Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

Your first paragraph makes sense. Science cannot answer how the ontological leap to man occurred. If there was a process, God guided it, but pre-humans? That doesn’t work for me.

Peace,
Ed

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.

 

[vz71]

I was criticised for assigning desires to God in my pool player analogy. Since ID attributes actions to the Designer, and intelligent actions are driven by desires, then the Designer must have desires: “We desire that bacteria have a flagellum”. I do assume that ID does not posit a Designer acting at random: “If I roll an even number then bacteria get a flagellum, otherwise not.”

I am still looking for a tested design detector from ID.

rossum

Knowing the designer has a desire does not in any way assume to know the desire itself.
You speculation that ID assumes the desires of the designer is in error.

As to the critique concerning your pool player analogy, it simply is an incorrect analogy. You are making an assumption concerning the methodology of the designer.
You assume the designer wants to do everything in advance and then watch it unfold.
This may or may not be the case.
It may just as well be the case that the designer wants to interract with the creation on an ongoing basis.
Since we do not know which of these is the case, it is incorrect to assume one or the other.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You assume the designer wants to do everything in advance and then watch it unfold.
This may or may not be the case.
It may just as well be the case that the designer wants to interact with the creation on an ongoing basis.

False dichotomy. God always interacts with the creation on an ongoing basis, since He sustains creation at every moment. This is classical theology, and an article of Catholic faith.

It seems that interventionist ID wants to show as much intervention as possible because its worldview is essentially based on a false deistic idea of God that disregards classical theology – a God who does not always tinker with His creation is deistic, so let’s get him to tinker as much as possible, please, shall we?

 

[Al_Moritz]

God always interacts with the creation on an ongoing basis, since He sustains creation at every moment. This is classical theology, and an article of Catholic faith.

In order to fully understand why this has to be so, it is useful to study classical metaphysics by St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is an excellent introduction:

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Oneworld/dp/product-description/1851686908

Aquinas makes the distinction between esse (God) and actus essendi (creatures), with the consequences flowing from there.

 

[rossum]

False dichotomy. God always interacts with the creation on an ongoing basis, since He sustains creation at every moment. This is classical theology, and an article of Catholic faith.

It seems that interventionist ID wants to show as much intervention as possible because its worldview is essentially based on a false deistic idea of God that disregards classical theology – a God who does not always tinker with His creation is deistic, so let’s get him to tinker as much as possible, please, shall we?

An excellent point. It often seems to me that the ID God is placed on a much lower level than the God of classical theology. Classical theology places God at a far deeper level in the universe, “sustaining” it as you say. The ID God is just a mere tinkerer in comparison. The God of classical theology designed the universe so that it would self assemble, real self-assembly – the universe puts itself together. The ID God has to read the instructions and find the right Allen Key in order to put things together.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

An excellent point. It often seems to me that the ID God is placed on a much lower level than the God of classical theology. Classical theology places God at a far deeper level in the universe, “sustaining” it as you say. The ID God is just a mere tinkerer in comparison. The God of classical theology designed the universe so that it would self assemble, real self-assembly – the universe puts itself together. The ID God has to read the instructions and find the right Allen Key in order to put things together.

rossum

Or, as I like to put it:
Intelligent Design proponents have in common with atheists that they see God as an engineer *). 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, instead of tinkering around with solar systems and RNA polymerases.

*) atheists: why didn’t God just create a solar system for humans, if they are so important; instead we have this huge universe which is surely a sign that we are not intended and our existence pointless

 

[vz71]

False dichotomy. God always interacts with the creation on an ongoing basis, since He sustains creation at every moment. This is classical theology, and an article of Catholic faith.

It seems that interventionist ID wants to show as much intervention as possible because its worldview is essentially based on a false deistic idea of God that disregards classical theology – a God who does not always tinker with His creation is deistic, so let’s get him to tinker as much as possible, please, shall we?

True, but when debating a non-catholic concerning ID, I have found it best to leave the designer udefined and let the other party fill in the blank.

Of course, once God is admitted into that field, we can intoduce that existence of creation is a constant act of will.

 

[buffalo]

An excellent point. It often seems to me that the ID God is placed on a much lower level than the God of classical theology. Classical theology places God at a far deeper level in the universe, “sustaining” it as you say.

So does IDvolution

 

[leebowman]

“An excellent point. It often seems to me that the ID God is placed on a much lower level than the God of classical theology … The ID God has to read the instructions and find the right Allen Key in order to put things together.”

Actually, the design premise is based, in part, on the evidence of incremental creation. A literal interpretation of Genesis, which necessitates a young earth summation, is in conflict with that. An IDst is assumed, therefore, to see God as a tinkerer (If A, then B, thus C). It is for that reason that Ken Ham is against ID, as are many or most TEs.

