Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[MindOverMatter]

No, this is not accurate. You are right that evolution and creation are not alternatives, but the reason is that they stand in entirely different categories. Creation is a theological and philosophical concept; evolution is a scientific theory, like gravity or plate tectonics. They can’t compete any more than sphericity and color compete with respect to a basketball.

StAnastasia

Well, this was actually the point of my post. Qualities are actualized when various patterns and interactions are achieved in nature. However, evolution is nothing more then an organizing principle of biological nature. It is a process through which various qualities become actual according to the predefined laws of chemistry and other environmental influences. So one can say that evolution is the process through which various predefined qualities arise, but one cannot claim that evolution ultimately explains why we have the nature of self, or have a sense of morality. These are questions about the ultimate nature of existence, not evolution. Evolution is a legitimate theory, when it remains in its legitimate sphere of explanation. Its when evolution starts claiming to be the ultimate cause of that which arises in conjunction with chemical patterns: this is when evolution becomes just another creation myth. To say that i love because of evolution, is false. My capacity to love cannot have effect with out the process of evolution, this is true. But evolution is not the cause of it. It does not explain why there is such a thing as love or morality; for such questions can only be truly answered by that which lies at the root of the universe or the multi-verse’s existence. To fully explain the existence of any quality, one has to look to that which transcends the laws of chemistry, or any laws for that matter.

Evolution is only one part of the explanation; and that explanation is to do with process. Why there is such a thing as chemistry and why any particular quality, such as a personal nature, should arise according to any particular pattern in nature is beyond the scope of evolution. Evolution can only describe existence; it cannot explain existence.

 

[ricmat]

As I see it there are two versions of intelligent design:

• ID1 - The universe is designed by a creator.
• ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

The first is a commonplace for the Abrahamic religions. The second is a recent construct by the Discovery Institute in response to various court cases in America, particularly Edwards v Aguillard.

The first has been taught in theology and religion classes for a long time, and has a legitimate place there. The second tries to look ‘sciency’ but fails to be science. The best place for it is probably a politics class, since its primary objective is political - to finesse a way round the US Constitution’s separation between church and state. Neither form of ID is science. The first does not claim to be and the second has failed to come up to the evidential and experimental mark and so currently cannot be considered to be science.

I notice that some of the discussions on this thread are hindered by a confusion between the two versions of ID. Every Catholic obviously adheres to ID1. Not every Catholic adheres to ID2. Rejection of ID2 does not automatically imply either a rejection of ID1 or a rejection of Catholicism.

rossum

1. Rossum, I disagree with you that all Catholics adheres to ID1. ID1 as you state it above says that God “designed” the universe. StA, the B (now banned), and others regularly say that it is an insult to call God a designer - that this is demeaning to God, that it puts him and his capabilities in a box, etc.
2. With regard to ID2, you attempt to discredit the definition by associating it with groups whom you claim have ulterior motives, and that it can’t be science. So let’s look at this a different way. Forget who came up with ID2. Just take the statement as you have written it above.

ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

a) How do you know that science will never be able to detect design in living organisms?

b) Why would a creator purposely hide his tracks so as to make his presence undetectable through science?

c) Although ID may not qualify as a theory, so long as scientific methods, procedures, analysis, etc. are used in the quest, why is it not science? Are you saying that for investigations/research in general that it somehow doesn’t become science until the point it has achieved “theory-hood”?

 

[liquidpele]

ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

a) How do you know that science will never be able to detect design in living organisms?

b) Why would a creator purposely hide his tracks so as to make his presence undetectable through science?

c) Although ID may not qualify as a theory, so long as scientific methods, procedures, analysis, etc. are used in the quest, why is it not science? Are you saying that for investigations/research in general that it somehow doesn’t become science until the point it has achieved “theory-hood”?

a) We don’t. Wake me when you get some evidence.

b) That’s a question for the ID proponents to answer. I’m not the one claiming that it’s the case with no evidence to be found.

c) Because science is defined by the scientific method. That’s why it’s called the scientific method.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

ID covers up to the yellow “construct hypothesis” and then stalls. Not only that, but a hypothesis should be falsifiable, and no one has suggested how ID could be falsified.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why we should view ID as science when it plays by none of the rules? Playing with stuff in a lab and claiming that it looks designed hardly constitutes research or experimentation to confirm or falsify a hypothesis.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is only one part of the explanation; and that explanation is to do with process. Why there is such a thing as chemistry and why any particular quality, such as a personal nature, should arise according to any particular pattern in nature is beyond the scope of evolution. Evolution can only describe existence; it cannot explain existence.

