Intelligent Design

[Evan]

The usual suspects

Chemicals on the early earth
Radiation Levels
Proximity of chemicals necessary for reaction
Stability of large molecules
All the things the biologists were using in the 60’s when they were trying to reproduce the creation of life in the laboratory. After the failure to do so, they began looking at what were the causes for the failure.

If I remember correctly, when I was at the university, the question on the ULTIMATE FINAL EXAM for the biology section was
Part A Create Life
Part B Describe the effect this life form would have on the English Parlimentary System if it had existed 2000000 years ago.

 

[buffalo]

harinkj:

What data were collected?

• Kathie :bowdown:

I believe ID in its infancy is trying to determine how to experiment and collect data. Give them time.

 

[Donald45]

Reply to Post #294:

My definition of “randomness” in the occurrence of mutations included the statement that such mutations are “not directly beneficial to the survival of the individual.” This is simply a means of steering the concept away from the long-disproven Lamarckian picture of evolution—a common misunderstanding of the process assumed by many non-scientists even today—toward a proper perception of the theory. In my post, I quote biologist Douglas Futuyma: “Mutation is random in that the chance that a specific mutation will occur is not affected by how useful that mutation would be.” This is essentially what I was getting at in my own definition. Hope that clarifies.

God bless,
Don

 

[rossum]

buffalo:

I believe ID in its infancy is trying to determine how to experiment and collect data. Give them time.

OK, we’ll give them time to collect, analyse and publish their data. If it passes muster then ID will be accepted as science. At that point ID can be taught in science classes, but not before then.

That was what plate tectonics did and I see no reason to treat ID any differently.

rossum

 

[harinkj]

rossum:

OK, we’ll give them time to collect, analyse and publish their data. If it passes muster then ID will be accepted as science. At that point ID can be taught in science classes, but not before then.
rossum

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

Reply to Post #294:

My definition of “randomness” in the occurrence of mutations included the statement that such mutations are “not directly beneficial to the survival of the individual.” This is simply a means of steering the concept away from the long-disproven Lamarckian picture of evolution—a common misunderstanding of the process assumed by many non-scientists even today—toward a proper perception of the theory. In my post, I quote biologist Douglas Futuyma: “Mutation is random in that the chance that a specific mutation will occur is not affected by how useful that mutation would be.” This is essentially what I was getting at in my own definition. Hope that clarifies.

God bless,
Don

Yes,

Thanks!

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

I had no idea that atheists thought that there even were souls.

It doesn’t matter if atheists deny that human beings have immortal souls. If they conceive of human beings as being nothing more than bipedal animals wiht extra large brains that live without immortal souls, they are free to do that. Their religious beliefs don’t make them right, and they are free to cling to their mistaken religious opinions about human nature.

In spite of what an atheist may think, human beings do have immortal souls, and when an atheist asserts that a chemical process evolved a human being from a bipedal animal they are making an assertion about reality of the human soul.

Donald45:

When you say “truly random,” you apparently mean “truly random in a metaphysical sense.”

When I say truly random, I mean random in reality, not just apparently random.

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

In spite of what an atheist may think, human beings do have immortal souls, and when an atheist asserts that a chemical process evolved a human being from a bipedal animal they are making an assertion about reality of the human soul.

You think they are making such an assertion, they (atheists) I would guess do not.

And never the twain shall meet. Or not.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

And never the twain shall meet.

Yep.

The atheistic Darwinist asserts that somewhere back in history a bipedal animal gave birth to a mutant, and that mutant was the first human being. A purposeless chemical reaction mutated the bipedal animal’s DNA, and the mutant offspring was lucky enough to be born in the right environment so that he could propagate. For the atheistic Darwinist, the bottom line is that the creation of human beings is reducible to nothing more than organic chemistry.

A faithful Catholic rejects this as utter nonsense. Human beings have immortal souls, and immortal souls are not created through chemical reactions.

A Catholic parent certainly has the right to object to public schools teaching his child nonsense!

 

[harinkj]

Matt16_18:

Human beings have immortal souls, and immortal souls are not created through chemical reactions.

Atheists that I know do not believe that human beings have souls; hence, they do not believe that souls are created through chemical reactions.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[harinkj]

Matt16_18:

… and the mutant offspring was lucky enough to be born in the right environment so that he could propagate.

There were many mutant offsprings and one sooner or later one would be in a favorable environment. There were a series of mutaions and each one didn’t change its environmental requirements that much, so survival may not have even been a problem.

Mutations are not changes that take a cow and change it into a pig or a fly in one step.

If a single cell mutates that can’t process energy, it doesn’t survive. When you have 1,000,000,000,0000 different mutations some will have the structure to survive.

There is no luck involved. It is all in the numbers.

• Kathie :bowdown:

 

[buffalo]

harinkj:

There were many mutant offsprings and one sooner or later one would be in a favorable environment. There were a series of mutaions and each one didn’t change its environmental requirements that much, so survival may not have even been a problem.

