Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

Likewise, I can see the results of the unseen God in my and in other people’s lives.
That’s the best explanation I can make.
Most of this is very intrinsic to my private personal life, so I’m not willing to divulge more details.
Don

I can identify with this.

I have often been asked by atheists why I believe in God. In this situation my answer is always ‘why do you want to know?’ because I wouldn’t be willing to share something that is very intrinsic and private in a public forum; or with someone who may be asking you not because they really want to know, but because they want to argue with you and tell you you’re wrong, or just make fun of you which very often happens.

Suffice to say that belief in God is not an abstract, clinical experience. Belief in God involves the whole person, and whole communities. I’ve always said that if anyone want to know why people believe in God, there’s any amount of information out there that is readily obtainable without making it personal.

 

[chagen44]

This is one of the better arguments for ID, both common design and common descent explain shared traits. However, there are two observed problems with the common design explanation.

First, all shared traits are arranged in a tree structure. We never see things like a Pegasus, a mammal with bird’s wings. Indeed a Pegasus is an example of a designed animal, designed by humans. The ID designer never steps outside the constraints of the tree. Common descent requires a tree structure and a Pegasus would kill common descent stone dead if one were found.

Second, common descent involves a blind unintelligent copying process, so we would expect mistakes and errors to be copied along with working DNA. An intelligent designer will not want to reproduce mistakes. We observe that the pattern of copied errors, for example in primates’ GULO-pseudogene, follow the tree structure exactly. That is the reason we cannot make vitamin C. If there is a designer then she is copying her errors in an exact tree structure.

Science has shown how the four bases used to make DNA (ACGT) can form in prebiotic conditions on Earth. No God is required, just chemistry. Given that, it is not so obvious to me.

This is theology, not science. The Fall is specific to the Abrahamic religions. A Hindu, a Buddhist, such as myself, or a Taoist is not going to accept such an explanation. Would you accept a scientific explanation from a Buddhist that involved the influence of bad karma from previous lives?

You have just denied you own existence. You started as a single tiny cell. You are now made of trillions of cells, a vast increase in order. How can that be? You obviously don’t exist.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is far more subtle than the caricature of it that is pushed by YEC websites.

rossum

Wow, so much to cover…q
“Science” ( quotation marks added intentionally), is nothing more than a method of study, not a diety or an altar as so many seem to think. This prebiotic soup that evolutionists are so fond of, is it magical? My understanding is that spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago, yet modern scientists postulate that we came about because the base pairs of DNA can be produced in this prebiotic soup. You mean to say that if only I could make a solution of prebiotic soup (btw, does Campbells make that and can I buy it at Wal-Mart?) that the base pairs would then randomly produce the genes of a human? Or, lets make it simple, a paramecium? At some point faith enters the equation. The evolutionary viewpoint relies on chance and TIME, even though there has not been enough time for random chance to make one gene properly, let alone millions.
Bad Karma, eh? I am glad you have joined me on my side of the equation! I believe we are all paying for the bad karma of Adam when he sinned against God and brought death into the world.
Far from denying my own existence, my existence is rather due the miracle of creation that God set in place to allow me to grow from a single egg/sperm union. All the energy that has been expended to get me to where I am now was all in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics in that there was/is a system in place that allows my body’s cells to utilize the food I eat to be converted chemically into useful energy my body’s many systems can use constructively.
I am a practicing MD and stand in awe of God’s creation every time I try to patch up the damage people do to themselves. (ER)
Peace be with you.

 

[minkymurph]

It is with that background that I have formed the opinion that a lot of public education is more brainwashing that education.

God loves you,
Don

Well, sadly there are those in education who exploit the fact they have a captive audience, and they just use it a forum to voice their own opinions rather than listen to those of their students.

 

[donsnow]

I can identify with this.

I have often been asked by atheists why I believe in God. In this situation my answer is always ‘why do you want to know?’ because I wouldn’t be willing to share something that is very intrinsic and private in a public forum; or with someone who may be asking you not because they really want to know, but because they want to argue with you and tell you you’re wrong, or just make fun of you which very often happens.

Suffice to say that belief in God is not an abstract, clinical experience. Belief in God involves the whole person, and whole communities. I’ve always said that if anyone want to know why people believe in God, there’s any amount of information out there that is readily obtainable without making it personal.

Thanks, minkymurph,

I appreciate this post very much.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

Well, sadly there are those in education who exploit the fact they have a captive audience, and they just use it a forum to voice their own opinions rather than listen to those of their students.