Right, thank you for the clarification.

 

[rossum]

rossum, I agree with your distinction, but I don’t understand whether you would distinguish between ID1 and Theistic Evolution… If you do, what is the distinction?

As I see it, ID1 includes the theistic aspects of Theistic Evolution, but not the evolution aspects. The evolution aspects of TE are rightly within the domain of science. ID1 itself resides purely in the theology/philosophy area. ID2 attempts to be science as well as theology.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

                So you believe the self, the power of the mind, personality, the power of abstract reasoning, free will, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, the appreciation of beauty, unselfish love, the principles of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right to life are all the product of our genetic inheritance, language and social upbringing, and needs/wants generated by our current environment?

Yes.

Excellent, thank you! Let’s take three of them to start with. Please will you define the self, free will and the right to life and explain how they originated.

 

[ricmat]

a) We don’t. Wake me when you get some evidence.

OK - that’s fine. But some say in advance that design is inherently non-detectable. I was getting at that point, and I addressed the “isn’t yet a theory” part of the question separately.

b) Why would a creator purposely hide his tracks so as to make his presence undetectable through science?

b) That’s a question for the ID proponents to answer. I’m not the one claiming that it’s the case with no evidence to be found.

No, ID proponents are not suggesting that a creator would purposely hide his tracks. Quite the opposite. They propose that such evidence might be around, and is worth looking for.

c) Although ID may not qualify as a theory, so long as scientific methods, procedures, analysis, etc. are used in the quest, why is it not science? Are you saying that for investigations/research in general that it somehow doesn’t become science until the point it has achieved “theory-hood”?

c) Because science is defined by the scientific method. That’s why it’s called the scientific method.

Right. As I stated above. Did you actually read my post before responding?

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif

ID covers up to the yellow “construct hypothesis” and then stalls. Not only that, but a hypothesis should be falsifiable, and no one has suggested how ID could be falsified.

If you found an artifact on Mars that seemed to do technologically advanced things, would you with an open mind construct a hypothesis that it might be designed? Or would you closed-mindedly insist that it is the product of some natural process, and refuse to look for evidence that it might be designed?

A universally acceptable definition of how ID might be falsified has not come about yet. Are you saying that it is impossible for some such definition to come about? How can you make such a statement? You know the answer already - how?

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why we should view ID as science when it plays by none of the rules? Playing with stuff in a lab and claiming that it looks designed hardly constitutes research or experimentation to confirm or falsify a hypothesis.

It’s science if it follows the rules, as I described above. The fact that it is not yet a theory does not mean that it is “not science.” Certainly you know this.

Common sense plays a role here. And as I originally stated, ID is not yet a theory. I’m not claiming that it is. But folks like you that “know” (without evidence) that it can’t be true certainly are not following the scientific method.

So - construct me an experiment that shows me simple life evolving into complex life. No “extrapolations” involving massive scale changes (such as time). Tell me exactly how any DNA changed (what, when, how) to create another species. Can’t show me? Oh, I understand. Evolution “did it somehow.”

 

[liquidpele]

No, ID proponents are not suggesting that a creator would purposely hide his tracks. Quite the opposite. They propose that such evidence might be around, and is worth looking for.

Okay, fair enough, but an Agnostic is not the best person to then ask that question It’s purely hypothetical unless you’re asking God.

If you found an artifact on Mars that seemed to do technologically advanced things, would you with an open mind construct a hypothesis that it might be designed? Or would you closed-mindedly insist that it is the product of some natural process, and refuse to look for evidence that it might be designed?

Like the huge canyons we thought were made by Martians at first

A universally acceptable definition of how ID might be falsified has come about yet. Are you saying that it is impossible for some such definition to come about? How can you make such a statement? You know the answer already - how?