Mutations are not changes that take a cow and change it into a pig or a fly in one step.

If a single cell mutates that can’t process energy, it doesn’t survive. When you have 1,000,000,000,0000 different mutations some will have the structure to survive.

There is no luck involved. It is all in the numbers.

• Kathie :bowdown:

Be careful, if you start adding too many zeroes we move from chance to design.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I think the real problem is that evolution doesn’t require God or any higher intelligence. God is merely an option. It is no wonder why the liberal, secular humanistic, atheistic leadership is holding on to this theory so dearly. The unholy trinity of their God-less, naturalistic mindset is on its last leg. Freud and Marx have already been rejected by the mainstream. All they have left is Darwin, and they’re going to hold onto him for dear life. With intelligent design, there is no doubt whatsoever that God created the universe. That is exactly why all Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, should embrace it. I don’t see what’s so hard about this. Of all the world religions, Christianity is the only one that requires the belief in miracles: the Incarnation, the Resurrection, etc. If we can believe in these, then why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was a miracle too? Why must we try to explain the Creator’s work (or supposed lack thereof) by merely natural means when this was such a supernatural event? This mindset leads people to believe that humans are just like any other animal. We’re not created in the image and likeness of God if it happened randomly. If we are just like any other animal and human life isn’t sacred, then I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Darwin has unquestionably lead to the Culture of Death. Contraception doesn’t really matter if the creation of human life isn’t a sacred act - we ain’t nothing but mammals, we’re just doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel. Abortion doesn’t really matter either if we’re no different than any other creature. So you become a pacifistic vegetarian and oppose any type of killing or you become a heathen that believes killing humans and animals is essentially the same thing. I don’t think I need to make the argument that these kind of things are occurring. One time I was told by a classmate when talking about animal cruelty that, “mice have feelings too.” Wow, that’s all I have to say.

 

[buffalo]

THE CREATION, FIRST REVELATION OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE

     VATICAN CITY, NOV 9, 2005 (VIS) - Psalm 135, the "great Hallel" or solemn hymn of praise sung by the Jewish people during the Passover, was the central theme of the Benedict XVI's catechesis during the general audience, held this morning in St. Peter's Square in the presence of thousands of faithful.

     

      The key word of the psalm is "mercy," the Pope explained, "part of the language characteristically used by the bible to express the alliance between the Lord and His people. ... Within this relationship, God does not appear as an impassive and implacable Lord, like destiny against whose mysterious power all struggle is useless. Rather, He appears as a person Who loves His creatures, Who watches over them, follows them on their journey through history, and suffers from their frequent unfaithfulness to His merciful and paternal love."

     

      For the psalmist, said the Pope, the first sign of this divine love is to be found in the creation. "Before discovering the God Who reveals Himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all. ...There exists, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation, a sign of the loving faithfulness of God, Who gives his creatures being and life. ... The prayer of praise arises, then, from the contemplation of the 'wonders' of God ... and is transformed into a joyous hymn of praise and thanksgiving."

     

      "Thus, from the works of creation it is possible to ascend to the greatness of God, to His loving mercy. This is what the Fathers of the Church teach us," said Benedict XVI and quoted the words of St. Basil the Great on Genesis, affirming that "if some people ... 'imagine the universe without guidance of order, as though at the mercy of chaos,' the sacred writer 'immediately enlightened our minds with the name of God at the beginning of the story: In the beginning God created. ... If, then, the world had a beginning and was created, seek out the One Who began it, the One Who is its Creator'."

    AG/PSALM        135:CREATION/...                                                       VIS 051109 (360)

 

[Matt16_18]

harinkj:

Atheists that I know do not believe that human beings have souls; hence, they do not believe that souls are created through chemical reactions.

I am not say that atheistic Darwinists believe that chemical reactions create immortal souls.

I am saying that any reasonably intelligent Catholic should be able to understand the implications of the assertion that chemical reactions create human beings. The Catholic that knows his faith, also knows that human beings have both physical bodies and immortal souls. A bipedal animal with the body of a human being but without an immoral soul of a human being is not a human being. The animal may appear to be a human being, but it wouldn’t be a human being.

If a Catholic were to accept the atheistic Darwinist’s claim that chemical reactions create human beings, he must also accept that chemical reactions create immortal souls.

 

[Orogeny]

JSmitty2005:

I think the real problem is that evolution doesn’t require God or any higher intelligence. God is merely an option. It is no wonder why the liberal, secular humanistic, atheistic leadership is holding on to this theory so dearly. The unholy trinity of their God-less, naturalistic mindset is on its last leg. Freud and Marx have already been rejected by the mainstream. All they have left is Darwin, and they’re going to hold onto him for dear life.

With all due respect, that is a crock. Evolution is science, not a philosophy. That is why God is not part of evolution - science cannot deal with the supernatural (ie God).

With intelligent design, there is no doubt whatsoever that God created the universe.

