Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[grannymh]

I’ve heard of those theories. If someone wants to explore substitutes for the soul, that’s up to them. It’s of no interest to me because my belief in the spiritual soul has nothing to do with science. It’s based on my religious beliefs which there is no empirical evidence for.

Regarding the newer evolutionary theories, the verb which comes to mind is proselytize with the operative words being to induce someone

There are people who would say anyone who believes in God has given up their intellectual freedom of choice. I personally think it’s a bit childish - '‘we’re smarter than you’, and ‘ha ha you to do what your church says, we free to make our own decisions,’ I don’t like to resort to the same line of defense.

If people want to give up a relationship with God there’s probably not a lot you can do about it. If they do, you won’t be able to stop them because you don’t agree with some of their views.

The advice which comes to mind is
‘Preach the Gospel and if necessary, use words.’

Believing God created more than one human pair is no more a rejection of God, the belief in an immortal soul any more than accepting evolution is a rejection of creation.

This very old line of reasoning is no longer valid due to advances in scientific research, methods and materials.

I don’t understand why some people assume that if you hold one opinion you must hold others. How would you feel if someone said to you, ‘you must believe in once saved, always saved because you are Catholic?’

This is because most people have lost the ability to think along the lines of both-and

If you think this discussion belongs on the Back Fence forum, why have you joined it?

For your information, it is the actual science research from scientific fields that use an evolutionary model which belong in the Back Fence forum.

The greatest challenges to our faith today come from scientific thinking. How can you say there is not need to talk science?

The greatest challenge to our faith does not come from scientific thinking per se.

Nevertheless, one of the challenges to our faith is that many people do not understand how “scientific thinking” operates in the 21st century so they accept whatever sound-bite is offered. Talking real science becomes useless. Thus, it is often better to shift to a different approach.

I don’t mean to sound rude, and I’m sorry if you mean it in a sincere way, but that sounds patronizing. What do you want to convert me to? If it’s ‘the one true faith’ I’m already a Catholic.

Praying for one’s conversion is a local practice of asking God to continue His outpouring of special graces.

if you think by considering polygenism I have rejected the one true faith, then what you want to convert me to is monogensim. I wouldn’t call that a conversion. I would call it a change of opinion.

Conversion to or from, in or out, here or there, is not the issue. The issue concerns the doctrines of Catholicism which have already been discussed.

 

[minkymurph]

I do not get the salt water question. Are you thinking fish lived in Eden?

Yes. If there were no fish in Eden, were did fish come from?

If all species today were originally created by God, then we would have to assume God created fish. He would also have had to created fish that could live in both sea water, and fresh water because we have fresh and salt water fish today. However the New Jerusalem bible and the NRSV state God created ‘sea monsters,’ not fish. The ‘sea monster’ may be an ancient ancestor of fish but we getting dangerously close to evolutionary theories if we go down that road.

I do not believe our present day species classification is the same as the biblical “kinds”. I think that as we genetically map species we will see a convergence. Even at that point epigenetics will have to be considered.

Neither do I. However, the question I asked in relation to this post was, ‘were all species of flora and fauna in the world today in existence in Eden?’ I say no.

 

[ricmat]

Question for Buffalo and Minkymurph:

I haven’t been following your sub-thread in detail, but is there an assumption being made that all of the life God created must have existed in the Garden of Eden? Is it assumed that all the earth was the Garden? If so, why?

I’m not debating, just asking.

 

[minkymurph]

Praying for one’s conversion is a local practice of asking God to continue His outpouring of special graces.

That’s not what I would understand a conversion to mean but I appreciate there are difference in culture and practice.

Conversion to or from, in or out, here or there, is not the issue.

If you are the subject of someone’s prayers I think asking them what they for on your behalf is a fair question. The reason I asked the question is because when you have a difference of opinion with someone in my part of the world and they 'I’ll pray for you, (or pray for your conversion) what they mean is they will pray that you will come round to their way of thinking.

The issue concerns the doctrines of Catholicism which have already been discussed.

The subject of this thread is Creationism V Intelligent Design V Evolution. this is the issue, not Catholic doctrine. That only became an issue when original sin and the soul got thrown into the equation, which was not what we were discussing. If you read my posts you will see that I’m trying (and so are others) to stick to the topic of the thread and I suggested discussing the soul and original sin on another thread.

If the topic of a thread is Creationism v Intelligent Design v Evolution - that in itself is a fair indication people are going to be discussing theories in relation to those three things and scientific developments. If anyone doesn’t want to discuss that and wants to discuss doctrine, they don’t have to join this thread and they can start one of their own.

 

[grannymh]

buffalo, this is a post I put in earlier. If everything in Genesis is to be taken literally, then the Garden of Eden must have been a literal place. For a long time the Church believed and taught it was a literal place. Therefore, it could be argued believing the Garden of Eden was a literal place is part of the Deposit of Faith. Here is one problem I have with literal interpretations of Genesis.

This is serious misinformation. Walking someone through the protocol of the visible Church on earth requires its own thread. Please PM me, if such a thread is started.