If ID comes out with ideas, experiments, etc, then fine. It’s potential to do all that is not the question. Until it *does *do all that, it’s not science, it’s just an idea.

Common sense plays a role here. And as I originally stated, ID is not yet a theory. I’m not claiming that it is. But folks like you that “know” that it can’t be true (without evidence) certainly are not following the scientific method.

Okay, so lets say it’s an idea that longs to be tested scientifically. The big push for ID is that “it’s science so it should be in science classes!”… such an idea with no evidence hardly belongs in such a place (regardless of who proposes it and what the idea actually is).

So - construct me an experiment that shows me simple life evolving into complex life. No “extrapolations” involving massive scale changes (such as time). Tell me exactly how any DNA changed (what, when, how) to create another species. Can’t show me? Oh, I understand. Evolution “did it somehow.”

You mean like these?

newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/evolution_new_genes_flies

dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

genome-www.stanford.edu/evolution/

myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

 

[liquidpele]

Excellent, thank you! Let’s take three of them to start with. Please will you define the self, free will and the right to life and explain how they originated.

I cannot. I am simply not qualified, and have not researched such things yet. However, this is why I put in the explanation in my post… because it was your obvious next request.

To quote myself:

You might ask why I believe that? I certainly don’t have proof for all of it. The reason is because from the evidence I’ve seen, it makes the most sense to me. You might be tempted to call it faith then, but I would be willing to adjust with new evidence if it was provided, so instead of “faith” lets call it “the idea that currently makes the most sense to me given the evidence”.

Would you like my opinion on the matter, or do you think it is irrelevant?

 

[rossum]

1. Rossum, I disagree with you that all Catholics adheres to ID1. ID1 as you state it above says that God “designed” the universe. StA, the B (now banned), and others regularly say that it is an insult to call God a designer - that this is demeaning to God, that it puts him and his capabilities in a box, etc.

I used the word “designed” in the sense of “created” because we are talking about Intelligent Design. My apologies for not being clearer.

1. With regard to ID2, you attempt to discredit the definition by associating it with groups whom you claim have ulterior motives, and that it can’t be science.

To quote William Dembski:Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply temporal priority.
andThat said, we need to be very clear when we are doing the nuts-and-bolts scientific and conceptual work on ID and when we are engaged in cultural and political activity. What’s more, these aspects of ID need to keep pace. We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID’s successes on the scientific front.

Source: Becoming a Disciplined Science
ID is a combination of science and politics/culture.

So let’s look at this a different way. Forget who came up with ID2. Just take the statement as you have written it above.

ID2 - The universe is designed by a creator and we can scientifically detect this design in living organisms.

a) How do you know that science will never be able to detect design in living organisms?

I do not. That is why I have been generally careful to phrase things as “ID is not currently science” or “At the moment …” Every scientific result is open to change so it is very unwise to predict the future of science. I am not talking about the future, I am talking about whether or not ID is science now. At the moment I do not see it as meeting the required standard.

b) Why would a creator purposely hide his tracks so as to make his presence undetectable through science?

He did not. That is how we know that the literal 6 x 24 hour day interpretation of Genesis is wrong. The Creator also tells us, through science, that He designed the universe in such a way that life would self-assemble. ID is looking at far too small a scale for far too small a Creator. If God dropped a stone from the top of a cliff, He would know exactly where it would land because He created gravity. ID is trying to look for God’s finger pushing the stone downwards in its fall.

c) Although ID may not qualify as a theory, so long as scientific methods, procedures, analysis, etc. are used in the quest, why is it not science?

An astrologer uses a telescope. Is astrology science? An alchemist uses chemicals and a Bunsen Burner, is alchemy science? ID has proposed a hypothesis. It has failed to propose a way to falsify that hypothesis and it has failed to put any falsification to the test of experiment. It is only partway down the track to being science. The diagram posted by liquidpele in post #699 is an excellent summary.

Are you saying that for investigations/research in general that it somehow doesn’t become science until the point it has achieved “theory-hood”?

