J
Jayson
Guest
Has anyone read Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”? It’s a great book and it convinced me that Intelligent Design is, in fact, the more reasonable conclusion based on the data provided to us by science.
- Status
B
Brad
Guest
Awesome book (just as “The Case for Christ” is)
J
Jayson
Guest
I’m reading that now as well. I just finished the Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan. If you read those 3 books, there’s just about no reason left for thinking that to believe in God you have to be ignorant.
B
BLB_Oregon
Guest
Well, first off, scientists can only speak about natural causes and do their best to explain things using the natural laws that God put into place. The supernatural is beyond the natural. Science has to confine itself to the natural realm, which I would define as that area where God consents to be put to the test. Cause and effect. reproducibility, predictablility, all of that.
There is not zero evidence of species-to-species evolution. The evidence is indirect, but substantial. Not only are our physical features more like those creatures we seem most closely related to, but our genetic make-up is more closely related, too. There are also vestigial features in many organisms that are better explained by creation via evolution than by creation from the ground up. Also, there is the fossil evidence… some organisms appear, then disappear, in the fossil record, with others following only later. This argues against a one-time, ground-up creation, as well. So while no one has ever seen a new species emerge, evolution does belong in the curriculum.
You are right that what is missing is a proven mechanism by which a population can change its number of chromosomes. If evolution happened one individual at a time, it would be highly unlikely that a mutation to a new species with a new number of chromosomes would reach a reproductive quorum. If, however, there is a catastrophic mechanism by which, say, even 95% of some very successful local population of a given species is wiped out, 3% survives unchanged, and 2% survives as a new species with a new number of chromosomes, then that would do it. The old species could be quickly re-established from other populations, and the new one would be insulated from re-entering the old gene pool by the new chromosomal make-up.
The problem that I see is that this would require something like a super-virus capable of inserting some huge bit of DNA and splitting chromosomes… and I’m not the one that’s going to do the lab work on that baby!
The thing is that of course it is possible that new species only happen by divine intervention. If that is so, then “A MIRACLE OCCURS” does belong as a step in evolution. The problem is that scientists are not allowed to submit papers that explicitly say “A MIRACLE OCCURS” is a presumed step. That black box has to have “WE DON’T KNOW YET” written on it.
But by my reading, this is not ID. Intelligent design argues for genetic predispostion towards complexity. I think it is possible to prove that some day. So far, though… that hasn’t happened. Get thee to the lab, guys. You aren’t there yet.
And if you prove it… well, careers are made that way, too! Ask Darwin. It’s a tough road to go against established wisdom, but if evolution could do it, if quantum theory could do it, ID can do it.
B
Brad
Guest
That is fine. Then the leading promoters of evolutionary theory should step out of theologizing (Dawkins) in the footsteps of Darwin. Questioning the existence of God based on these theories is a giant leap, yet one that is readily accepted by die-hard evolutionists. When such is taught to impressionable children, what would be the expected result?
Sharing similar characteristics does not prove evolving from the species whose characteristics we have in common. Re-use by the designer is logical.
Fossil record is far too incomplete to draw any conclusions, let alone insist on evolution as fact. Further, the theory of Darwin relied on a pathetically small fossil record and this theory is largely unchanged as presented in student textbooks today.
I have to chew and digest this one for a bit.
What is wrong with a disclaimer saying that “we don’t know how a new species occurs”? What is wrong with drawing limits on the natural (this would be the “supernatural”) and admitting we cannot figure all and that some information has to be revealed to us by God?
Instead, we get Dawkins insisting we are cousins of other species and it is an absolute fact, period. Seems the former would send a more appropriate, God-friendly message.
You are still claiming evidence that is not anywhere near convincing enough for the conclusion, as you admit above.
Again, if the evolutionary theory is toned down, then ID can be toned down. However, the calculations presented by ID (see “The Case for a Creator”) make fascinating science and I don’t see why these should be supressed - rather they should be celebrated - these statistics precisely demonstrate the necessary conditions for life.
