Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[Al_Moritz]

Someone’s said this already, I’m sure, but one of God’s most majestic features in the Universe was the set of physical principles by which it consistently functions. A universe in which the reality on the moon is analogous to the reality on the earth. Where the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and all the celestial bodies are bounded by gravity.

Me, I’ve got a lot of confidence in the peer review process and the scientific method. Darwin’s evolution hypothesis (and the subsequent work of centuries of other scientists) would not have been made a Theory if there was any presentable evidence to contradict it. Living life, in the world, changes according to the needs of the environment through the process of natural selection, just as wolves became all the different breeds of domestic dogs through human-led artificial selection.

Having said that, the Theory of Evolution does not make a claim to:

1. 
   *]The origins of the universe
   *]The origins of the planets
   *]The origins of life
   *]The existance or non-existance of God
   
   It is simply concerned with the behavior of generations of life after it is already “in play”, and I think the otherwise is a common misconception.
   
   As far as the rest of it goes, abiogenesis, the study of nonliving matter forming rudimentary living cells, is a frontier of science yet not fully understood, as with most of science. The big bang theory, while comprehensive, does not either rule out God.
   
   By definition, science cannot exclude faith, and I’ll say it again that the best thing god ever did for His children was to create a universe in which our minds and the logic they can hold are able to comprehend and understand the mechanism by which he created it; evolution, the fundamental forces, thermodynamics… these are the paint-brushes he used.

1. 
   Excellent post.

 

[buffalo]

And indeed how many wouldn’t burst into flames and collapse as soon as you looked at them?

Huh???

 

[Al_Moritz]

The problem is that textbooks include philosophical statements:

“[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.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)"

Peace,
Ed

While you are right that scientists often confuse science with philosophy, that should not be a problem for an informed theist. It should not be a reason for us to reject evolution, rather, we should be setting the record straight instead.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How odd. I used to be one of you guys.

While that may be so, from your posts it seems you are not particularly well informed about the issues. Sorry, I have to call it as I see it.

 

[buffalo]

While you are right that scientists often confuse science with philosophy, that should not be a problem for an informed theist. It should not be a reason for us to reject evolution, rather, we should be setting the record straight instead.

How many high school and college kids are informed theists? C’mon now. They do not even teach them philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

While you are right that scientists often confuse science with philosophy, that should not be a problem for an informed theist. It should not be a reason for us to reject evolution, rather, we should be setting the record straight instead.

Evolution should be rejected on its own merits.

 

[Al_Moritz]

How many high school and college kids are informed theists? C’mon now. They do not even teach them philosophy.

That is beside the point. As I said, we should set the record straight. Rejecting evolution instead, just because of the fact that it is used by atheists as a ‘weapon’, would be a wrong defensive move. It would be wrong because it does not conform with the evidence.

 

[ricmat]

Someone’s said this already, I’m sure, but one of God’s most majestic features in the Universe was the set of physical principles by which it consistently functions. A universe in which the reality on the moon is analogous to the reality on the earth. Where the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and all the celestial bodies are bounded by gravity.

This is quite true for someone who believes that God designed the universe, and that it is not a random happening.

Me, I’ve got a lot of confidence in the peer review process and the scientific method. Darwin’s evolution hypothesis (and the subsequent work of centuries of other scientists) would not have been made a Theory if there was any presentable evidence to contradict it. Living life, in the world, changes according to the needs of the environment through the process of natural selection, just as wolves became all the different breeds of domestic dogs through human-led artificial selection.

So what works better - natural selection, or intelligently designed artificial breeding?

Certainly all the recent news about medical studies should make you at least a bit wary of the peer review process. It seems to me that quite often the system exists to protect vested interests, rather than a search for the real truth.

Having said that, the Theory of Evolution does not make a claim to:

1. 
   *]The origins of the universe
   *]The origins of the planets
   *]The origins of life
   *]The existance or non-existance of God
   
   It is simply concerned with the behavior of generations of life after it is already “in play”, and I think the otherwise is a common misconception.

1. 
   Agreed. ID does go into these areas as well except for the existence of God. Certainly, ID (or evolution for that matter, if it is real) provides evidence that people might use to further their insight about God, or even the existence of God.
   

   As far as the rest of it goes, abiogenesis, the study of nonliving matter forming rudimentary living cells, is a frontier of science yet not fully understood, as with most of science. The big bang theory, while comprehensive, does not either rule out God.
   
   By definition, science cannot exclude faith, and I’ll say it again that the best thing god ever did for His children was to create a universe in which our minds and the logic they can hold are able to comprehend and understand the mechanism by which he created it; evolution, the fundamental forces, thermodynamics… these are the paint-brushes he used.

   Agreed. And I’d say that ID folks would probably agree with most, if not all of your post.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Evolution should be rejected on its own merits.

Sure, the problem is that the merits of its rejection are zero.