No. Science advances by proposing hypotheses, and then doing its best to knock those hypotheses down. Any hypotheses that are left standing are provisionally accepted as theories. Abiogenesis is science, it currently has a lot of hypotheses and not enough data to knock most of them down. Once we have gathered more data and cleared out the incorrect hypotheses we may be able to build a theory of abogenesis. ID has a hypothesis, but it has not told us how to falsify its hypothesis. Darwin was aware of the need to provide a way to falsify his theory:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  Professor Behe appears to have looked at the first of these when he tried to falsify evolution with the concept of Irreducible Complexity. IC failed, but Behe was doing correct science - trying to knock down an existing hypothesis/theory. So far ID has been unable to describe something that could not have been designed, the way that Darwin described someting that could not have evolved. We are not expecting ID to do anything that evolution has not done.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Okay, fair enough, but an Agnostic is not the best person to then ask that question It’s purely hypothetical unless you’re asking God.

I actually wasn’t asking you.

Like the huge canyons we thought were made by Martians at first

Like piltdown man?

If ID comes out with ideas, experiments, etc, then fine. It’s potential to do all that is not the question. Until it *does *do all that, it’s not science, it’s just an idea.

No. “until it DOES do ALL that…” You got it wrong. So long as it uses the scientific method, it’s science. It actually doesn’t have to prove the hypothesis. There are many scientific experiments (e.g. the Michael-Morely experiment regarding the ether) that actually failed to prove what they were looking for. Does that mean that the experiment and results were not science?

Okay, so lets say it’s an idea that longs to be tested scientifically. The big push for ID is that “it’s science so it should be in science classes!”… such an idea with no evidence hardly belongs in such a place (regardless of who proposes it and what the idea actually is).

You got me mixed up with somebody else. I didn’t say that it should be in science classes. Although if it makes propositions, does experiments, etc. using the scientific method, perhaps it should. Of course it might need to say that these experiments have so far failed to explain the hypothesis.

You mean like these?

newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Sorry, a new trait is not simple to complex life. Unless you extrapolate wildly.

scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/evolution_new_genes_flies

Sorry, new mating behaviors is not “simple to complex life.”

dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

Sorry, changes in beak size is not “simple to complex life.”

genome-www.stanford.edu/evolution/

Sorry, yeast, to slightly different yeast is not “simple to complex life.”

myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Sorry, e-coli to slightly different e-coli is not “simple to complex life.”

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml

Of course many mutations are random, and not directed. That’s what I believe, that’s what most ID folks believe.

Did you include this link in support of ID?

You do realize of course that totally random (non-directed) evolution “has been proven” to account for all complex life, starting with simple life. All I’m asking for is one well documented proven example of this. Not - evolution did it somehow.

 

[liquidpele]

No. “until it DOES do ALL that…” You got it wrong. So long as it uses the scientific method, it’s science. It actually doesn’t have to prove the hypothesis. There are many scientific experiments (e.g. the Michael-Morely experiment regarding the ether) that actually failed to prove what they were looking for. Does that mean that the experiment and results were not science?

I claim that our blood is made of red unicorns then, but they change to look like disks when you try to look at them. I can come up with experiments for that too… but they don’t disprove or prove it. Is it science? Please.

You got me mixed up with somebody else. I didn’t say that it should be in science classes. Although if it makes propositions, does experiments, etc. using the scientific method, perhaps it should. Of course it might need to say that these experiments have so far failed to explain the hypothesis.

It’s a major part of the ID movement, and the part that I have a problem with. ID is a fine idea, debate it if you like, but it does not belong in a science class.

Sorry, a new trait is not simple to complex life. Unless you extrapolate wildly.

Sorry, new mating behaviors is not “simple to complex life.”

Sorry, changes in beak size is not “simple to complex life.”

Sorry, yeast, to slightly different yeast is not “simple to complex life.”

Sorry, e-coli to slightly different e-coli is not “simple to complex life.”

:ehh: You appear to not understand the fundamentals. Take 10,000 of those steps, and you have a new species. Is that not obvious? If you’re asking for an experiment that shows the full thing, see my next answer.

You do realize of course that totally random (non-directed) evolution “has been proven” to account for all complex life, starting with simple life. All I’m asking for is one well documented proven example of this. Not - evolution did it somehow.

You’re asking for evolution to be “proven”… this is a major misconception of science. See the picture of the scientific process from before? Did you see a box there for “proven” ? No, you did not.

