Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[rossum]

You are pulling words out of their proper context again in only quoting a single part of a response and leaving the meaning behind.

Then please show us the proper context.

rossum

 

[razredge]

If God engineered and directed the biological process of evolution, of course He could.

Engineered maybe, I’m not sure about directed - I think God would know the results of evolution but he probably did not determine that humans evolve exactly as we did (ie he didn’t design us beforehand and then set up evolution to output this design)

 

[buffalo]

Progress from “I do not have a cell wall” to “I have a cell wall”. All living bacteria have a cell wall. ID cannot show the ID designer making a cell wall. Abiogenesis can show chemistry making a basic cell wall. That is progress.

Can you show me a living bacterium without a lipid bilayer cell wall? Can you show me an ID experiment showing the ID designer making a lipid bilayer cell wall?

Abiogenesis is making progress.

Mycoplasma do not have a cell wall.

 

[rossum]

Mycoplasma do not have a cell wall.

Thank you for the correction. I have been guilty of loose phrasing. I should have talked about the “cell membrane”, not the “cell wall”. They are two different things. It is the cell membrane which is formed from a lipid bilayer.

My apologies for my error, and again my thanks for the correction.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Thank you for the correction. I have been guilty of loose phrasing. I should have talked about the “cell membrane”, not the “cell wall”. They are two different things. It is the cell membrane which is formed from a lipid bilayer.

My apologies for my error, and again my thanks for the correction.

rossum

Always glad to help.

 

[minkymurph]

Engineered maybe, I’m not sure about directed - I think God would know the results of evolution but he probably did not determine that humans evolve exactly as we did (ie he didn’t design us beforehand and then set up evolution to output this design)

That’s an interesting point. After the fall, I would agree with you. From a theological rather than a biological perspective, is it possible the biological mechanism God engineered became flawed as a consequence of the fall. Is it fair to say Adam and Eve may not have been physically engineered in the same manner because that was prior to the fall? Therefore, they did not evolve exactly as we did.

God did not design us beforehand and then set up evolution to output this design? Never thought of it that way. In relation to Buffallo’s question, ‘did God know what Adam would look like?’ Are we now faced with the question, ‘did He choose to?’ Or. ‘did He want to know.’ The very word creation could imply this was not the case. I mean, when we create rather than design something, do we want to know exactly how it will turn out? Some posters here have wrote about God as an artist rather than an engineer. Did Michael Angelo know exactly what his statue of David would look like? Or did he kind of go with the flow along the way? Now, if as God you could empower you’re own creation to physically form itself, then it is not the case that you don’t know what you are doing, have no purpose and no idea how things will turn out, but rather; let your creation ‘enjoy’ the abilities you have given it?

Now I’m getting weird.:hypno: I’m also thinking ‘out loud’ so please read post in that context.

 

[ricmat]

Perhaps God could predict that evolution would result in humans as one of the outcomes?

Of course God could predict that evolution would result in humans as one of the outcomes.

God can do even better than that, he can predict exactly which outcome would occur.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Peace,
Ed

I apologize but Idon’t see what point you are trying to make. From a pure scientific viewpoint there is no plan or purpose. When God is introduced there *is *plan and purpose, but these can’t be addressed using scientific method. Evolution does not have a mind - it has no way to plan or to try to fulfil any purpose. It just is. And whenever an ecological niche opens up it gets filled. Is this God’s plan? I think so (see my next post). Is this God’s purpose? I don’t know (see my next post). But we do know that all God does is good and that He loves us.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t understand why some people think that evolution = 'God didn’t know what He was doing, or had no idea what was going to happen.

It seemed like that’s where the thread was going for a while. The pro-evo folks were hedging and hemming and hawing on whether God knew what Adam would look like, or if Adam were to come out as God planned.

The Genesis account records how God fashioned woman from a rib. Therefore, even it you interpret this passage of scripture literally, there was a process involved. The Genesis account in conjunction with other passages of scripture infers not that Adam was created in an instant, but there was a process involved.

I agree.

In the Gospels, there were times Jesus cured the sick instantly. There he times he didn’t; for example when he put clay on the blind mans’ eyes. This does not infer that on that occasion Jesus did not have the power to cure the man instantly, or wasn’t sure if it would work. It means he chose that method. (We could discuss forever the theological implications but that belongs on another thread)

I agree.

