Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[rossum]

The point is that the is either life or death.
You either hit the target or you do not. You do not have anything that is half alive.

Leaving aside the argument about whether or not viruses are really alive, I can agree that we have two options.

What we need to look at is if we have a large target, relative to the background, that is not too difficult to hit or a tiny target against a huge background that is very difficult to hit. In both cases there is a target (alive) and a background (dead) but the chances are different.

You are laying claim that every distinct strand of DNA is a new way to be alive.
Therefore you are hinging life upon the DNA.

We need to determine the relative sizes of the target and the background. Using RNA would give the same answer as DNA. How else would you propose to make the calculation?

Without some proof that life is in the DNA, it is unscientific to make the claim.

You should look up ‘vitalism’. Life is not some sort of magic essence that is “in” the DNA.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

And what was it about your scientific argument for salvation that most impressed your friend?

Huh?

 

[rossum]

Provided the necessary (name removed by moderator)ut of information.

No need to, evolutionary processes are perfectly capable of increasing information on their own without any external (name removed by moderator)ut. Gene duplication increases both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information. Gene duplication and mutation of one of the copies increases Kolmogorov information even more.

If you want a different definition of information then explain how to calculate it and I will have a look.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am on the side of rationality too. It is irrational to believe that design is not real or detectable.

Agreed, Forensic Scientists and Archaeologists are detecting real design all the time.

What objective and tested methods does ID have to detect design? I am aware of two proposed methods. IC has failed since IC can originate in the absence of design. CSI has been proposed but has never been tested, and there seem to be issues with exactly how to calculate it. ID does not appear to actually have a way to detect design comparable to the methods used by Forensic Scientists.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Agreed, Forensic Scientists and Archaeologists are detecting real design all the time.

What objective and tested methods does ID have to detect design? I am aware of two proposed methods. IC has failed since IC can originate in the absence of design. CSI has been proposed but has never been tested, and there seem to be issues with exactly how to calculate it. ID does not appear to actually have a way to detect design comparable to the methods used by Forensic Scientists.

rossum

Hod on - even if it was possible that IC could occur it does not necessarily apply to each and every instance.

I am open to you and I coming up with a better method.

Let’s start - take a known designed object. You pick one.

 

[ricmat]

I am on the side of rationality too. It is irrational to believe that design is not real or detectable.

Rationality is great. I’m rational most of the time too. I agree with your statement above.

However, it is not rational for the shepherd to leave the 99 to find the lost sheep.

It is not rational for the shepherd to lay down his life for his sheep.

It is not rational to believe that someone can be raised from the dead.

Jesus said, blessed are those who have not seen, and believe. That’s not rational either.

I assume that Al’s purpose in “getting the atheist friend to listen to him” has something to do with saving the atheist’s soul. If that’s not what he referred to, then I’m not sure what he is getting at. At some point in his dinnertime conversations he will need to enter the realm of non-rational. Good luck Al.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I assume that Al’s purpose in “getting the atheist friend to listen to him” has something to do with saving the atheist’s soul. If that’s not what he referred to, then I’m not sure what he is getting at.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

At some point in his dinnertime conversations he will need to enter the realm of non-rational. Good luck Al.

Thank you. As I said, assent to the mysteries of faith can only occur with the help of God’s grace. Please pray for my friend.

 

[vz71]

We need to determine the relative sizes of the target and the background. Using RNA would give the same answer as DNA. How else would you propose to make the calculation?

I don’t.
We know so little about the target that it is simply not possible to ascribe probability to it.
Try shooting a target when you do not know what direction or what distance.
That is what I am talking about.

You should look up ‘vitalism’. Life is not some sort of magic essence that is “in” the DNA.

Sure sounds like that is what you subscribe to.
You keep hocking DNA and RNA as though that is the secret of life, and now you wish to dismiss it?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes.

How?

 

[rossum]

We know so little about the target that it is simply not possible to ascribe probability to it.

Then please stop saying that the origin of life is so unlikely that it cannot happen or that it must have involved design. If you cannot calculate the number then you cannot base your argument on how large or how small the number is.

You keep hocking DNA and RNA as though that is the secret of life, and now you wish to dismiss it?

Do you know any other way to make life? We can make a basic cell wall. We can make medium sized RNA strands (and getting bigger) with some chemical activities. Chemical activity inside a cell wall is getting very close to life, don’t you think?