In science, you get data, which then does one of 2 things:

1. Supports your hypothesis - everythings okay!
2. Proves your hypothesis is wrong.

This is why falsifiability is such an important aspect, because so few things can be proven absolutely true (if anything). ID has no experiments to do either of these things though as far as I’m aware. I know of nothing that could do #2 for ID, perhaps you have sources of experiments for #1 that I could look at?

 

[ricmat]

I used the word “designed” in the sense of “created” because we are talking about Intelligent Design. My apologies for not being clearer.

OK - but I’m confused about why you identified the 2 forms of ID as you did then.

To quote William Dembski:Although ID as a scientific program stands logically prior to ID as cultural movement, this logical priority does not imply temporal priority.andThat said, we need to be very clear when we are doing the nuts-and-bolts scientific and conceptual work on ID and when we are engaged in cultural and political activity. What’s more, these aspects of ID need to keep pace. We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID’s successes on the scientific front.

Source: Becoming a Disciplined ScienceID is a combination of science and politics/culture.

So you agree that it is at least partly scientific? Good. Since a logical person would conclude that only what we call God could possibly be the designer, of course it has cultural aspects as well.

And evolution is not also a cultural thing? (I think it is).

I do not. That is why I have been generally careful to phrase things as “ID is not currently science” or “At the moment …” Every scientific result is open to change so it is very unwise to predict the future of science. I am not talking about the future, I am talking about whether or not ID is science now. At the moment I do not see it as meeting the required standard.

I just want to clarify this…are you saying that it does not meet the standards of being a theory, or that the research, math, analysis, etc. itself is not science?

He did not. That is how we know that the literal 6 x 24 hour day interpretation of Genesis is wrong. The Creator also tells us, through science, that He designed the universe in such a way that life would self-assemble.

The universe is designed. ID agrees with you wholeheartedly. Welcome to the party. We still have a minor disagreement over a few divine tweaks here and there (perhaps out of love for his creation, not out of necessity), and that tracks might exist.

So you still insist that God designed a self-assembling universe (but one that he doesn’t want us to scientifically find out that he designed?) That’s interesting, but not a scientific observation.

ID is looking at far too small a scale for far too small a Creator. If God dropped a stone from the top of a cliff, He would know exactly where it would land because He created gravity. ID is trying to look for God’s finger pushing the stone downwards in its fall.

There may be some instances where the finger of God was directly involved, but certainly ID does not say that God’s finger is involved in every stone dropping off a cliff. If you could find such an example on the Discovery.org web site I will drop my objection.

An astrologer uses a telescope. Is astrology science? An alchemist uses chemicals and a Bunsen Burner, is alchemy science?

I don’t know much about astrology. As I recall, they did map the motion of moon & planets, and are responsible first defining the length of a year. And came up with good times to plant crops, predict eclipses, etc. They got some things wrong no doubt. They also got some things right. Do we throw it out because it wasn’t done formally by the scientific method? Was it WRONG because they didn’t do it formally by the scientific method.

And alchemists came up with a lot of good stuff before the scientific method was formalized. Some of them probably used the scientific method without realizing it.

No. Science advances by proposing hypotheses, and then doing its best to knock those hypotheses down. Any hypotheses that are left standing are provisionally accepted as theories. Abiogenesis is science, it currently has a lot of hypotheses and not enough data to knock most of them down.

Dark matter & dark energy? Black holes? Multi-verses? These are all generally accepted as “science” but there is no way to falsify them. No way to knock them down. Well, we just haven’t actually found any dark matter etc. yet. As soon as we do, we’ll let you do some experiments with it to falsify our theory. Oh, right. But it’s science.

I haven’t thought about the philosophy of science to know if the “must be falsifiable” thing is a new requirement invented just for this occasion. It seems to me that a lot of good science was done without regard to having a definition of falsifiability. If you want to make falsifiability part of the definition of a theory, OK, I already said that I agree with that.

A lot of scientific observation, experimentation, modeling, etc. can be done without a formal theory, and it’s still science.

 

[Michaelo]

If you found an artifact on Mars that seemed to do technologically advanced things, would you with an open mind construct a hypothesis that it might be designed? Or would you closed-mindedly insist that it is the product of some natural process, and refuse to look for evidence that it might be designed?