The problems of the literal account vs the data, the problems associated with theodicity, the unsettled issue of whether sin was passed on by inheritance, et al, are addressed daily by the TEs, as well as some YECs and OECs.

ID (by definition) addresses only design inferences, and excludes theological issue. But in reality, most IDsts (as primarily Christians and Muslims) address both. The classical ID definition that includes cosmic creation connotes that association as well, since while there is a plethora of evidence of design in bio systems, there is no direct evidence of ‘design’ with the Cosmos, except perhaps the indirect evidence of ‘fine tuning’ (although hotly debated).

So my definition of ID is agnostic regarding cosmic creation, based on available data. I personally believe that God created the heavens (if you will), but that unlike ID, it cannot be verifiable empirically. ID needs to be limited to what we can see and empirically test directly (simulations and statistical analyses).

In sum, I also feel that purely natural, or ‘unguided’ creation of RNA/DNA on down will never be confirmed, except for ‘designed in’ adaptive functions, and that its resulting design implications will have theological effects. But that will remain a personal choice, and not on dictated by science.

But in answer to the above question, do I (or does the ID paradigm in general) put God on a lower level than classical (Biblical) theology? No, and I’ll explain why shortly.

"Or, as I like to put it: “Intelligent Design proponents have in common with atheists that they see God as an engineer *). 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, instead of tinkering around with solar systems and RNA polymerases.”

Consider the possibility that yes, God is what is claimed and understood, but rather than the only intelligence ‘out there’, He is the Supreme Authority, but not the only overseer. Scripture in fact is in support of this, since Angels (angelics) exist, and rather than just created spirit beings, are perhaps instrumental in cosmic oversight, and yes, biologic creation.

"True, but when debating a non-catholic concerning ID, I have found it best to leave the designer udefined and let the other party fill in the blank.

Of course, once God is admitted into that field, we can intoduce that existence of creation is a constant act of will."

I define God as the Supreme Authority, and as the head of a hierarchy of angelics (in effect surrogates) who have been, and are instrumental in human oversight, and perhaps historical speciation events. Predator v. prey, and parasite v. host may therefore be more explicable as the result of their ‘competitive’ predisposition, rather than God’s direct choosing. We organize in a similar way. Does the CEO of GM design Chevys? No, but he directs the process. There is considerable evidence of the same in the spirit realm.

In any event, I honor God daily, but I also accept intermediaries (angelics) as part of a vast hierarchy. We ourselves my reside in a direct lineage to that community [Psalm 8.5].

 

[leebowman]

*“There is no empirical way (to test ID), but by inference and statistically, there are many.”

“ • IC, as any Behe fan or detractor knows.” *

IC has been tested and has failed the test. IC systems can evolve. See Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, it is the same Behe.

Actual design (or evolutionary) events can only be speculated upon. Parallel or similar speciation events have been attempted (Drosophila) and have failed to evolve into revised body plans, except for misplaced eyes and wings. Other experiments (nylonase synthesis et al) are not analogous to body plan radical revision. And purported speciation events observed in nature (peppered moth, finches beaks, cecal valves in Lacertidae lizards) do not verify IC events as well, since they were mere adaptations. The cecal valves were genetically resident within the lizard, since even if evolvable, there was insufficient probabilistic time available, a mere 30 generations.

“ • NEC, or IC from a differing perspective.”

Reference for the testing of NEC as a design detector please. As I indicate below, you need to study neutral theory.

I have, and neutral theory, the accumulation of neutral traits by random drift of neutral genomic revisions that happen to become fixed in a population only add to fitness in rare instances, and never would constitute a component of the formation of a complex and novel construct, since being neutral, they would offer no immediate selective advantage. No immediate advantage; no fixation in a population.

And regarding instances where NEC has been tested, it is a variant of IC that I have proposed, and will become a common test parameter if ID studies ensue.

*” • Symmetries” *

Fails even a simple test. Snowflakes are symmetrical yet snowflakes are not designed. Crystals can be symmetrical yet crystals are not designed. Meteorite impact craters are symmetrical yet impact craters are not designed.

Symmetries referred to here are biologically formed structures, not crystalline formations. Crystaline structures form symetrical due in part to their molecular symetry. Biologic structures form via HOX6 instructions, and form in the way encoded for.

” • Synergies and co-dependent systems.”

References to the testing please. How do you show that symbiosis cannot evolve?

Symbioses can and do evolve, but it’s not the same as co-dependent systems operating within one organism, each with no purpose without the other, and both co-dependent on the other for ultimate functionality. In the case of symbiosis, each is a separate organism that can exist w/o the other, so no analogy there.