Hi, again,

I have observed that there are people like that in education; as well as in law enforcement; as well as in the recovery scene; as well as in crime; as well as in churches; etc. I try to remember that it’s people like that that our Lord came to save as well as His saving me and the others I love.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Neildown]

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?

Au contraire, Mr. Moritz, I could say it is the other way around. Creation would not be an act of engineering - it, in essence, would be an act of art, because it would be the instant conception of something beautiful, the brainchild of inspiration - which is an example of how a passionate artist’s mind works. Engineering requires a plan to be set and gradually built - its the eventual construction of something after lots of planning, adding, and subtracting [you may say more appropriately, ‘evolving’].

 

[Al_Moritz]

I am not talking about what the organism does after it is conceived, I am talking about abiogenesis - the beginning - not what ensues. I know enough about biology to understand natural selection, but that is of no relevance to my argument, unless I am missing something here.

Once you have the first replicating RNA molecule, the nucleotide sequence of which indeed arises by chance, everything else follows by random mutation and natural selection.

Also, in refutation of your ‘false’ statement - if an atheist does not believe in God, the only thing left is chance. Without an Infinite Arbiter [they have science, but it is not infallible or infinite ] there is really no such thing as logic or reason. Therefore natural selection would be a form of random phenomena.

I agree that for an atheist the laws of nature and the universe are just there by chance. Yet once these are in place, the ensuing process of evolution is not a chance process. That was the issue, not if the atheist’s worldview accepts chance as the basis of the very existence of things.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Perhaps relevant to this discussion are the following links on scientism, which Wanstronian seems to adhere to.

Edward Feser, “Blinded by Scientism”:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174

Edward Feser, “Recovering Sight after Scientism”:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184

 

[samiam1611]

I said in one of my posts that when I talk to atheists they state it’s a fact God does not exist, so I hope you don’t mind if I jump in here.

In order to research any topic thoroughly, it is necessary to fully investigate supporting arguments and counter argument. For example, if you were researching historical evidence relating to the article of appeasement, you would consider evidence that supports both pro-appeasement and anti-appeasement arguments, and then come to conclusion.

Less radical atheists don’t jump in with, 'it’s a fact God doesn’t exist. They do say, as you have said, it can’t be proven. Many atheists I have spoken to also seem to be of the opinion that evolution proves God does not exist, which is what prejudices many in the religious world. Your post suggests you are not of the same opinion. So, I’d like to ask you a question. Apart from evolution; what evidence for the existence of God have atheists considered, why do they find it unsatisfactory, and what sort evidence do they think would have to be established to prove the existence of God?

Don’t mind you jumping in at all!
While I am utterly convinced there is no God (in that sense, a radical atheist), I use scientific evidence/proof to determine if something is a fact or not, and since there is none, I cannot use the word fact when denying the existence of Him. You are correct, I absolutely do not think evolution is proof God does not exist. Are you sure people said that, is it possible you misinterpreted them? Nothing is proof He doesn’t exist.
Evolution is also not proof that He* does *exist. It’s hard to accept randomness (and evolution has a fair bit of randomness to it) which is why I don’t think it’s abosolutely insane to want to say God did it. What does baffle me is people who consciously reject the scientific evidence for evolution in favor of bible stories.
I think going into any sort of detailed answer on why I do not believe in God and what it would take to prove to me God did exist might break the rules of this forum, though I could PM you if you want to know badly. I will give an abbreviated answer though:
The main reason I do not believe in God bc He is supernatural and I don’t believe in anything supernatural.
I would need scientific evidence that He did exist. I would need corroborated, peer reviewed, empirical evidence. Given my current conviction, I would probably need to witness Him myself, and even then I would not believe my own eyes.
Basically, nothing that theists use for proof is valid evidence to me. Scripture is the main “evidence” and I completetely reject it as evidence. Christian and Jewish scripture (which I am more familiar with bc I was raised Jewish) are no more believable to me than Greek mythology. Or any mythology. I suspect that one day, there will be Christian mythology. maybe. maybe not

 

[Al_Moritz]

Basically, nothing that theists use for proof is valid evidence to me. Scripture is the main “evidence” and I completetely reject it as evidence. Christian and Jewish scripture (which I am more familiar with bc I was raised Jewish) are no more believable to me than Greek mythology. Or any mythology. I suspect that one day, there will be Christian mythology. maybe. maybe not

Arguing from the Bible for the existence of God is circular and leads us nowhere. The Bible shows that God exists, but it can only do that if in fact God exists . . .