 

[minkymurph]

Question for Buffalo and Minkymurph:

I haven’t been following your sub-thread in detail, but is there an assumption being made that all of the life God created must have existed in the Garden of Eden? Is it assumed that all the earth was the Garden? If so, why?

I’m not debating, just asking.

Well that’s kind what we’re exploring. I didn’t actually mean to develop a dub-thread and I don’t think Buffalo did either. It just happened that way and as such a great debate has developed, I’ve got kinda hooked.

One of the points made on the thread was no new species have evolved. There was a question (which I asked) did all the species of flora and fauna that exist today exist in Eden? The other question is, was Eden a literal place?

 

[grannymh]

OK. Let’s say he’s right and there number of species of both plants and animals is less than 5 million. Let’s say for the sake of argument it’s 3 million. Do you think the area the bible describes as the Garden of Eden could have supported that number of species? There is also the question of salt water that would have supported marine life.

I’m not sure what book you are reading, but supporting 3 million species was never, never the intention of the Garden of Eden.

What is the real purpose of hijacking this thread? That is my own personal speculation. My apology.

Last thought. Does creationism (the common term) really include the purpose of the Garden of Eden, i.e., according to Catholic Doctrines regarding human origin?

Last note. I am one of the 7 who voted "Something else entirely (or no thoughts on or care for the issue)"

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. If there were no fish in Eden, were did fish come from?

If all species today were originally created by God, then we would have to assume God created fish. He would also have had to created fish that could live in both sea water, and fresh water because we have fresh and salt water fish today. However the New Jerusalem bible and the NRSV state God created ‘sea monsters,’ not fish. The ‘sea monster’ may be an ancient ancestor of fish but we getting dangerously close to evolutionary theories if we go down that road.

Neither do I. However, the question I asked in relation to this post was, ‘were all species of flora and fauna in the world today in existence in Eden?’ I say no.

[21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[buffalo]

Question for Buffalo and Minkymurph:

I haven’t been following your sub-thread in detail, but is there an assumption being made that all of the life God created must have existed in the Garden of Eden? Is it assumed that all the earth was the Garden? If so, why?

I’m not debating, just asking.

No - I do not think that.

I believe God’s “breath” contained all the information was necessary for life and the adaptations thereafter. Life then began to subdue the earth.

The Garden of Eden being an extra special place for Adam and Eve.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m not sure what book you are reading, but supporting 3 million species was never, never the intention of the Garden of Eden.

I’m not reading any book. The statistics are used from a number of websites. Do Garden’s have intentions? In any case, the discussion relates to whether or not the Eden was a literal place.

What is the real purpose of hijacking this thread? That is my own personal speculation. My apology.

Nothing wrong with speculation, and speculative question deserves a speculative answer. Make whatever assumptions you choose to. You use the word ‘hijacking.’ someone else has used the term ‘sub-thread that has developed between two people.’ Shows how two people can read something completely different into the same words.

Last thought. Does creationism (the common term) really include the purpose of the Garden of Eden, i.e., according to Catholic Doctrines regarding human origin?

We are not discussing Eden’s purpose. It needs to be established what Eden was in the first place before discussing it’s purpose, which is what we’re doing.

 

[minkymurph]

No - I do not think that.

I believe God’s “breath” contained all the information was necessary for life and the adaptations thereafter. Life then began to subdue the earth.

The Garden of Eden being an extra special place for Adam and Eve.

I could go with the view God’s breath contained all the information that was necessary for life and the adaptations thereafter. That’s why I can accept evolution. Eden may have been a special place for Adam and Eve, kinda like a special place for them in the world? Can you expand? I’d always thought of Eden as being a state, or a state of the soul.

This is developing into a sub-thread. Do you think we should start a thread on this topic, or do you think it’s ok to carry on here? I don’t want to be accused of having sinister motives for engaging in a discussion about the bible.

 

[buffalo]

I could go with the view God’s breath contained all the information that was necessary for life and the adaptations thereafter. That’s why I can accept evolution. Eden may have been a special place for Adam and Eve, kinda like a special place for them in the world? Can you expand? I’d always thought of Eden as being a state, or a state of the soul.

This is developing into a sub-thread. Do you think we should start a thread on this topic, or do you think it’s ok to carry on here? I don’t want to be accused of having sinister motives for engaging in a discussion about the bible.

If you created the prototypical human aka Adam would you stick him in an iceberg? Catholics understand man to be the culmination and purpose of creation so it makes sense that God would prepare a special place to start him out in.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Relevant to this discussion:

biologos.org/blog/intelligent-design-critiquing-the-science-and-theology/

 

[vz71]

There are billions of different combinations of chemicals that make the material components of life. Every living organism has unique DNA; even identical twins have minor differences…

rossum

What you are claiming is that every new DNA sequence a living being has is another way to make life.

Can you please provide the scientific backing for the assumption that the DNA is part of the life and not merely a detail of the life?
For instance, the color of the paint on a car varies from one car to the next. But it has no effect at all that it is still a car.