” • Repair mechanisms that take effect later in life (past repro years)”

I might accept this is you showed that a different set of repair mechanisms came into operation. Mere continuation of the existing repair mechanisms is insufficient. Again I will need a reference to the tests.

This was a prediction that might have validity, but would be subject to testing. And like many ID predictions I have proposed, have not been evaluated thus far.

”NEC, or non-evolvable –complexity are evolutionary pathways where certain intermediates offer no reproductive advantage, and thus provide no impetus to become fixed in a population.”

You really need to read up on genetic drift and neutral theory. Purely by random statistical fluctuation some neutral traits can spread and even become fixed. This looks like a non-starter to me.

As stated above, I suggest that neutral theory is a valid means of adding a little to the genome that might, by chance, add to its adaptive library of variant genes, but definitely never to produce complexity and novelty. This is a prediction.

”Symmetries are morphologies due to intentional design, rather than chance formation, such as teeth designs.”,

Are you saying that the shape of teeth is not subject to normal evolutionary processes? If so then this is a complete loser for you.

Slight modifications yes, but total design from a bony ridge perhaps? No way. Study the placement, shape, and structure. Notice that the front teeth (incisors) are narrow on the outward portion (for slicing), but wider at the roots for proper support. And the canine teeth (cuspids) are plainly designed for more severe tasks, like holding a prey. I take exception to the enamel thickness (1.0 mm down to .1 mm or less), and that it decreases with age. Too thin I feel, good for the dental business, but designed nonetheless.

Sorry for the late reply. It’s now after midnight in the UK, so hope I didn’t keep you up late. Cheers.
.

 

[rossum]

Actual design (or evolutionary) events can only be speculated upon. Parallel or similar speciation events have been attempted (Drosophila) and have failed to evolve into revised body plans, except for misplaced eyes and wings.

You are equivocating here. Speciaiton is well defined, and does not mean “revised body plan”. Are you saying that gorillas, chimps and ourselves are all the same species because we all share the same body plan? No, I didn’t think that you were. Biological species are defined in terms of there ability to interbreed, not in terms of body plan. Higher taxa were be defined in terms of body plan, though it is is now being replaced by DNA sequencing.

Other experiments (nylonase synthesis et al) are not analogous to body plan radical revision.

Again you are equivocating between speciation (which is defined differently for eubacteria) and body plan changes.

I have, and neutral theory, the accumulation of neutral traits by random drift of neutral genomic revisions that happen to become fixed in a population only add to fitness in rare instances,

Agreed. That is why it is neutral drift. If it was beneficial then it would be natural selection.

and never would constitute a component of the formation of a complex and novel construct, since being neutral, they would offer no immediate selective advantage. No immediate advantage; no fixation in a population.

Please learn the mathematics of neutral drift. Some neutral traits do become fixed, and even more become predominant in a population.

And regarding instances where NEC has been tested, it is a variant of IC that I have proposed, and will become a common test parameter if ID studies ensue.

I read that as “untested”, like every other proposed ID design detection methodology.

Symmetries referred to here are biologically formed structures, not crystalline formations. Crystaline structures form symetrical due in part to their molecular symetry. Biologic structures form via HOX6 instructions, and form in the way encoded for.

You have made an assertion here. Where is your evidence and test results to back up your assertion? What property of the HOX genes mkes it impossible for them to have evolved? We can see the debris of the evolution of HOX genes in our DNA; multiple copies and broken pseudogenes. Why do you consider this evidence to be deceptive?

Symbioses can and do evolve, but it’s not the same as co-dependent systems operating within one organism, each with no purpose without the other, and both co-dependent on the other for ultimate functionality.

How does this differ from Behe’s Irreducible Complexity? We already know IC can evolve; Behe’s own calculations show that it can.

This was a prediction that might have validity, but would be subject to testing. And like many ID predictions I have proposed, have not been evaluated thus far.

Precisely my point. Anyone can make predictions. What we need are tested predictions, which ID is currently rather short of.

As stated above, I suggest that neutral theory is a valid means of adding a little to the genome that might, by chance, add to its adaptive library of variant genes, but definitely never to produce complexity and novelty. This is a prediction.

Then your prediction has already failed. In Lenski’s E. coli experiment the formation of the citrate metabolism was a staged process, with the first stage being unselected, and only in place due to neutral drift. That initial stage was the base for the selected second stage which could, in combination with the first, digest citrate.

Slight modifications yes, but total design from a bony ridge perhaps? No way.

Personal incredulity is not a scientific argument. What aspects of the shape of our teeth are not under genetic control? What different mechanism controls those aspects of the shape of our teeth? What evidence is there for this alternative mechanism?