I believe in divine revelation, but only because I have ample philosophical reasons to believe in the existence of God:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7878525&postcount=309

 

[Al_Moritz]

The main reason I do not believe in God bc He is supernatural and I don’t believe in anything supernatural.
I would need scientific evidence that He did exist. I would need corroborated, peer reviewed, empirical evidence. Given my current conviction, I would probably need to witness Him myself, and even then I would not believe my own eyes.

Then the links in my above post #366 might be relevant for you as well.

 

[edwest2]

A few words from the Bible.

bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

A few words from the Bible.

bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm

Peace,
Ed

Good quote. But here Paul argues from creation, which is a non-circular argument.

 

[minkymurph]

What does baffle me is people who consciously reject the scientific evidence for evolution in favor of bible stories.

Because accepting evolution would make their interpretation of the Bible wrong meaning; they may not have the right religion.

The main reason I do not believe in God bc He is supernatural and I don’t believe in anything supernatural.

That’s a fair comment. Believe in the supernatural isn’t the obvious, straightforward route that some would argue it is. Belief in the supernatural also requires faith and choice.

I would need scientific evidence that He did exist. I would need corroborated, peer reviewed, empirical evidence.

Is the existence of God the only belief you would reject in the absence of scientific evidence?

 

[ricmat]

Au contraire, Mr. Moritz, I could say it is the other way around. Creation would not be an act of engineering - it, in essence, would be an act of art, because it would be the instant conception of something beautiful, the brainchild of inspiration - which is an example of how a passionate artist’s mind works. Engineering requires a plan to be set and gradually built - its the eventual construction of something after lots of planning, adding, and subtracting [you may say more appropriately, ‘evolving’].

IMHO The entirety of Genesis 1 is the story of God taking chaos, and then conceiving, organizing / designing, and building something from it. That seems to be one of the lessons we are to learn from Gen1. I don’t disagree that the outcome is art of the highest form, but the process described there I would argue is closely attuned to “engineering.” IMHO God is both an engineer and an artist.

Is 45:18 For thus says the LORD, The creator of the heavens, who is God, The designer and maker of the earth who established it, Not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in: I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Once you have the first replicating RNA molecule, the nucleotide sequence of which indeed arises by chance, everything else follows by random mutation and natural selection.

So the first RNA arises by chance. Faith alone. Or did you see it happen personally. Or maybe someone you know saw it personally?

And then everything that follows is driven by random mutations. (Remember that NS cannot create anything new, it just establishes preferences for things that already there)

In your view, short of providing humans with souls, is there anything evolution can’t do? Is there any other aspect of humans that is not an outcome of evolution?

What about “instincts / natures?” What about the idiot savants who can tell you what day of the week August 9th, 5743 will be without even thinking about it? Natural selection did that eh? Indeed that’s a survival skill that is highly advantageous to have

I agree that for an atheist the laws of nature and the universe are just there by chance.

So I take it you disagree with the laws of nature being there “just by chance.” So, are they designed or not?

Yet once these are in place, the ensuing process of evolution is not a chance process.

But above you state that the first replicating RNA arises by chance. And all subsequent changes are a result of random mutations. If you leave some room here for God’s intervention - exactly where is it? God got things started “in the beginning” and then put his feet up and turned on the auto-pilot switch? If God cares enough about us to hold the entirety of creation in existence, it seems to me that he probably doesn’t rely on auto-pilot all that much.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So the first RNA arises by chance. Faith alone. Or did you see it happen personally. Or maybe someone you know saw it personally?

I don’t see any problem with that. Even if the chances are just, let’s say, 1 in 1 million years, in terms of geological deep time this is irrelevant. What does it matter if life arose 3.826 or 3.827 billion years ago?

And then everything that follows is driven by random mutations. (Remember that NS cannot create anything new, it just establishes preferences for things that already there)

You are dead wrong here. Evolution does increase information, e.g. by the very ordinary process of gene duplication and then mutating the duplicated gene, and subsequent natural selection.

In your view, short of providing humans with souls, is there anything evolution can’t do? Is there any other aspect of humans that is not an outcome of evolution?

None necessarily. I cannot exclude that God intervened here and there, but there is no scientific basis for the assumption that this had to be so.

So I take it you disagree with the laws of nature being there “just by chance.” So, are they designed or not?

God designed them.