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

And what was it about your scientific argument for salvation that most impressed your friend?

Come on, give Al a break. Al may accept evolution, but he/she is a theist. As such, Al is on the side of God and not the enemy of God.

What Al was referring to was not impressing atheists with our knowledge of science. What Al was referring to was proposing scientific arguments that can be accepted by everyone, irrespective of belief or non-belief in God, because the scientific argument itself is valid. There are so many religionists out there who refuse to accept scientific evidence because it challenges their interpretations of scripture. Who can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly? Even the Catholic Church does not claim that. We can change interpretations of scripture in light of scientific evidence because no one can, or claims to be able to, interpret every passage of scripture infallibly. We do not need to be at odds with science over this issue. To be at odds with science over this issue, makes us look so ignorant because we hold to a scientific interpretation of Genesis; which it was never meant to be, and propose ‘scientific’ arguments based not on science, but literal interpretations of Genesis.

God gave us an inquiring mind. He gave us the capacity to research science. Why stifle it with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Was that God’s plan? He gave us an inquiring spirit to discover what it means to be human. This is fundamental to the relationship between science and religion. Did God not give us both science and religion? A desire to worship but also a desire to understand the world, to know what it is to be human and a natural quest for knowledge? That does not mean science always gets it right. It means it is part of the human experience, and part of the coming to know God.

 

[vz71]

I don’t.
We know so little about the target that it is simply not possible to ascribe probability to it.

Then please stop saying that the origin of life is so unlikely that it cannot happen or that it must have involved design. If you cannot calculate the number then you cannot base your argument on how large or how small the number is.

Your selective quote is deceptive.
Quote the rest of the post and you will find I did not at all claim what you are implying.
What does it say of the debate when one side begins using deception rather then solid logic?

Either way, here is the rest of the quote:

Try shooting a target when you do not know what direction or what distance.
That is what I am talking about.

Do you know any other way to make life? We can make a basic cell wall. We can make medium sized RNA strands (and getting bigger) with some chemical activities. Chemical activity inside a cell wall is getting very close to life, don’t you think?

No, I don’t.
But then, no one knows how to make life.
As to their ‘closeness’ to life, I think it is as far from life as the coffee table beside my couch.
And guess what…you cannot bring to bear any evidence to show that I am incorrect in my belief.
Guess what else…you cannot bring forth any evidence at all that they are any closer to life then they were a decade ago.

 

[tonyrey]

It is self-evident that the fortuitous emergence of specific permutations of specific molecular structures is extremely unlikely - unless there is an explanation like natural selection at the inorganic level.

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…

The immense complexity of life itself requires explanation. What caused the increase in complexity in the first place and why did it continue unabated until the appearance of rational beings?

Evolution is perfectly capable of increasing complexity, as are other biological processes.

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?

 

[ricmat]

Come on, give Al a break. Al may accept evolution, but he/she is a theist. As such, Al is on the side of God and not the enemy of God.

Believe me, I wasn’t going there. I’ve seen some of Al’s writings on other boards, and it looked to me like he was directly or indirectly attempting to persuade atheists of God’s existence.

What Al was referring to was not impressing atheists with our knowledge of science. What Al was referring to was proposing scientific arguments that can be accepted by everyone, irrespective of belief or non-belief in God, because the scientific argument itself is valid.

If you lop philosophy in with science, I agree. But that’s where you usually lose the atheists.

There are so many religionists out there who refuse to accept scientific evidence because it challenges their interpretations of scripture. Who can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly? Even the Catholic Church does not claim that.

Agreed, but I don’t see any such religionists here. Personally, I believe that evolution can happen in small increments, but the neo-Darwinists have no real evidence in terms of actual DNA itself, or even proposed paths for DNA changes from less advanced to more advanced species. I dismiss macro evolution for lack of evidence (at least the kind that works for me). On the other hand, micro evolution, plus strategic interventions by God could work, IMHO.

We can change interpretations of scripture in light of scientific evidence because no one can, or claims to be able to, interpret every passage of scripture infallibly. We do not need to be at odds with science over this issue.

I’m not at odds with science over religious issues, I’m at odds with it over math and science issues.

To be at odds with science over this issue, makes us look so ignorant because we hold to a scientific interpretation of Genesis; which it was never meant to be, and propose ‘scientific’ arguments based not on science, but literal interpretations of Genesis.

Your straw man is growing very large…

BTW - I’m not at odds with science. I’m an electrical engineer.

