don’t oppose a group that concedes the findings of science, I oppose a group that grudgingly, with no real choice, concedes the findings of science and then puts forward an arbitrary, evidenceless, supernatural-based hypothesis for the origin of life and arrogantly (and wrongly) calls it a scientific theory in an attempt to get it accepted as a science topic in schools. In an attempt to get the God hypothesis taught as science.

Intelligent Design Creationists are attempting to miseducate our children. As I’ve said in another post on this thread, I find miseducation depressing and dangerous.

What??? Why should ID the science have declare the designer?

Design exists. Humans can detect it. ID the science is trying to formulize it. That is what science does.

 

[wanstronian]

You must be kidding. The mountains of evidence directly contradict this claim. The whole point of evolution and natural selection is that it is the only explanation to date for the high functioning of organisms. But I am not going to debate you. It would be a bit like trying to convince someone that the Sun doesn’t rotate around the Earth.

It seems to me that most anti-evolutionists are arguing against Darwin’s theories of 150+ years ago.

Darwin was mostly right, but he got plenty wrong too. For example, he didn’t have the benefit of knowledge of genetics, so he had to guess how heredity worked.

The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection has had many corrections since it was first published, as new scientific techniques and discoveries are made - but overwhelmingly the evidence has enforced the overall principle of the theory.

Those theists who point to the few things that Darwin got wrong and use it as a reason to reject the Theory in its entirety are kidding only themselves. And possibly their receptive, innocent, credulous, sadly miseducated children, I suppose.

 

[buffalo]

I believe that all three can be reconciled once the noise of popular thinking is silenced. At their core, the mystery of creation as revealed in Genesis, the amazingly beautiful and complex design revealed by all of creation, and the scientific theory about the evolution of species through DNA modification and natural selection, all point toward the creator who is God, as revealed in the Bible. Knowing that fallen mankind was redeemed through the death and resurrection of The Logos, Jesus Christ who came to to offer new and eternal life for all who believe in him, we can call upon our spiritual vision to see that the universe continues to evolve according to God’s loving and mysterious plan.

It may edifying for some of you to pray and meditate over the 7 miracles in the Gospel of St. John, seeking to understand a parallel in reverse order to the 7 days of creation in Genesis. In other words, Jesus’ command to Lazarus in the last f the 7 miracles may resonate in your heart with God’s command on the first day, “Let there be Light.” You may also find greater meaning in the 7th day of creation, the Sabbath, by meditating on the miracle performed during wedding at Cana. These meditations may awaken in your soul a deeper understanding of what is written in Genesis.

Modern scientific thinking is ossified. Spiritual thought, enlivened by the “living water” that quickens imagination and intuition, is needed to begin to penetrate some of the mysteries presented by both the Bible and the natural world in which we are living now.

As a Catholic we are all Creationists in the larger sense. We understand that God really did do it.

The issue is how. The evo camp cannot let the 'Divine foot in the door". The ID the science camp doesn’t need to either. But the ID camp certainly can embrace the Divine.

The converging evidence is pointing to design. The “tree of life” has fallen. Junk DNA is no more. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance and then stasis. The immense machinery in the cell, the ATP synthase motor, cells were complex right from the beginning, natural selection not being creative but preserving, etc… The super language of DNA is just beginning to be understood.

It is an exciting future for IDvolution:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is ** **consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[minkymurph]

The question I asked previously and not answered.

Did God know what Adam would look like? Did Adam look as God intended?

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.

 

[denver_faithful]

I voted Evolution. I of course believe it was a God-guided process. And to be honest, I’m not sure of the real difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. I always thought ID was just something used by those pushing to have creationism taught in science class.

Any help here?

 

[Al_Moritz]

The issue is how. The evo camp cannot let the 'Divine foot in the door". The ID the science camp doesn’t need to either. But the ID camp certainly can embrace the Divine.

As usual for ID proponents, you are setting up a false dichotomy. Being in the “evo camp” as you put it, I nonetheless very much 'let the ‘Divine foot in the door’ by believing that evolution is a process designed by God. I certainly embrace the Divine.

