Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

Science being done to find a blind spot in the prevailing assumptions is the norm. That is how science advances.

Science being done to support an alternative but nevertheless pre-ordained conclusion that did not come out of any physical observations that lead in that direction is a much dicier prospect. That dish needs far more grains of salt.

Once again, the findings themselves, regardless of motivation are what is important. It is happening and cannot be stopped. It is gaining more and more steam.

 

[Rubee]

An infinite knowledge of physics would theoretically allow creation of Earth and the life on it as a predictable result of the Big Bang. That isn’t to say this had to have been the way God elected to do it. It only says that God could have elected to arrange the universe and the laws of its operation in that way. It might look random to us, but could still be entirely predictable by an infinitely superior intellect with infinite physical capacity.

This assumes that life arose naturally from inorganic matter. That to me is the big Q re the science. I’m not convinced it’s reasonable to presume that life came from inorganic matter all by itself.

 

[PetraG]

This assumes that life arose naturally from inorganic matter. That to me is the big Q re the science. I’m not convinced it’s reasonable to presume that life came from inorganic matter all by itself.

I think it is philosophically possible for God to have breathed life into our planet by either the normal cause and effect He put into the universe–that is, that the breath was planned and built into the order of things from before “let there be light”–or that a divine intervention beyond that order was always planned.

It is the business of science to look for evidence that the breath of life was built into the universe from the beginning. It cannot prove it wasn’t miraculous, even if it finds that a natural mechanism could have been responsible, but science must favor the mechanism that can be proposed from the typical order.

The laws of thermodynamics do not preclude the possibility of order (such as life) resulting from a continual infusion of energy into a system such as Earth.

 

[Bradskii]

The science is being done, and publicized.

Why? This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.

 

[buffalo]

Why? This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.

Sure it is. FSCI is readily observed and design is the best explanation.

 

[Aloysium]

I think intelligent design, generally speaking, is an attempt to say specifically that the creation of life as we know it was an act of the sovereign will of the Creator, not an act of God’s permissive will, let alone the result of random chance.

Not necessarily. The rational ordering of the world from the subatomic, to the galaxies and worlds that contain, at least in one case, highly complex beings such as ourselves, and the great diversity of life around us, that order could be intrinsic to nature itself. A cosmic supreme intelligence can be imagined to be playing itself out, seeking to create and/or find itself, in the dreams that it fashions of itself. Living forms would build upon that which has been formed, as all is in a state of change, within an infinite minestrone soup containing a myriad of beings.

It is my impression that this would be in fact what most biologist think. It isn’t science, and one wouldn’t expect to find it in the literature. That said, neither is the ToE, even though people ignore its inherent metaphysical assumptions about the nature of creation.

To my way of thinking, the fact that we, ourselves as individuals, exist in a state of finite being, able to relate to what is other to our being, suggests that there is something even graeter going on; that the Ground of all being, Existence itself, is relational. And perfect relationality is Love, uniting all that it brings forth into being.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Why? This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science.

Sure it is.

Take it up with Phillip E Johnson. He says, uniquivocally that ‘this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science’. He specifically contradicts you.

You are not only now just arguing against fellow non-fundamentalist Christians. You are not only now just arguing against people with my beliefs. You are not only now just arguing against 97% of scientists in this field.

You are now arguing against the very founder of the movement for ID - the Design Institute itself.

All those post arguing the ‘science’ of ID have been a waste of your time. The man who actually coined the very phrase ‘Intelligent Design’ has given the lie to his very own movement and to all your arguments.

 

[buffalo]

Take it up with Phillip E Johnson. He says, uniquivocally that ‘this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science’. He specifically contradicts you.

At this point in time none of this matters. The findings have to be dealt with. Ignoring them, is easier for you. It won’t work.

 

[Aloysium]

The laws of thermodynamics do not preclude the possibility of order (such as life) resulting from a continual infusion of energy into a system such as Earth.

The laws of thermodynamics represent our understanding of the order that constitutes the universe. There is a continual infusion of energy into the ecosystem of the earth from the sun. That order from the basics that we study through the disciplines of physics and chemistry, to that which we pursue in our studies of anatomy and physiology, onto nonmaterial areas such as psychology, sociology, philosophy, and religion, had it beginning in time, when each stage was first brought into existence to eventually lead to the current forms, within the hierarchy of creation.

 

[PetraG]

Not necessarily. The rational ordering of the world from the subatomic, to the galaxies and worlds that contain, at least in one case, highly complex beings such as ourselves, and the great diversity of life around us, that order could be intrinsic to nature itself. A cosmic supreme intelligence can be imagined to be playing itself out, seeking to create and/or find itself, in the dreams that it fashions of itself. Living forms would build upon that which has been formed, as all is in a state of change, within an infinite minestrone soup containing a myriad of beings.

It is my impression that this would be in fact what most biologist think. It isn’t science, and one wouldn’t expect to find it in the literature. That said, neither is the ToE, even though people ignore its inherent metaphysical assumptions about the nature of creation.

To my way of thinking, the fact that we, ourselves as individuals, exist in a state of finite being, able to relate to what is other to our being, suggests that there is something even graeter going on; that the Ground of all being, Existence itself, is relational. And perfect relationality is Love, uniting all that it brings forth into being.