If you leave some room here for God’s intervention - exactly where is it? God got things started “in the beginning” and then put his feet up and turned on the auto-pilot switch? If God cares enough about us to hold the entirety of creation in existence, it seems to me that he probably doesn’t rely on auto-pilot all that much.

Why should God constantly intervene in a process that He created that does not need intervention? Of course God cares about us, and our soul is a special creation by God. But why do you need constant intervention for the material processes that made our bodies? Why would God have to intervene constantly only to show He cares? You seem to have a pretty anthropomorphic view of God.

So God also planned precisely for our particular parents to meet through all contingencies in life, and He performed a detailed mixing of our parent’s genes at the moment of conception?

If you really want to adhere to such a theology, it makes an explanation of the problem of evil awfully hard. If God did such precise mixing, why didn’t He repair all the nucleotides in our DNA responsible for genetic diseases while He was at it? To espouse such a ‘puppet-on-a-string’ theology would be very dangerous indeed. It would also make the concept of free will difficult, by the way.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I
So the first RNA arises by chance. Faith alone. Or did you see it happen personally. Or maybe someone you know saw it personally?

By the way, I probably need to clarify. The first specific nucleotide sequence that could replicate arose by chance, but any good ole RNA molecules themselves? The evidence points more and more to the synthesis of RNA having been an ordinary chemical process on the primordial Earth, see my article on the origin of life:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Given that then you probably would have had trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of random RNA sequences floating on the Earth, the chances that one of them was just right might not have been bad at all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

None necessarily. I cannot exclude that God intervened here and there, but there is no scientific basis for the assumption that this had to be so.

I’m not going to challenge anything you say as to scientific facts. It’s just that the way you put everything together seems too chancy.

First you admit that God designed the laws of chance (didn’t you just say that?). Then you say that God does not intervene in the laws of chance.

Is that a bit of equivocation? Obviously, if God designed the laws of chance, by your own logic the laws of chance are playing themselves out in a way designed by God so that there must be interventions here and there.

Do you mean to say that God designed the laws of chance but that an entirely different universe than the one we inhabit might have come about since God was not able to direct (intervene in) the process at any point?

Does God just create the laws of chance and then walk away and hope for the best? This is dangerously close to Deism. So are you a Catholic, or a Deist, or are you a Catholic transiting into Deism, or what?

I understand that you are reluctant as a scientist to admit proof of God’s intervention, but certainly you can be a Catholic and a scientist and reconcile the two in your own mind.

Yes? No?

 

[rossum]

“Science” ( quotation marks added intentionally), is nothing more than a method of study, not a diety or an altar as so many seem to think.

I am well aware of the difference between science and religion. If you look at the top right of my posts you will see that my religion is Buddhism, not scientism.

This prebiotic soup that evolutionists are so fond of, is it magical? My understanding is that spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago, yet modern scientists postulate that we came about because the base pairs of DNA can be produced in this prebiotic soup.

Yes. And we have the evidence to support us:* Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.

• An Investigation of Prebiotic Purine Synthesis from the Hydrolysis of HCN Polymers.

DNA has four molecules that make up its base pairs: A, C, G and T. Adenine (A) and guanine (G), are purines; cytosine (C), thymine(T) (and uracil(U), found in RNA) are all pyrimidines. Science can show that these five molecules, essential for life, can be made in prebiotic conditions. So far ID has not published any experiments at all showing that the Intelligent Designer is even capable of forming one of these five essential molecules. So far science is ahead of ID by 5 - 0. The Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids; where are the ID experiments showing the designer producing any amino acids at all? Again science is ahead, with ID scoring zero.

All the energy that has been expended to get me to where I am now was all in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics in that there was/is a system in place that allows my body’s cells to utilize the food I eat to be converted chemically into useful energy my body’s many systems can use constructively.

Exactly correct. The SLoT does not forbid temporary local decreases in entropy as long as the appropriate energy cost is paid. Since evolution only produces temporary local decreases in entropy at a cost in energy (your mother had to eat more while you were gestating) there is no problem for evolution dealing with entropy. You were being lied to be the creationist website that quoted the SLoT as a problem for evolution.

I am a practicing MD and stand in awe of God’s creation every time I try to patch up the damage people do to themselves. (ER)

I wish you well with your work.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Given that then you probably would have had trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of random RNA sequences floating on the Earth, the chances that one of them was just right might not have been bad at all.

It didn’t even have to be “just right”. It just had to be “less wrong than all the others”. Once it got started it would be an imperfect replicator and evolution could start refining it from “less wrong” to “pretty good” to “just right”.

rossum