ID and Darwinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Awake said:
Well he left the choice up to your parents, who decided to have you. If you were born of any other couple, you would look different

If God knew in advance that your parents would get together and have you, I don’t see why he can’t know in advance what mutations will occur in an organism.
Click to expand...
So then because He knows and He is the creator, then it cannot be by chance.
 
Awake said:
Ultimately, yes, I am a product of random mutations. This doesn’t bother me and this doesn’t necessarily discount God.

To what extent do you reject evolution? Which, if any, of these assumptions do you reject?

-Organisms have different genetic makeup
-Organisms are constantly fighting for survival
-Random mutations may occur in an organism’s genome, which may help or hinder its quest for survival and reproduction
-Surviving organisms that reproduce will pass on their genes, often including any mutations
-Organisms with an advantageous genome for their particular environment will produce more offspring
-Organisms with a disadvantageous genome for their particular environment will produce less offspring and may become extinct
Click to expand...
“reject evolution”?

Organisms have different body plans but those with similar body plans would have similar coding to build those bodies.

Random mutations occur, but can they create novel changes that are a) beneficial, and b) heritable? Doubtful.

Organisms with what advantages will produce more offspring? The real world is not a lab. Fire, flood, disease, drought and predators can kill the mutated individual before anything is passed on.

Organisms with what specific disadvantage will produce less offspring? The advantageous mutant may die from hunger while the disadvantaged individual may survive in a rain forest and produce many offspring.

It is the conclusions I have a problem with.

Peace,
Ed
 
Namesake said:
It is hard to know where to start rebutting this. Maybe just getting to the meat of what I think your post is about. Intelligent Design is actually a political premise for the eventual wedging of creationism into public schools. That is just the factual history of ID.

If there is valid science to be found in ID then let the science begin. Let Intelligent Design proponents offer their research to peer reviewed scientific journals for publication. That would go a long way toward giving IDers some scientific standing. After all, that’s what scientists do and ID should be willing to be exposed to the same rigorous examination, no?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it is hard to refute things when you ignore the facts and then make blanket statements.

Are you the guy who didn’t want to watch Ben Stein’s documentary? Because that’s what the whole documentary was about- scientists with legitimate science who are being fired for working from a non-random paradigm.
 
Please pardon a question from the lurker…

Must evolution, ID, and Creationism be mutually exclusive? It seems a lot of this discussion extends from that inference.
 
Angels_Unaware said:
Are you the guy who didn’t want to watch Ben Stein’s documentary? Because that’s what the whole documentary was about- scientists with legitimate science who are being fired for working from a non-random paradigm.
Click to expand...
None of the scientists in Expelled were fired. Some came to the end of their contracts and were not renewed; none were actually fired.

rossum
 
edwest2 said:
“reject evolution”?

Organisms have different body plans but those with similar body plans would have similar coding to build those bodies.
Click to expand...
I don’t intend any offense, but I think you can learn a lot by studying genetics.
Random mutations occur, but can they create novel changes that are a) beneficial, and b) heritable? Doubtful.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t bacteria mutate to become resistant to antibiotics? Why do you think we need a new flu vaccine every year?
Organisms with what advantages will produce more offspring? The real world is not a lab. Fire, flood, disease, drought and predators can kill the mutated individual before anything is passed on.
Click to expand...
Correct. There is nothing guaranteeing that a mutation will be passed on to the next generation.
Organisms with what specific disadvantage will produce less offspring? The advantageous mutant may die from hunger while the disadvantaged individual may survive in a rain forest and produce many offspring.
Click to expand...
Correct. The term “advantageous” is all relative. A mutation that allows an organism store water for a long time will be useful in a desert, but won’t necessarily be useful in a marsh.
 
Angels_Unaware said:
Yeah, I guess it is hard to refute things when you ignore the facts and then make blanket statements.

Are you the guy who didn’t want to watch Ben Stein’s documentary? Because that’s what the whole documentary was about- scientists with legitimate science who are being fired for working from a non-random paradigm.
Click to expand...
I guess it is you who can’t/won’t respond to facts, like IDers not submitting to the peer review scrutiny of journals.

As far as the charge of people being fired for their views not in line with random mutation, it is simply not true.
 
bluedogz said:
Please pardon a question from the lurker…

Must evolution, ID, and Creationism be mutually exclusive? It seems a lot of this discussion extends from that inference.
Click to expand...
Evolution and God can be compatible, but I don’t quite see how evolution and Young-Earth Creationism can be compatible.
 
Awake said:
There was no chance involved in your parents meeting, conceiving you, and giving you your current genetic makeup?
Click to expand...
I can’t say for certain. If i prayed and God answered my prayer then perhaps not.