A cosmic supreme intelligence can be imagined to be playing itself out, seeking to create and/or find itself, in the dreams that it fashions of itself.
Just to clarify this poetic turn of phrase: We are creations of God, as humans made in the image and likeness of God, but are not ourselves physical dimensions of God Himself. (What it would mean to be a “dream,” I can’t say, as that is obviously meant as poetic imagery, not a concrete description.)

 

[Aloysium]

I just wanted to describe how a pantheist, believing that nature is god, could also hold to the idea of intelligent design, as might a deist, who would believe in a completely transcedent supreme deity.

 

[PetraG]

I just wanted to describe how a pantheist could also hold to the idea of intelligent design, as might a deist.

I hear you. I remember having a conversation with two fellow graduates students. Knowing it was all total conjecture, they were debating whether the universe was destined to keep expanding until it reached a state of cold chaos or whether it would eventually begin to contract and come back in to a single point encompassing all matter and energy that would result in another Big Bang.

One of them became quite impassioned in supporting the expansion-contraction scenario. It turned out that on scratching her, she was emotionally a pantheist. To her, a universe expanded to the point of cold chaos was essentially the same as God being dead or comatose. She couldn’t cope with that possibility.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Take it up with Phillip E Johnson. He says, uniquivocally that ‘this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science’. He specifically contradicts you.

At this point in time none of this matters.

It doesn’t matter to me. It never has. This has always been me enjoying some amusing banter. But it doesn’t matter to you? That the guy who founded the very movement on which you have spent so much time and effort supporting has left you alone, denying in writing the very reason why you have been supporting it?

Or maybe…just maybe, you never realised this. Maybe…just maybe, you have been taken in by the charlatans at the DI as they have lied to everyone to promote their fundamentalist beliefs. Maybe you did actually believe them when they said it was all about the science. As you said, ID the science and ID the philosophy! Maybe you thought that was actually true, that that was what they were promoting.

I was going to say - until you dig a little deeper. But good grief, you don’t have to dig at all. All you need do is read what they write themselves.

But at least now you know what’s going to happen. If Ed or anyone else promotes the fallacy that evolution is some sort of atheist/left wing/secular attack on Chrisitan beliefs then he is going to get a quick:

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

And anytime you post anything scientific as a way of trying to convince anyone that ID depends on science, I will be pasting:

But you already know that this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science’.

 

[Bradskii]

I just wanted to describe how a pantheist, believing that nature is god, could also hold to the idea of intelligent design…

Nonsense. We know how nature works. It doesn’t ‘poof’ organisms into existence, fully formed.

 

[PetraG]

Nonsense. We know how nature works. It doesn’t ‘poof’ organisms into existence, fully formed.

Well, but we also know how God works. God has not denied Himself the option of miracles–that is, of operating in the world by mechanisms not discernible in the normal order of the natural world. Likewise, God has not denied Himself action in the world via natural mechanisms.

Science could not prove a miracle but science cannot preclude one, either. That’s out of the sphere of science, but science cannot show that everything always happens according to rules that can be discovered using the scientific method.

 

[buffalo]

That the guy who founded the very movement on which you have spent so much time and effort supporting has left you alone, denying in writing the very reason why you have been supporting it?

Interview with Johnson

Defending Intelligent Design

Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, on the Wedge Strategy, why evolution "comes up short," and more

www.pbs.org

 

[Bradskii]

Why does he say this:

Phillip Johnson: ‘I would like to put a basic explanation of the intelligent-design concept as I understand it this way. There are two hypotheses to consider scientifically…’

Scientifically? Doesn’t he know that this isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Nonsense. We know how nature works. It doesn’t ‘poof’ organisms into existence, fully formed.

Well, but we also know how God works. God has not denied Himself the option of miracles–that is, of operating in the world by mechanisms not discernible in the normal order of the natural world. Likewise, God has not denied Himself action in the world via natural mechanisms.

Science could not prove a miracle but science cannot preclude one, either. That’s out of the sphere of science, but science cannot show that everything always happens according to rules that can be discovered using the scientific method.

I completely agree. That is why I keep on insisting that evolution does not deny God’s existence. It is simply an explanation of the means by which life as reached the point at which it does.

It gives every indication of happening within the laws of nature. That is, nothing supernatural is apparent. That is not to say that God, in His infinite wisdom, has not chosen the evolutionary process (which He would control) as the means by which to accomplish this.

If God had brought creatures into existence as per a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, then why did he leave such a cataclysmic amount of information available to everyone that indicates that He didn’t operate that way? Has he purposely deceived 97% of the scientists who know enough about the subject to make a decision? I think not.

 

[buffalo]

hat is not to say that God, in His infinite wisdom, has not chosen the evolutionary process (which He would control) as the means by which to accomplish this.

That would be called design. And microevolution shows design.

 

[buffalo]

Has he purposely deceived 97% of the scientists who know enough about the subject to make a decision? I think not.

Oh boy… We agree science has a limited ability to see the entire picture.

It comes down to science by consensus? Soon you will be arguing we don’t do science by consensus when they all are convinced of ID.