Science is entitled to explore biological processes. It is the nature of science to establish empirical evidence in relation to biological processes. If these findings challenge literal interpretations of Genesis, maybe we should look at the Genesis account again rather than reject scientific findings that contradict literal interpretations; particularly if author never intended it to be taken literally.

On those occasions when a scientific transitional finding (all of science is transitional, as we hear here all the time) contradicts Church dogma (for example, monogenism), then I reject the science on the basis that they just haven’t figured out the truth yet.

I’m not a 6 day creationist. I’m not somebody who takes all of the bible literally (I doubt that there actually is anyone like that - I don’t know of anyone who believes that Jesus is literally a vine, for example). So really what is being talked about here is exactly which parts of the bible should be taken literally. I’m open in both directions to this, but as I said above, if it contradicts the long held dogma of the Church, then I’m going with the dogma, not the transitional scientific explanation.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s an interesting point. After the fall, I would agree with you. From a theological rather than a biological perspective, is it possible the biological mechanism God engineered became flawed as a consequence of the fall. Is it fair to say Adam and Eve may not have been physically engineered in the same manner because that was prior to the fall? Therefore, they did not evolve exactly as we did.

God did not design us beforehand and then set up evolution to output this design? Never thought of it that way. In relation to Buffallo’s question, ‘did God know what Adam would look like?’ Are we now faced with the question, ‘did He choose to?’ Or. ‘did He want to know.’ The very word creation could imply this was not the case. I mean, when we create rather than design something, do we want to know exactly how it will turn out? Some posters here have wrote about God as an artist rather than an engineer. Did Michael Angelo know exactly what his statue of David would look like? Or did he kind of go with the flow along the way? Now, if as God you could empower you’re own creation to physically form itself, then it is not the case that you don’t know what you are doing, have no purpose and no idea how things will turn out, but rather; let your creation ‘enjoy’ the abilities you have given it?

Now I’m getting weird.:hypno: I’m also thinking ‘out loud’ so please read post in that context.

I understand that :hypno: feeling and I’m also thinking out loud here and I’m trying to post this before the pain meds take affect because then that feeling will be even stronger and I won’t be able to respond coherently at all (which is not to say that I always respond coherently anyway ).

I think it’s difficult for us, as humans, to truly understand omnipotence, omniscience, and the overwhelming love and mercy of God. We aren’t divine. We’re actually quite uh, stupid sometimes (I mean look at abortion; we murder our own children and that doesn’t say much for passing our genes along in the gene pool besides the fact that it goes against Divine Law and is so cruel anyway). Without being able to comprehend the divine nature of God it is very difficult to understand why He did (and does and will do) the things He did (and does and will do). All I can be absolutely sure about is that He loves us and whatever He does is good.

I know that omniscience means total awareness of absolutely everything and that is not the same as *planning *or *causing *something to happen. But with that omniscience surely God was aware of what would happen and He did what He did (whatever that was) anyway.

He didn’t have to pick evolution. He knew that Adam and Eve would fall. He knew Lucifer would fall. He knew everything about us way back in the time that Adam and Eve lived here on earth. I have a lot of problems trying to come up with a way to join that omniscience with knowing and planning (or not planning). When bad things happen to us, is it God that caused them to happen or did He just allow them to happen? It’s the same with evolution: did God cause evolution to occur or did He just allow it to happen?

I sure as heck don’t know. But I do know that if evolution is the means by which living organisms have come to their present form God knew about it.

I joined this thread very late and there have been numerous posts since I posted last; please bear with me as I try to catch up. Also, my spell check disappeared (it does that sometimes) and I’m having some problems with my keyboard and so I apologize in advance for any typos.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not a 6 day creationist. I’m not somebody who takes all of the bible literally (I doubt that there actually is anyone like that

I don’t know anyone who takes all of the bible literally either.

So really what is being talked about here is exactly which parts of the bible should be taken literally. I’m open in both directions to this, but as I said above, if it contradicts the long held dogma of the Church, then I’m going with the dogma, not the transitional scientific explanation.

I’m open to both directions as well. However, talking about exactly what parts of the bible should be taken literally and which parts should not, over simplifies it. I don’t think the author of the Genesis account intended to be read in a literal sense, and that opinion is based on biblical scholarship. I wouldn’t comment on any other scriptural passages in this thread because they are not being discuss.

As far as science and dogma are concerned, some people on this thread seem of the opinion evolution = church is wrong about original sin. I don’t see that as the case.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It seemed like that’s where the thread was going for a while. The pro-evo folks were hedging and hemming and hawing on whether God knew what Adam would look like, or if Adam were to come out as God planned.