God gave us an inquiring mind. He gave us the capacity to research science. Why stifle it with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Was that God’s plan? He gave us an inquiring spirit to discover what it means to be human.

There ARE lessons to be learned from Genesis. You can’t dismiss them all because science can’t prove them. Beware of going down that path.

There are some here (even Catholic “theologians”) who refuse to believe anything in the Bible until science proves it correct. That is very dangerous.

This is fundamental to the relationship between science and religion. Did God not give us both science and religion? A desire to worship but also a desire to understand the world, to know what it is to be human and a natural quest for knowledge? That does not mean science always gets it right. It means it is part of the human experience, and part of the coming to know God.

The reason God gave us art, music, science, and everything else is so we can use them to reveal and make manifest the glory of God. Scientists want to segregate science off on the side. ID’ers look for evidence of a designer, which I personally know is God, and the evidence of which redounds to his glory. So what’s wrong with that?

My main beef - which I can’t get into now, is that science seems to lead to pride, to an absolute assurance that science knows all. That’s dangerous both from a religious and scientific perspective. “Evolution did it somehow.” No God. No DNA. But they will assure you with 100% confidence that it’s correct.

back later…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

“For origin of life on Earth, any scenario with a probability less than 10 to the superscript -70 will be considered falsified scientifically (infeasible).”

“For abiogenesis, we would consider 10 to the superscript -164 as the probability of forming a simple life-compatible protein by physicality, or the simplest form of living organism known as 10 to the superscript -340,000,000. These figures make these scenarios operationally falsified.”

Source: Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson.

Peace,
Ed

Genius. Ed, you always have the best references for this stuff

I’m on the verge of serious investigation of this guy…

 

[minkymurph]

Believe me, I wasn’t going there. I’ve seen some of Al’s writings on other boards, and it looked to me like he was directly or indirectly attempting to persuade atheists of God’s existence.

So what’s wrong with attempting to persuade atheists of God’s existence? Is that not a great need in society today in terms of faith development?

If you lop philosophy in with science, I agree. But that’s where you usually lose the atheists.

Yes, you do loose atheists when you lop philosophy in with science. Reason being they profess to take this factual approach to life in the absence of speculative and imaginative thought, which the dismiss as ridiculous. Life is not an X + Y = equation. Life’s messy. If we are to discover what it means to be truly human, there has to be a relationship between science, philosophy and anthropology.

Agreed, but I don’t see any such religionists here. Personally, I believe that evolution can happen in small increments, but the neo-Darwinists have no real evidence in terms of actual DNA itself, or even proposed paths for DNA changes from less advanced to more advanced species. I dismiss macro evolution for lack of evidence (at least the kind that works for me). On the other hand, micro evolution, plus strategic interventions by God could work, IMHO.

Then that is a huge step forward in creating a harmonious relationship between science and religion as opposed to an antagonistic one, which is what theist are in business of doing without rejecting deeply held beliefs.

I’m not at odds with science over religious issues, I’m at odds with it over math and science issues.

I would find it very difficult to debate with you over math and science because I’m very bad at math and I’m not an expert in science. SMy specialist subjects are Religion and History. So, I wouldn’t attempt to debate science with someone who’s field of expertise is science. That does mean I am blissfully unaware of the challenges science presents and I can debate are interpretations of the bible.

Your straw man is growing very large…[/Q.UOTE]

What straw man?
ricmat;7894662:

There ARE lessons to be learned from Genesis. You can’t dismiss them all because science can’t prove them. Beware of going down that path.
There are some here (even Catholic “theologians”) who refuse to believe anything in the Bible until science proves it correct. That is very dangerous.

We don’t dismiss interpretations of the Genesis account because science cannot prove them. We dismiss them because of biblical scholarship.

The reason God gave us art, music, science, and everything else is so we can use them to reveal and make manifest the glory of God. Scientists want to segregate science off on the side. ID’ers look for evidence of a designer, which I personally know is God, and the evidence of which redounds to his glory. So what’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with it is it ignores the needs of others in terms of faith development. ID serves only the needs of those who need no convincing. I discussed this at length in another post.