B
BLB_Oregon
Guest
From what little I have read, ID presents some fascinating ideas. They are not yet science.
It is a common abuse, particularly within popular understanding, to imply that the current theories of evolution “disprove” the existence of a Creator or that they “prove” that unbridled competition between humans is a good thing for the future of humankind. You can say that the ideas behind evolutionary theory are inconsistent with a literal six-day creation that happened 6,000 years ago, but you cannot say that Catholicism and evolution, for instance, are mutually exclusive. That goes too far. It is, in fact, an insult to both the science and the religion. One should not have to come up with something like ID to take educators to task when they are guilty of these abuses.
While it is often appropriate to insist that scholastic disciplines stick to their own realms, this should not imply that one cannot simultaneously think about the natural world and the spiritual realm without relinquishing their intellectual rigor. That is a misconception that should be entirely disavowed.
Re-use by the designer is logical except when the feature being “re-used” isn’t being used for anything. In that case, it is not an intellectually satisfying guess. In that case, re-modelling is the first possibility that leaps to mind.
As far as student textbooks go… don’t get me started. I’m only guessing, but “in my day” the textbooks meant for introduction at the high school level were not updated nearly often enough nor by people in a position to really update them. There seemed to be a distressing amount of authoritative dilution going on… that is, the authors were not the people who were truly experts in the fields under discussion. The intellectual rigor required to discuss the state of the question wasn’t developed. Worse yet, the blunt truth that the reader should stay tuned, secure in the knowledge that his or her children would not be bringing home the same textbook or that the true complexity of the question could not be introduced from the outset, was not always drilled in.
If your education does not drive home the idea that you need to be a life-long learner, someone has dropped the ball.
S
SamCA
Guest
The evolutionary theory fits one of the major criteria for a scientific theory: Not only does it hypothesize how something can occur, it also allows predictions to be made based on the theory. For instance, evolutionary theory predicted that the genetic codes of certain species would indicate shared ancestry, the degree thereof, roughly when the species would have differentiated genetically, and so forth. (And, what do you know, once we got the technology to sequence DNA, every single genetic test happens to fit the predictions of evolution to a T. Pretty astonishing, if it’s a coincidence.)
Intelligent Design is not predictive. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.
B
Brad
Guest
One problem. This doesn’t prove shared ancestry. I can make predictions about a theory too. But if none of them can be proven, where are we?
This is practically nothing more than a language game. Intelligent Design can predict that additional precise measurements of atmosphere and biological and chemical components will be as signficantly precise as observations that we have already been able to measure. Once this is done, we could then say that the evidence continues to point to an intelligent designer. You would say that this is not proof of intelligent design and I would agree with you (scientifically) but you have exactly the same problem with evolutionary theory.
S
SamCA
Guest
No, but it does show that every single shred of DNA evidence on the planet just so happens to match exactly what we would expect the DNA evidence to show if there is shared ancestry. Which is my point.
You misunderstand. The theory of evolution predates DNA sequencing technology. They weren’t making predictions about the theory. They were using the theory to make predictions about what they would find in the future, in areas that couldn’t be tested yet at the time the predictions were made.
These predictions later turned out to be completely correct, but that’s really beside the point in terms of the basic idea of predictability. The idea isn’t that you can make predictions about your theory, it’s that your theory gives you the ability to predict things you don’t know yet out in the world – if these predictions turn out to be false, your theory is incorrect. If they’re right, it supports the theory.
Intelligent design makes no testable predictions about the world. Evolutionary theory does.
But “precise” isn’t specific. Does intelligent design make any specific, hard predictions that you can then test and see if it was true?
Evolutionary theory predicted, for instance, that humans and chimpanzees would be nearly genetically identical, that they would share a number of key genetic traits, and even went as far as to predict that if humans and chimpanzees diverged as species at roughly the time posited by the theory, we would find certain specific genetic indications thereof.