I wasn’t here then but I’d like to say that as a “pro-evo folk” I have no problem with the idea that God knew what Adam would look like, although I admit I’m a bit confused by the idea of Adam turning out as God planned. At this point in my thinking I’d give a resounding “YES!!” but then I’m confused. I just felt that I had to say that not all “pro-evo folk” believe that God wouldn’t know what Adam would look like. God is omniscient; of course He knew.

On those occasions when a scientific transitional finding (all of science is transitional, as we hear here all the time) contradicts Church dogma (for example, monogenism), then I reject the science on the basis that they just haven’t figured out the truth yet.

I’m a scientist but I’ve never run across the phrase “scientific transitional finding” (how did I miss that? ). Would you please explain to me what this means? Are you referring to the process whereby our scientific understanding of Truth is clarified over time?

I’m not a 6 day creationist. I’m not somebody who takes all of the bible literally (I doubt that there actually is anyone like that - I don’t know of anyone who believes that Jesus is literally a vine, for example). So really what is being talked about here is exactly which parts of the bible should be taken literally. I’m open in both directions to this, but as I said above, if it contradicts the long held dogma of the Church, then I’m going with the dogma, not the transitional scientific explanation.

Excellent point and I agree. Truth cannot contradict Truth. It means a lot more to me if a teaching comes from the Church, especially when it’s actual dogma. I had some serious problems with the idea of Adam and Eve. I didn’t know Church teaching (and I believe this does involve dogma; if I’m wrong please let me know) and I didn’t like the idea of two real human beings being the parents of us all. I didn’t accept that until I was shown Church teaching. When the Church states something as official teaching, even if I don’t understand it, I must still accept it and try to find out why I am having problems in comprehension. That is my duty as a Catholic. Scientific findings fly out the window in cases like these (actually though, there is scientific evidence that we *are *all the offspring of at least one human female (I don’t have a reference; I learned this in college a long, long time ago). Science can’t prove anything. Church dogma is absolute proof. Hopefully science will continue to progress and our understand of Truth will become clarified.

 

[ricmat]

I’m open to both directions as well. However, talking about exactly what parts of the bible should be taken literally and which parts should not, over simplifies it. I don’t think the author of the Genesis account intended to be read in a literal sense, and that opinion is based on biblical scholarship.

Some of it is literal, some is not. There are lessons to be learned a some of which require a literal reading. Did God literally create the heavens and the Earth, or is that merely a metaphor for something else?

I don’t know of anyone here who would require a literal reading of all of the Bible, or all of Genesis.

 

[edwest2]

I certainly do hope that science continues to progress. The thought I have concerning Genesis is simply this: is God incapable of doing what He wants? I understand the science here, don’t get me wrong. Let’s look at Jesus. He raised the dead, gave sight to the blind, and cleansed the lepers instantly - no technology/science needed. As He walked across the water, His disciples thought they were seeing a ghost.

The disconnect is that we know that Jesus died, was buried and rose again, bodily. Of course, if I was Thomas, I might have asked to see His hands and side as well.

God is not limited by our understanding of what is natural. There are other areas of reason that we still need.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

As far as science and dogma are concerned, some people on this thread seem of the opinion evolution = church is wrong about original sin. I don’t see that as the case.

I think this was heavily discussed on other threads. It has to do with monogenism (a single pair of original parents i.e. Adam / Eve), or polygenism (more than one set of original parents).

To summarize (my opinion obviously), if we have one set of parents, Adam and Eve, and they have human souls and committed original sin, then all of their progeny have human souls and original sin as well, via transmission. In this scenario, there is no human who ever lived who did not need salvation, and all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. This is the teaching of the Church.

On the other hand, if there were a bunch of pre-humans who evolved more or less simultaneously into humans, with “emergent” properties of spirituality, etc., then it is possible that there are several classes of “humans”, some with human souls, some without. Some with original sin. Some without. Some who need salvation, some who don’t. Some humans who are superior / inferior to other humans. This contradicts church teaching.

 

[ricmat]

I’m a scientist but I’ve never run across the phrase “scientific transitional finding” (how did I miss that? ). Would you please explain to me what this means? Are you referring to the process whereby our scientific understanding of Truth is clarified over time?

I guess I invented the phrase based on comments made by other posters.