My main beef - which I can’t get into now, is that science seems to lead to pride, to an absolute assurance that science knows all. That’s dangerous both from a religious and scientific perspective. “Evolution did it somehow.” No God. No DNA. But they will assure you with 100% confidence that it’s correct.

back later…

I agree. Accepting only empirical evidence does lead to pride, and it dangerous from a religious perspective because their are many today who ignore the limitations of science and belief they have no need of God in their lives because of their empirical evidence. However, what you are talking about here are atheists who use evolution to support the view God does not exist. There are also a lot of atheists out there who are happy to accept evolution as proof there is no God, but don’t really understand it. When you discuss evolution with them, it is obvious they don’t really have any understanding of it. There’s nothing some atheists hate more than a theist who can converse on the topic of evolution better than they can.

There’s nothing in you’re arguments here I could say I disagree with. My problem with ID’ers is they seem to dismiss evolution as totally ridiculous which I think is a mistake.

 

[edwest2]

Come on, give Al a break. Al may accept evolution, but he/she is a theist. As such, Al is on the side of God and not the enemy of God.

What Al was referring to was not impressing atheists with our knowledge of science. What Al was referring to was proposing scientific arguments that can be accepted by everyone, irrespective of belief or non-belief in God, because the scientific argument itself is valid. There are so many religionists out there who refuse to accept scientific evidence because it challenges their interpretations of scripture. Who can interpret Genesis to Revelation infallibly? Even the Catholic Church does not claim that. We can change interpretations of scripture in light of scientific evidence because no one can, or claims to be able to, interpret every passage of scripture infallibly. We do not need to be at odds with science over this issue. To be at odds with science over this issue, makes us look so ignorant because we hold to a scientific interpretation of Genesis; which it was never meant to be, and propose ‘scientific’ arguments based not on science, but literal interpretations of Genesis.

God gave us an inquiring mind. He gave us the capacity to research science. Why stifle it with a literal interpretation of Genesis? Was that God’s plan? He gave us an inquiring spirit to discover what it means to be human. This is fundamental to the relationship between science and religion. Did God not give us both science and religion? A desire to worship but also a desire to understand the world, to know what it is to be human and a natural quest for knowledge? That does not mean science always gets it right. It means it is part of the human experience, and part of the coming to know God.

“Was that God’s plan?”

From the Catholic Answers Library:

"Real History

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”

Peace,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

“Was that God’s plan?”

Was what God’s plan?

"The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

No problem with that.

"Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

Theists who accept evolution do not dispute ‘God did it.’ What is in question is how.

"The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).

Theists who accept evolution do not reject this.

"It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Theists who accept evolution do not reject this.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

Theists who accept evolution do not reject this.

“It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).”
Peace,
Ed

Theists who accept evolution do not dismiss the story of Adam and Eve as purely fictional.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful but I would say Monogenism v polygenism, the fall and sin would need to be discussed on a separate thread. What is being discussed here is the first two chapters of Genesis and the manner in which God physically created the first human beings.

 

[ricmat]

So what’s wrong with attempting to persuade atheists of God’s existence? Is that not a great need in society today in terms of faith development?

Nothing is wrong with it, I think it’s terrific. I was giving him a compliment.

We don’t dismiss interpretations of the Genesis account because science cannot prove them. We dismiss them because of biblical scholarship.

I wasn’t talking about you in particular, but some other prolific posters on this forum.

What’s wrong with it is it ignores the needs of others in terms of faith development. ID serves only the needs of those who need no convincing. I discussed this at length in another post.

I haven’t been reading all the posts – so much to do and so little time

I don’t look at ID as merely a method of faith development or evangelization. I look at ID as being the best explanation for the complex life we see today, and for the obvious design inherent in the universe, regardless of whether it appeals to atheists or not.

I agree. Accepting only empirical evidence does lead to pride, and it dangerous from a religious perspective because their are many today who ignore the limitations of science and belief they have no need of God in their lives because of their empirical evidence. However, what you are talking about here are atheists who use evolution to support the view God does not exist. There are also a lot of atheists out there who are happy to accept evolution as proof there is no God, but don’t really understand it. When you discuss evolution with them, it is obvious they don’t really have any understanding of it. There’s nothing some atheists hate more than a theist who can converse on the topic of evolution better than they can.

There’s nothing in you’re arguments here I could say I disagree with. My problem with ID’ers is they seem to dismiss evolution as totally ridiculous which I think is a mistake.

No doubt there are some IDers who dismiss it at totally ridiculous. However, here’s what an official ID web site says:

intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry,** then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory**. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

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.

 

[buffalo]

Still dancing around the question - did Adam look like God planned?