A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

From those little designer beings? I thought you'd be expecting a great deal from them, like giving us immunity to cancer, or even better, a curb on our own stupidity. But as you'll have noticed, the really useful stuff is beyond them. It's a DIY world.

Actually, my prayers to Christ have been answered, regarding cases of cancer and etc. My prayers to you would go unanswered, nor do you me like God loves me. Seek love, seek truth!

 

[blü 2]

Actually, my prayers to Christ have been answered, regarding cases of cancer and etc. My prayers to you would go unanswered, nor do you me like God loves me. Seek love, seek truth!

I recall asking you before for the test you use to check whether any statement is true or not. But you never did spell out that test.

 

[Sapiens]

Usually most see it as creationism.

In what way does it differ from creationism?

How does Evolution not qualify as intelligent design?

It is creationism, albeit with a cut and paste alteration: In one particular draft of the creationist text "Of People and Pandas," dated to after the Edwards decision, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists". However in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists"

 

[The Bible Alone]

Wow, seven posts in and already you have to twist scripture to try to defend your views.

Let's look at all of G1:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
​

How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

If you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with god's existence, then god has only existed 6000 years.

Conversely, if you want to argue that god has always existed and...
if you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with gods existence, then the heavens and the earth have always existed.

So, which is it or is it something else?

As I said God created all things and powers, even all things "invisible." This means God created time.

 

[The Bible Alone]

Pagan religions are no more false than any other religions. The universe is not run by god. It is comforting to know at least you believe in evolution since you think that god created the laws of science and since evolution is a part of what we know about nature then you at least accept evolution.

Unfortunately these and all creations stories are myths made by mankind. They have meaning to the followers of that religion. In the case you quote, it is so the followers will follow the social dictates of those who formed the religion.

You seem to think the word "science" is synonymous with "evolution." It is not. Evolution is only a hypothesis, not even a theory, and requires so much faith it might as well be called a religion. My point was that whether it is someone or something everyone exalts something as a god believing it to have been self existent from the beginning and ruling all else. To exalt the "natural" to the status of god is still to believe in the supernatural.
But if the laws of science are placed in this position without someone to create them there are significant problems. If the universe created itself it would have to have done so within the laws of science and the laws of science would also have to have made themselves or have been self-existent with no beginning. This is impossible because the laws of science have strict limitations. Only a God without limitations could make them and also be self-existent. God is infinite all knowing and all powerful. He created the laws of science and is able to work through them or outside of them. They are part of His creation and they bow before Him. He does not submit to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to think the word "science" is synonymous with "evolution." It is not. Evolution is only a hypothesis, not even a theory, and requires so much faith it might as well be called a religion. My point was that whether it is someone or something everyone exalts something as a god believing it to have been self existent from the beginning and ruling all else. To exalt the "natural" to the status of god is still to believe in the supernatural.
But if the laws of science are placed in this position without someone to create them there are significant problems. If the universe created itself it would have to have done so within the laws of science and the laws of science would also have to have made themselves or have been self-existent with no beginning. This is impossible because the laws of science have strict limitations. Only a God without limitations could make them and also be self-existent. God is infinite all knowing and all powerful. He created the laws of science and is able to work through them or outside of them. They are part of His creation and they bow before Him. He does not submit to them.

No, no, no. Evolution is a scientific theory with more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity. Only those with no science education at all would make the errors that you just made.

so let's forget about the rest of your post and start with a remedial education on the sciences. Are you willing to try to learn?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, no, no. Evolution is a scientific theory with more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity. Only those with no science education at all would make the errors that you just made.

so let's forget about the rest of your post and start with a remedial education on the sciences. Are you willing to try to learn?

This sort of thing is so often repeated, it makes me wonder if those reporting it in defense of science have ever studied anything that is actually science. This all sounds like the repetition of the same original creationist propaganda.

The entire body of evidence--starting with the evidence amassed by Darwin in his original thesis--puts the lie to the claim that the theory is reliant on faith. Yet, here it is again, repeated as if it were divine truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I recall asking you before for the test you use to check whether any statement is true or not. But you never did spell out that test.