I do have a free-will choice, but God knows the free-will choice I will make.
 
Awake said:
Doesn’t bacteria mutate to become resistant to antibiotics? Why do you think we need a new flu vaccine every year?
Click to expand...
I think this illustrates your level of scientific understanding quite well.
 
bluedogz said:
Please pardon a question from the lurker…

Must evolution, ID, and Creationism be mutually exclusive? It seems a lot of this discussion extends from that inference.
Click to expand...
Creationism is the process of postulating hypotheses that validate creation stories. Usually the Genesis creation story. It is not mutually exclusive from ID, obviously, or from evolution on a smaller scale, since natural selection is a process that can be observed on a smaller scale. I think this group has a YE and an OE camp, and OE perhaps is closer to ID.

ID is a larger explanatary paradigm that postulates that Darwinism is inherently reductionist, and because of that, fails to explain certain aspects of the biological world. If life evolved from non-life with time and chance, then at its most basic level, life must have evolved from simple proteins that do not contain cellular information. ID says, at its most fundamental level, life is directed by information contained within the cell, and that information is too complex to be explained by simple proteins evolving over time. (There are actually lots of other things that simple Darwinian explanations do not explain, even from the most cursory review, such as punctuated evolution spikes in the geological record).

ID is also an explanatory paradigm that can be seen as the polar opposite of random process when seeking to explain why something exists.

Paradigms compete with each other to generate science, and when there are many unknowns, it is preferable to have several competing paradigms so that knowledge is advanced. That is why it is important to allow the rogue scientists to use alternative explanatary paradigms without censor.
 
buffalo said:
I can’t say for certain. If i prayed and God answered my prayer then perhaps not.

I do have a free-will choice, but God knows the free-will choice I will make.
Click to expand...
If God knows the free-will choice you will make, then I don’t see why he couldn’t also know the random mutation that will occur.
 
Angels_Unaware said:
Creationism is the process of postulating hypotheses that validate creation stories. Usually the Genesis creation story. It is not mutually exclusive from ID, obviously, or from evolution on a smaller scale, since natural selection is a process that can be observed on a smaller scale. I think this group has a YE and an OE camp, and OE perhaps is closer to ID.

ID is a larger explanatary paradigm that postulates that Darwinism is inherently reductionist, and because of that, fails to explain certain aspects of the biological world. If life evolved from non-life with time and chance, then at its most basic level, life must have evolved from simple proteins that do not contain cellular information. ID says, at its most fundamental level, life is directed by information contained within the cell, and that information is too complex to be explained by simple proteins evolving over time. (There are actually lots of other things that simple Darwinian explanations do not explain, even from the most cursory review, such as punctuated evolution spikes in the geological record).

ID is also an explanatory paradigm that can be seen as the polar opposite of random process when seeking to explain why something exists.

Paradigms compete with each other to generate science, and when there are many unknowns, it is preferable to have several competing paradigms so that knowledge is advanced. That is why it is important to allow the rogue scientists to use alternative explanatary paradigms without censor.
Click to expand...
All I can say is, WOW, do you need a lot of basic science education or what?
 
Namesake said:
All I can say is, WOW, do you need a lot of basic science education or what?
Click to expand...
Are you suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome or something? Is that why you were not able to provide a superior answer?

Please, by all means, educate us on the differences between the labels.
 
Namesake said:
I think this illustrates your level of scientific understanding quite well.
Click to expand...
Haha. 🙂

Yes, I know that wasn’t quite scientifically accurate. I was simplifying to keep things basic.

And I am not completely ignorant when it comes to the Influenza virus
 
Angels_Unaware said:
Are suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome or something? Is that why you were not able to provide a superior answer?

Please, by all means, educate us on the differences between the labels.
Click to expand...
I just need to bow out of this discussion because I can no longer maintain a charitable attitude.
 
Namesake said:
I just need to bow out of this discussion because I can no longer maintain a charitable attitude.
Click to expand...
Well that’s too bad. I am just terribly upset I must have gotten something wrong and was looking forward to learning how there are actually no scientists who have the slightest credibility who believe in any kind of Creator. Or whatever it was I got wrong.

But I guess just screaming you’re stupid and kicking sand will have to suffice as evidence that there is no possible way to conduct biological science from the premise there was an Intelligent Designer.
 
Awake said:
If God knows the free-will choice you will make, then I don’t see why he couldn’t also know the random mutation that will occur.
Click to expand...
He could see it. That is not the question. Random or chance mutations are by themselves not purposeful. What is their goal?

The only option is what is known as God guided evolution.

But that leaves the thorny issue of Eve coming from Adam, preternatural gifts, bodily immortality, infused knowledge, etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top