A close-minded person would jump to conclusions about the origin of a complex artifact and automatically assume that it was intelligently designed.

 

[ricmat]

A close-minded person would jump to conclusions about the origin of a complex artifact and automatically assume that it was intelligently designed.

You do realize of course, that ID accepts most of evolution? The evidence of an old universe and old earth, the fossil record, etc. It adds only that the universe, the process of evolution, and some aspects of life were designed. ID does not do hand waving, smoke and mirrors, and then say that evolution didn’t happen. (Actually, my beef with evolutionists is that they leave no room for the possibility that it didn’t happen. I accept that evolution for the most part did happen, but that there was divine guidance at times.)

 

[Michaelo]

I accept that evolution for the most part did happen, but that there was divine guidance at times.

Can you be more specific?

 

[ricmat]

I claim that our blood is made of red unicorns then, but they change to look like disks when you try to look at them. I can come up with experiments for that too… but they don’t disprove or prove it. Is it science? Please.

If you follow the scientific method, and your results neither prove nor disprove the existence of the red unicorns, then yes, it was science.

It’s a major part of the ID movement, and the part that I have a problem with. ID is a fine idea, debate it if you like, but it does not belong in a science class.

If it follows the scientific method, regardless of outcome, it is a candidate for science class.

:ehh: You appear to not understand the fundamentals. Take 10,000 of those steps, and you have a new species. Is that not obvious? If you’re asking for an experiment that shows the full thing, see my next answer.

You appear not to understand my comment about “extrapolation.”

If you flip an unbiased coin once and it comes up heads, that doesn’t mean that you can extrapolate that it will come up heads 100,000,000 times in a row, and thus support your theory.

A problem of scale is at work here. Is that not obvious?

You’re asking for evolution to be “proven”… this is a major misconception of science.

Evolutionists tell us all the time, on this forum, that evolution has been proven. So I ask for proof.

Perhaps they should learn more about science.

 

[tonyrey]

I cannot. I am simply not qualified, and have not researched such things yet. However, this is why I put in the explanation in my post… because it was your obvious next request.

 

[ricmat]

Can you be more specific?

1. I believe that God designed the basic parameters of creation, the constants of the physical laws, as well as the physical laws themselves. They didn’t come out “just right” by accident. Or by randomness. It was by intent, purpose, and design. “Design” means that the “end product”, the universe and its laws, work in harmony with each other - and things didn’t HAVE to come out this way.
2. I believe that God set in motion a process which lasted about 14 billion years by which the material of the galaxies, stars, and earth would form. I leave open the possibility that God did NOT just wind up the clock, and then step out of the picture. There may be certain events in which God chose, by his own will and plan, to intervene in creation to make earth habitable for human life. An example of this might be the meteor strike of 65 billion years ago. I also leave open the possibility that our current natural laws do not explain things which happened early in the universe.

Although I think that the universe was designed, I do NOT think that it was designed to run on “auto-pilot” all the way up to and including the evolution of human beings, and the attributes which are uniquely human - intellect & the ability to work with abstractions, the capability to love, free-will.

1. The end result is a universe in which the natural laws are basically predictable (at least in our local “neighborhood”, and at least for the time being).
2. I believe that as an act of love, if for nothing else than to show us his special love for us, that God specifically intervened to create Adam and Eve, from whom we are all uniquely descended. This special intervention at a minimum consists of the infusion of an immortal soul, which was given to no other form of life. And the special intervention could have consisted of events involving the creation of our human bodies from lower life forms. Perhaps something as simple as taking the extremely time consuming “random” evolution process, and ensuring that certain mutations happened at certain times, or happened with a much higher probability than “random” (like selective breeders do today). This intervention could also e.g. amount to immediately creating the first DNA.

Also, although I accept that evolution could account for minor changes, I just don’t think there was time for random and unguided processes to get us to complex life in 4 billion years.

BTW - I see “random” as the opposite of “design”, “with purpose”, “guided.” To me, random, by definition, means that God was not involved.

This is all off the top of my head (which hurts really bad now). This is probably not what you’re even looking for

 

[Michaelo]

ricmat

Thank you for the clarification