Sorry for the late reply. It’s now after midnight in the UK, so hope I didn’t keep you up late.

All the best people live on this side of the pond (and sometimes stay up too late!)

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

… What we need are tested predictions, which ID is currently rather short of.

ID has predicted, is predicting and will continue to predict that the order and regularity in the universe will continue to exist - and that the power of reason (as opposed to purposeless processes) will **always **be the most effective way of solving problems!

 

[Al_Moritz]

ID has predicted, is predicting and will continue to predict that the order and regularity in the universe will continue to exist - and that the power of reason (as opposed to purposeless processes) will **always **be the most effective way of solving problems!

ID, as commonly understood, is an abbreviation for the Intelligent Design movement with its claims of “irreducible complexity” in biological systems. I think we should agree to use the term “ID” in that context, as also Rossum and others do.

Obviously, as Christians we believe that the universe is intelligently designed, and so is our rationality, depending on an immaterial soul. But this should stand apart from the term “ID”. I certainly do not want to be confused with an ID proponent!

 

[tonyrey]

*ID has predicted, is predicting and will continue to predict that the order and regularity in the universe will continue to exist - and that the power of reason (as opposed to purposeless processes) will **always ***

It seems an artificial distinction given that all scientific explanation presupposes the order and regularity in the universe and the power of reason. Doesn’t the opponent of ID predict that **all the complexity ** in biological systems will be explained by natural processes?

 

[Al_Moritz]

It seems an artificial distinction given that all scientific explanation presupposes the order and regularity in the universe and the power of reason./.b]

No, it is not an artificial distinction. Just like ID is technical term for a certain way of thinking, so is the term “creationism” as commonly understood. In the wider sense we are all creationists, but I don’t want to be called a creationist either. See also the distinction between “creationism” and “evolution” in the poll of this thread.

Doesn’t the opponent of ID predict that **all the complexity ** in biological systems will be explained by natural processes?

Yes, what’s the point?

Two things here:

Reason depends on complexity in biological systems only insofar as the brain is an integral part of the mind, but the mind is not identical with the brain, as we agree. So reason stands above the ID issue.

Natural processes are designed as well, if we believe that God created the world. But natural processes are just that, processes in nature. Neither are they “godless” processes, nor do they not exist because “God steers everything anyway”.

 

[buffalo]

No, it is not an artificial distinction. Just like ID is technical term for a certain way of thinking, so is the term “creationism” as commonly understood. In the wider sense we are all creationists, but I don’t want to be called a creationist either. See also the distinction between “creationism” and “evolution” in the poll of this thread.

Yes, what’s the point?

Two things here:

Reason depends on complexity in biological systems only insofar as the brain is an integral part of the mind, but the mind is not identical with the brain, as we agree. So reason stands above the ID issue.

Natural processes are designed as well, if we believe that God created the world. But natural processes are just that, processes in nature. Neither are they “godless” processes, nor do they not exist because “God steers everything anyway”.

Perhaps it is time to take the label Creationist back and proud to proclaim it. All Catholics are creationists in the broad sense.

 

[wanstronian]

Source?

None required, any more than the statement: “Fairy anatomy, the science, does not exist.”

ID does not meet the generally accepted criteria for scientific endeavour - as well you know, since we have discussed this very subject before.

ID makes no predictions; provides no falsification criteria; suggests no experiments; provides no explanations.

ID is not science - this is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists. I can cite multiple sources for this statement - as you’ll remember from our previous discussion… unless you have made a conscious decision to ignore/forget any evidence that doesn’t correlate with your religion.

 

[wanstronian]

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 is most definitely the motivation behind the nascence of Intelligent Design “theory” - however it has significantly increased in popularity among those unable to think rationally, and is now believed to be a valid scientific theory by that same demographic.

They are, of course, utterly wrong. It is no more than a religiously-motivated hypothesis, and that is what it will remain.

 

[wanstronian]

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

Hang on - I thought you believed in ID? Now you’re saying that God did it? How can you reconcile the two? If ID is a scientific theory, then it must provide convincing evidence that the designer is God. Given that ID can’t even prove the existence of Intelligent Design, how can it possibly make a claim as to the identity of the designer?

Do you even understand how contradictory your beliefs are?

 

[buffalo]

None required, any more than the statement: “Fairy anatomy, the science, does not exist.”

ID does not meet the generally accepted criteria for scientific endeavour - as well you know, since we have discussed this very subject before.

ID makes no predictions; provides no falsification criteria; suggests no experiments; provides no explanations.

ID is not science - this is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists. I can cite multiple sources for this statement - as you’ll remember from our previous discussion… unless you have made a conscious decision to ignore/forget any evidence that doesn’t correlate with your religion.

I have already posted the predictions many times.