How do we know what makes life is not something uniform to all?

 

[samiam1611]

Buffalo, I was wondering if you could respond to post # 688/elaborate on your post # 683
Mostly this part:

Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).

I don’t see how that is an observation. It seems like a hypothesis. And is awfully similar to your conclusion:

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

My interpretation of your post as a whole is that it does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory. Could you explain why I’m wrong?

 

[rossum]

What you are claiming is that every new DNA sequence a living being has is another way to make life.

Can you please provide the scientific backing for the assumption that the DNA is part of the life and not merely a detail of the life?

Give me a scientific definition of what is a “part” and what is a “detail”. How do I tell one from the other?

For instance, the color of the paint on a car varies from one car to the next. But it has no effect at all that it is still a car.

But it is a different car. If I am looking for my car in a car park, then I am looking for a blue car, not a red car.

How do we know what makes life is not something uniform to all?

What does this question mean? Seriously. My parents made life, they made me. My parents are not uniform, they are different to each other and both are different from me. What are you trying to get at with this question?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, I was wondering if you could respond to post # 688/elaborate on your post # 683
Mostly this part:

I don’t see how that is an observation. It seems like a hypothesis. And is awfully similar to your conclusion:

My interpretation of your post as a whole is that it does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory. Could you explain why I’m wrong?

I should have put a link on this. I have posted this many times:

Here is the link:

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an  effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature  acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product  of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected  process such as natural selection acting on random variations.  Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how  the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design  starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what  inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the  scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern  biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through  science is supernatural.                     
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge  the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of  Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of  intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees  the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent  design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to  conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers,  it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit  intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design  is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who  wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the  merits of its case. 					
                     	        
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[vz71]

What does this question mean? Seriously. My parents made life, they made me. My parents are not uniform, they are different to each other and both are different from me. What are you trying to get at with this question?

rossum

OK, Let’s look at my car example…
Yes, a red car is a ifferent car from a blue one. But the color is really meaningless relative to the fact that they run.

So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that the DNA is material to the life itself. How do you know that what makes something alive is different with every different sequence of DNA?

 

[tonyrey]

An excess of carbon and its compounds will lead not only to Carbon Dioxide but also Carbon Monoxide - which is far more lethal and produced by the sun’s rays in the earth’s atmosphere.

No response! I take it that excessive carbon would disastrous for life.

It would be a very boring thread if everybody agreed with the OP.

I disagree but the OP’s trilemma is the topic - with Evolution of the physicalist variety.

Agreed, but in your terms I am not a physicalist. I use scientific explanations in the material arena, where science is applicable.

At the outset you made no mention of Buddhism but introduced it only when you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life…

Evolution deals with physical life. Abiogenesis deals with the chemical origin of physical life. ID, as defined by the Discovery Institute, deals with physical life as well. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss physical life in this thread. I was responding to your statement “there is no other possible explanation”. I was pointing out the false dichotomy inherent in your statement.

What is the alternative to God or physical necessity?

I have two points here. While a small change in the FSC (α) would indeed eliminate life as we know it, we cannot be sure that it would eliminate all possible forms of physical life.

WE are concerned with the probability of life as we know it.

Secondly, what are the maximum and minimum allowed values of α? Unless we know the allowed range we cannot work out any probability. We know the range required for life; we need to know the overall possible range of values from which to pick α.

There is an unlimited range in any possible universe!

There is also the anthropic principle. If α were too far away from its present value then we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Because we are here we know that our universe is a biased sample. It is not wise to base an argument on a single biased sample.

Our existence is irrelevant. We are concerned with the (im)probability of life in any possible universe.

You are taking my points from different parts of our discussion. If you like you can amend 1 and 3 to read “the material components of life”.

At the outset you made no mention of Buddhism but introduced it only when you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life…

In point 3, you are in error. There are billions of different combinations of chemicals that make the material components of life. Every living organism has unique DNA; even identical twins have minor differences…

I was responding to your statements:

My DNA is different from your DNA and we are both alive. That is two different “combinations of chemicals” that make life.

It is absurd to deduce that I believe there are only two…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Looking at the specifics of ID, I’m not convinced I accurately believe in it! My personal belief is entirely based on an essential agnosticism regarding the technicalities of process, but a *disbelief * in the chance hypothesis default amongst evolutionists, entirely based on the absurd unlikelihood of the same. I don’t think that evolution is impossible - just too absurdly unlikely for it to be reasonable to consider to have occurred by chance (to the degree of resulting in us).

I also view many claims of scientific knowledge to be deliberately exagerrated in appearance - that is, the foundation of such claims is far weaker than the general populance is led to believe. Evolution is probably the biggest offender in terms of such claims, bar none. Well, except the infinite universe Scifi, of course, but since that’s a peripheral, supporting invention, I suppose my original statement still holds

ID, however ,seems to be almost mirroring (and thus parodying?) such claims, from what I read here. In the end, I don’t think we have sufficient knowledge to support either argument accurately, to the degree required to claim to *know * that they are true.