It’s not clear to me why you capitalized Truth in the sentence above. The only capital T truth is the revealed Truth which is given by God directly. Scientific “Truth” does not exist. Capital T truth does not change. And yes, science truth is changing all the time. Clarified is a less harsh word because it implies that there was only a typo involved, or we knew the correct answer all the time, but just didn’t explain it well. But the reality is that the best science can do is offer imperfect explanations of reality. Which change all the time. So it seems dangerous to me to throw away (as some would have it) revealed Truths in favor of the science truth du-jour.

BTW - I’m not anti-science, I think it’s terrific. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering & Applied Physics.

 

[vz71]

We have one observed example, the the post-probability of life in that one example is 100%. If you have some better numbers then show us what you have.

Indeed. The designer knew what he was doing.

Progress from “I do not have a cell wall” to “I have a cell wall”…That is progress.

Progress to where?
Do you believe life contingent upon this cell wall?
Why? What evidence do we have to support this assumption?

Can you show me a living bacterium without a lipid bilayer cell wall? Can you show me an ID experiment showing the ID designer making a lipid bilayer cell wall?

So you are comfortable with the assumptions?

Abiogenesis is making progress.

Progress to where? How do you know? You do not even know where the target is.

A very primitive proto-bacterium with a lipid bilayer cell wall, RNA and ribozymes.
…
A small and very simple copy of parts of a modern bacterium with no DNA, its function being performed by RNA and no enzymes, their functions being performed by ribozymes…
A very simple proto-bacterium.

And you believe the cell wall is the life behind it?

Chemistry.

OK, chemistry is where the life is?
What evidence do we have to support this?

Unlike Harold Camping, I am not going to put a name or a date on future achievements. A lot of different people are working in this area, as you can see from the various authors of the scientific papers I have linked to.

So you are uncomfortable with that assumption but you are not uncomfortable with all of the other assumptions you are making.
So what makes one assumption any different from another?
Neither have evidence. I submit that your propensity towards unsubstantiated assumptions reveals how biased you are in the matter.

We know enough about the general area of the target to narrow down our search and as we progress we can narrow the search area even further. Science is well used to dealing with incomplete information. It works to fill in the gaps as it progresses.

Which gap?
Do you even have an idea what exactly makes something alive?

Where is your equivalent ID research? Is all the ID research time devoted to finding new questions to ask real scientists, with none of their time devoted to actual positive ID research?

So you wish people to subscribe to your idea because you can say nothing good about the alternatives?

I would think a good theory could run on its own merits.
Negative campaign ads do not contribute to anything but animosity.
As to the science of ID, that has been answered many times.
The search for patterns and order has been a science for quite some time.
You are trying to deceive us again.

 

[StAnastasia]

As to the science of ID, that has been answered many times. The search for patterns and order has been a science for quite some time. You are trying to deceive us again.

I have not heard of the “science of ID.” Can you show me where I can find this science?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Excuse me but searching for patterns and order is an excellent example of the problem with ID.
Humans do this all the time. Example: Seeing Mary in grilled cheese

An example that gets me especially upset.

You asked Rossum if he was comfortable with his assumptions. I’m not Rossum, but if I were I would ask you what that would have to do with truth? Does the truth have to be comfortable? That may explain ID which predicts nothing.
However the supporters of it are quite predictable.

 

[minkymurph]

Some of it is literal, some is not. There are lessons to be learned a some of which require a literal reading. Did God literally create the heavens and the Earth, or is that merely a metaphor for something else?

I don’t know of anyone here who would require a literal reading of all of the Bible, or all of Genesis.

Our honest answer to that would have to be we don’t know. We believe He did and the only basis of that belief is the bible. What have I said!!! Allow me to explain.

If there is a God, what has He to do with us? The Genesis account demonstrates that from the dawn of time, there were men who believed one, true God was the source of life. At the time the Genesis account was written, not all men believed this. (I say ‘men’ because I’m not so hung up on political correctness I get offended by use of the term men) The Genesis account is very unique in this. However, it is a belief. This cannot be proven by empirical evidence. The religious world has to accept it cannot be proven by empirical evidence, and stop using Genesis to prove it can because it’s not why it was written. If someone wants to ridicule me because of my belief, and accuse me of having a blind faith, let them. Attempting to prove the scientific validity of Genesis won’t change that. I don’t care if there is no evidence for my beliefs. I believe, and what can be demonstrated is the life changing power of that belief, empirical evidence or no empirical evidence and no matter what the interpretation of Genesis.

OK, now I’m rambling!