 

[vz71]

How many bridges has ID made from popsicle sticks?

rossum

All of them.
Bridges (even those made from popsicle sticks) are intelligently designed.

 

[inocente]

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design

Thanks, I downloaded the first four, but they’re not what I was looking for.

Darwin, (I think in On The Origin), says words to the effect that if one example of a living thing can be found which can’t be explained by his theory then his theory goes straight in the garbage. Up to now of course no such example has been found, despite a lot of people looking.

All science works like that, no hypothesis can be valid unless there’s at least one way to falsify it. So what are the ID hypotheses that say “If X is true then it will confirm ID (or deny evolution), and here’s how X can be empirically falsified”?

(The only ones I currently know of have already been roundly and easily falsified ).

 

[buffalo]

That is beside the point. As I said, we should set the record straight. Rejecting evolution instead, just because of the fact that it is used by atheists as a ‘weapon’, would be a wrong defensive move, because it does not conform with the evidence.

That is not my position at all. Edwest is always trying to set the record straight. He is mostly rebuffed. IDvolution the philosophy, is built on the findings of modern science.

The fact though is that is how atheists attack Christians. They always make the case we exist without a God and that evolution is a “proven” substitute. How many do you think have diminished faith because of the science claims? I think many more, than those who lost their faith because of ID.

Examine this:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

What statements do you agree with? What are your main objections?

 

[ricmat]

While that may be so, from your posts it seems you are not particularly well informed about the issues. Sorry, I have to call it as I see it.

You’re right. I’m not very smart Especially compared with you guys.

 

[ricmat]

Sure, the problem is that the merits of its rejection are zero.

A true disciple speaks.

Absolutely no problems with evolution. Amazing.

 

[buffalo]

Thanks, I downloaded the first four, but they’re not what I was looking for.

Darwin, (I think in On The Origin), says words to the effect that if one example of a living thing can be found which can’t be explained by his theory then his theory goes straight in the garbage. Up to now of course no such example has been found, despite a lot of people looking.

All science works like that, no hypothesis can be valid unless there’s at least one way to falsify it. So what are the ID hypotheses that say “If X is true then it will confirm ID (or deny evolution), and here’s how X can be empirically falsified”?

(The only ones I currently know of have already been roundly and easily falsified ).

How about complex cells?

 

[inocente]

Huh???

See post #980.

 

[vz71]

I’m all for good research being done, just never seen any in ID. Could you name some ID hypotheses that are open to testing for empirical evidence?

The existence of irreducibly complex systems.
That is predicted in ID, and it is fairly easy to test out.

 

[tonyrey]

Not yet. I am suspending judgement until I have more information.

I am prepared to accept number with error bars. I cannot work with no numbers at all if you want me to look at odds.Then why did you distinguish between odds for different forms of life without having any numbers?

So mathematical probability is not always the most important criterion.

It was you who mentioned the odds of life forming. Since we are discussing odds then yes, mathematical probability is extremely important. Odds are a way of expressing probability.So you do accept arguments based on probability which is not mathematical.

How did that system originate?

The same place your God originated.Neither God nor matter originated in a place whereas matter in the Buddhist scheme of things seems to be eternal - or did it create itself?

Does neuroscience explain all our behaviour?

Ask a neuroscientist.You have no opinion whatsoever?

So it is unreasonable to demand precise mathematical calculations in every instance?

It is unreasonable to expect precise outputs when there are imprecise (name removed by moderator)uts. The precision of the output can be calculated given the precision of the (name removed by moderator)uts. Not all mathematical calculations in science are probability calculations.But you have accepted non-mathematical estimates of probability.

Why do you think they are different if you have no precise mathematical calculations to support your conclusion?

I have enough information to know some of those odds, and that tells me that the odds are different. The odds on me surviving the next year are reasonably good; I can read actuarial tables for non-smoking males my age. The odds on a particular bacterium surviving that long are very much against since their lifetimes are of the order of days or weeks.You don’t have actuarial tables for prehistoric forms of life.

A similar set of odds to that which enabled you to conclude that the the odds on life in general, life on Earth, a particular species and a particular individual are different!

Please show your working. I am not aware of any relevant actuarial tables or research into the lifetimes of bacteria. I did not assume that the odds are the same because they describe different entities. The average lifetimes of a species is longer that the lifetimes of the individuals comprising that species. Different entities; different lifetimes; different odds.
Then why did you differentiate the odds of different species?

[/QUOTE]

 

[vz71]

Sure, the problem is that the merits of its rejection are zero.

Until one looks at the facts.

 

[inocente]

How about complex cells?

¿Que? Assume I’m an experimenter and you’re the theorist. You need to give me a clear statement that I can test. If the test fails then your statement also fails and goes in the garbage, otherwise the result will tend to confirm your statement. But the test must be on evidence, not on logic alone, or it’s what’s known as not even wrong, meaning unfalsifiable, not open to the scientific method, and therefore unscientific.