Not according to ID supporters. They have made the claim that ID doesn’t deal with who the “designer” is. In fact, I have been told on these forums that ID specifically has nothing to say as to who the designer is.

I don’t see what’s so hard about this. Of all the world religions, Christianity is the only one that requires the belief in miracles: the Incarnation, the Resurrection, etc. If we can believe in these, then why is it so hard to believe that the creation of the universe was a miracle too?

There is no problem with believing the universe was created by God. As you mentioned, that is part of our faith. As soon as you can devise a scientific test to detect God, you can make your case for ID. Until then, you are dealing with a matter of faith and not a matter of science.

Why must we try to explain the Creator’s work (or supposed lack thereof) by merely natural means when this was such a supernatural event?

Science deals with natural events. Supernatural events are outside the realm of science.

This mindset leads people to believe that humans are just like any other animal.

From a physical standpoint, we are just like any other animal. Our immortal souls is what separates us from the rest of the animal world.

We’re not created in the image and likeness of God if it happened randomly. If we are just like any other animal and human life isn’t sacred, then I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Darwin has unquestionably lead to the Culture of Death.

Then you have a problem understanding science as well as your faith.

Contraception doesn’t really matter if the creation of human life isn’t a sacred act - we ain’t nothing but mammals, we’re just doing it like they do on the Discovery Channel. Abortion doesn’t really matter either if we’re no different than any other creature. So you become a pacifistic vegetarian and oppose any type of killing or you become a heathen that believes killing humans and animals is essentially the same thing. I don’t think I need to make the argument that these kind of things are occurring. One time I was told by a classmate when talking about animal cruelty that, “mice have feelings too.” Wow, that’s all I have to say.

I would agree. Wow.

Peace

Tim

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

When I say truly random, I mean random in reality, not just apparently random.

Yes, you mean “random in reality as perceived from a metaphysical perspective.” Yet, there is also a scientific perspective which you refuse to acknowledge, wherein something is “random” in that it is really unpredicted, really unexpected, really unforseen, and really has no immediately observable survival benefit for the organism. This scientific definition of “randomness” may indeed amount to “apparent randomness” from a metaphysical perspective—but such supernatural ideas are definitionally outside of science. Within science, however, for theists and atheists alike, this understanding of randomness applies as a “real” perspective on natural phenomena.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

… you mean “random in reality as perceived from a metaphysical perspective.” Yet, there is also a scientific perspective …

I don’t dwell in two realities, a scientific reality and a metaphysical reality. I dwell in one reality, a reality that is sustained by God from moment to moment. When I said “truly random” means “random in reality”, that is exactly what I meant.

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

I don’t dwell in two realities, a scientific reality and a metaphysical reality. I dwell in one reality, a reality that is sustained by God from moment to moment…

While dwelling in your “one reality,” are you nevertheless capable of recognizing that different disciplines define terms in different ways? I, too, dwell in a world “sustained by God,” but I’m also aware that there exists a methodology (science) which defines “randomness” in a highly-qualified manner proper to its own discipline. You, however, cannot allow for this, since to affirm it would mean giving up the option of injecting supernatural concepts into a methodology which is self-confined to nature.

The very first principle of apologetics is to avoid the straw man fallacy—that is, to allow one’s opponent his own terminology, to represent that terminology fairly and accurately, and to take all precautions not to in any way distort or caricature the opponent’s position through a misconstrual or misapplication of his discipline’s particular vocabulary. Sadly, with respect to the scientific discipline in general, and the evolutionary theory in particular, you have failed to meet this basic requirement. Until you’re able and willing to allow science its own terminology, one must conclude that your position is simply a case of continually “bearing false witness” against one’s scientific neighbor.

Truly,
Don

 

[Evan]

Donald45:

Yet, there is also a scientific perspective which you refuse to acknowledge, wherein something is “random” in that it is really unpredicted, really unexpected, really unforseen, and really has no immediately observable survival benefit for the organism.

That is a poor example of a scientific definition of randomness.

A variable is random when it cannot be predicted. It can be forseen. It can be expected.

Examples of random scientific variables are the times of people arriving at a stoplight (queueing theory) or faucet drips (physics).

For queueing theory, arrival times are completely unpredictable, but the overall number arriving can be estimated, the approximate intervals between arrivals can be determined, or forseen. The same with drips from a faucet. There is no surprise when an drip falls; that it would fall was predicted…forseen. But the time of the fall, was not predicted. An estimate could be made giving a time window when there is a 95% chance of dripping.

In science, randomness can be due to intellegent decisions (people at stoplights) or un-intellegent decisions (drunk teenagers driving cars) or pure physical processes (water drips).

In evolution, one often will predict how often viable mutations occur in certain settings. That is one of the factors used to determine when different species went their own way. A statistic is formed given the average time between mutations, the number of mutations are counted and localized, and a little magic, voila: The guinea pig (pimms-pages.co.uk/ ) separated from the goeduck (See timwing.com/geoduck-1.htm ) 17.376 trillion years ago! (Hypothetically)