Just like atheists, ID proponents like you mistake “natural causes” for “godless causes”, as if God were in competition with nature, which He created.

 

[minkymurph]

I voted Evolution. I of course believe it was a God-guided process. And to be honest, I’m not sure of the real difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. I always thought ID was just something used by those pushing to have creationism taught in science class.

Any help here?

That’s my understanding of it as well.

 

[buffalo]

I voted Evolution. I of course believe it was a God-guided process. And to be honest, I’m not sure of the real difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. I always thought ID was just something used by those pushing to have creationism taught in science class.

Any help here?

If it was God guided then it could happen again and again. Knocks the idea of randomness out don’t ya think. If something happens the same way over and over it is designed to do so.

 

[minkymurph]

If it was God guided then it could happen again and again. Knocks the idea of randomness out don’t ya think. If something happens the same way over and over it is designed to do so.

Life does not come about independently of God. That does not mean he controls everything that happens. (Unless your a Calvinist )

Does God select the gender of every child born? Or does God like to leave that to random selection of genes to give us a surprise? I chose not to know what gender my kids were from the scan 'cos I like surprises.

 

[buffalo]

Life does not come about independently of God. That does not mean he controls everything that happens. (Unless your a Calvinist )

Does God select the gender of every child born? Or does God like to leave that to random selection of genes to give us a surprise? I chose not to know what gender my kids were from the scan 'cos I like surprises.

Man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. The question stands in regard to Adam.

 

[minkymurph]

Man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. The question stands in regard to Adam.

The question ‘did Adam look as God intended?’ I answered that question. Do you agree or disagree with the answer?

 

[minkymurph]

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.

The question was ‘did God know what Adam would look like and he look as God intended?.’

Here is the answer I gave.

In addition, does God decide exactly what every single child born will look like physically?

 

[buffalo]

The question ‘did Adam look as God intended?’ I answered that question. Do you agree or disagree with the answer?

Your answer:

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.

---

OK - so 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. God knew and planned it. According to theistic evo then God would have to manage the randomness (therefore not really random) and the selection pressures.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

 

[buffalo]

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.

We do know that God sustains His creation and that He does answer prayers.

I have also put forth the idea of the quantum effects of prayer in the past. Our Lady exhorts us to prayer in almost every apparition. Could God have set it up so the cumulative effects of prayer somehow can govern weather and other planetary events? Or wars or famine? etc…

In any case we understand God to be involved.

 

[minkymurph]

We do know that God sustains His creation and that He does answer prayers.

I have also put forth the idea of the quantum effects of prayer in the past. Our Lady exhorts us to prayer in almost every apparition. Could God have set it up so the cumulative effects of prayer somehow can govern weather and other planetary events? Or wars or famine? etc…

In any case we understand God to be involved.

I agree with you. We do know God sustains His creation and answers prayers.

Yes, I believe prayer ‘works.’ How? Couldn’t even stagger a guess.

Can prayer govern events? Good question and deserves a thread of it’s own.

I found it funny in last years all Ireland football final. Both teams were praying for a win and coming from Down, I said I hoped God was a Down supporter!

 

[buffalo]

I agree with you. We do know God sustains His creation and answers prayers.

Yes, I believe prayer ‘works.’ How? Couldn’t even stagger a guess.

Can prayer govern events? Good question and deserves a thread of it’s own.

I found it funny in last years all Ireland football final. Both teams were praying for a win and coming from Down, I said I hoped God was a Down supporter!

Yeah I know - it is like the soccer mom praying that it will not rain for the game, and the farmer next door praying the drought will end.

 

[balt_orioles54]

—Quote—
there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
—End Quote—
We disagree, there are known and observed natural processes that can increase both Shannon Information and Kolmogorov Information. Your sources are lying to you here. There are also processes known to science that copy information. Copying information from one place to another can increase the amount of information at the destination without actually generating any new information.

Read it again, Rossum, no natural process known to science that “creates” coded information. Increasing and adding to information is “after the fact” and yes, known in science.