Many years later, we gained the technology to fully transcribe the genetic code of humans and chimpanzees. The predictions turned out to be true. But even if they turned out to be completely false, it would still show evolutionary theory to be a proper scientific theory. It is testable. It is falsifiable. If humans and chimpanzees had turned out to be nothing alike genetically, it would have sent the entire theory crashing to the ground. That’s important. If your theory isn’t falsifiable through predictive testing, it just isn’t a scientific theory.
How is intelligent design theory falsifiable? If it’s not, it isn’t science.
A
AJC
Guest
During the infamous Scopes “Monkey” Trial, which was broadcast all over the world someone asked G.K. Chesterton if the teaching of evolution was a problem for Catholics. He responded, to the best of my memory, “No, Catholics see the book of Genesis as the word of God, not a science text.”
And that is exactly the point. While we are both Christians, Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists do not speak the same language. Catholics have no problem seeing the hand of God in evolution. On the other hand Catholics should have a problem with Darwinism.
To read more, check out: The Death of Darwinism at catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html this gives a good Roman Catholic view of the whole issue.
Finally, for a really objective book on the matter read Edward Larson’s SUMMER OF THE GODS. In this book he covers the Scopes trial. What I found amusing was the Bishop of Chicago sent a priest down to Dayton, TN, where the trial took place. After a few days said priest left only to report to his Bishop that it wasn’t our fight.
And that is exactly the point. While we are both Christians, Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists do not speak the same language. Catholics have no problem seeing the hand of God in evolution. On the other hand Catholics should have a problem with Darwinism.
To read more, check out: The Death of Darwinism at catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html this gives a good Roman Catholic view of the whole issue.
Finally, for a really objective book on the matter read Edward Larson’s SUMMER OF THE GODS. In this book he covers the Scopes trial. What I found amusing was the Bishop of Chicago sent a priest down to Dayton, TN, where the trial took place. After a few days said priest left only to report to his Bishop that it wasn’t our fight.
B
Brad
Guest
Or shared design components.
I understand. However, the conclusion is not proven even though some expected results are.
I disagree regarding specificity. Let us remember that DNA is simply an identification system of the building blocks of life. I can look at Chimpanzees and make predictions that many of these building blocks will be very close. However, I can also deem that many of these building blocks must be different (although not as many that are the same). The fact that today’s scientists have determined that they are so very close does not make is so. Here is why: the discovery of the building block system is very recent - as such, there is much more to be discovered regarding it, including more levels of “granularity” or specificity - it is my prediction that these levels will indicate greater variation from the Chimpanzee.
All well and good. Portions of evolutionary theory may fall within the definitions of scientific theory. However, other portions (those that creep into metaphysics) lie on the outside of scientific boundaries due to the limitations of science (science stops where the natural stops). Those portions that fall within scientifc theory parameters (evolution within species) can be taught in science. Those portions that fall outside scientific theory (an evolutionary process was the originator of life, and as such, all species must come from other species) AND intelligent design can be taught in a Metaphysics class. Fair compromise?
B
Brad
Guest
Chesterton is correct, however Catholics (not just Protestants) are also free to believe in more literal translations of Genesis and to have scientifc doubts regarding portions of evolutionary theory.
B
Brad
Guest
The ball in America has been dropped.
J
jman507
Guest
Fair enough, I don’t really care if its in the curriculum or not, but that it is brought up in class if needed. Right now with all the contraversy it might be good to have it as a side item in the text books. It is a good quick lesson on what is sciene and what is not science, and why it is so.
There will be a problem if you leave it in a vacuum. Some can make a good sounding case that makes it sound like science. If you avoid it, they can listen to fundamentalist radio and get all the information and even be given a tape for free, though a donation can be made to further the ministry and let others know the news.
When I brought up the part about you being Catholic I didn’t mean that you had to refute the hearasy in the science class. But if say a Baptist Church opened beside your Church and some kids came to religious ed. class saying that you must be baptised at the age of accountablity, you should not ignore that, ortherwise they may very well think it to be true. It would be good to give a defence of the way we do baptism, you may even go farther into baptism too. If that happens they may very well understand more about baptism and the sacraments and what we believe as Catholics after putting it up against a different understanding.
- Status