I have a couple of facetious responses to this, but nothing useful other than to say that my personal determination is carried out by comparing and contrasting a statement to information I have previously acquired. It's not 100% reliable, but it is the best that I have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This sort of thing is so often repeated, it makes me wonder if those reporting it in defense of science have ever studied anything that is actually science. This all sounds like the repetition of the same original creationist propaganda.

The entire body of evidence--starting with the evidence amassed by Darwin in his original thesis--puts the lie to the claim that the theory is reliant on faith. Yet, here it is again, repeated as if it were divine truth.

Opponents to the theory of evolution tend to use two different tactics. They either make obvious false claims about the theory, as we just saw, or they use a false dichotomy of evolution versus Christianity. In regards to the latter one should remember that the vast majority of early scientists that accepted the theory of evolution were Christians and remained so. And also that worldwide most Christians accept the theory as well.

Hmm, I wonder how I would fare claiming that to be a True Christian one must accept the theory of evolution.

 

[blü 2]

I have a couple of facetious responses to this, but nothing useful other than to say that my personal determination is carried out by comparing and contrasting a statement to information I have previously acquired. It's not 100% reliable, but it is the best that I have.

Yo Dan

Trust all things are good in Smithville today.

As I've mentioned, my own view is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms with / accurately reflects, reality. It's a very usual approach, often called the 'correspondence' view.

 

[Bear Wild]

You seem to think the word "science" is synonymous with "evolution." It is not. Evolution is only a hypothesis, not even a theory, and requires so much faith it might as well be called a religion. My point was that whether it is someone or something everyone exalts something as a god believing it to have been self existent from the beginning and ruling all else. To exalt the "natural" to the status of god is still to believe in the supernatural.
But if the laws of science are placed in this position without someone to create them there are significant problems. If the universe created itself it would have to have done so within the laws of science and the laws of science would also have to have made themselves or have been self-existent with no beginning. This is impossible because the laws of science have strict limitations. Only a God without limitations could make them and also be self-existent. God is infinite all knowing and all powerful. He created the laws of science and is able to work through them or outside of them. They are part of His creation and they bow before Him. He does not submit to them.

You do not seem to know what science is. Evolution is just one aspect of science and is not synonymous but it is just as well supported as the other aspects of science. Evolution is not a hypothesis - look up what a hypothesis is in the scientific method and you will understand why that is incorrect. Evolution is not a religion either no more than plate tectonics is or quantum theory.
Evolution is the natural process whereby you and I came about and gave you the ability to incorrectly characterize evolution.
The universe created itself through the natural processes that we are trying to understand and science is the way we get knowledge about the amazing natural process that produces the incredible world we live in.
How can a natural process bow to anything. You are describing a human gesture to the rest of the natural world which does not make sense. The limitations of the natural world is the natural world itself which does not seem that limited.

 

[exchemist]

You seem to think the word "science" is synonymous with "evolution." It is not. Evolution is only a hypothesis, not even a theory, and requires so much faith it might as well be called a religion. My point was that whether it is someone or something everyone exalts something as a god believing it to have been self existent from the beginning and ruling all else. To exalt the "natural" to the status of god is still to believe in the supernatural.
But if the laws of science are placed in this position without someone to create them there are significant problems. If the universe created itself it would have to have done so within the laws of science and the laws of science would also have to have made themselves or have been self-existent with no beginning. This is impossible because the laws of science have strict limitations. Only a God without limitations could make them and also be self-existent. God is infinite all knowing and all powerful. He created the laws of science and is able to work through them or outside of them. They are part of His creation and they bow before Him. He does not submit to them.

This is, in fact, totally untrue, though I can imagine you may have been told it by the creationist circles in which you move.

The theory of evolution far from just a hypothesis. It is a fully formed theory, supported by massive amounts of observational evidence, from at least three different branches of science, independently (palaeontology, embryology, molecular genetics).

You can perfectly well believe in God as creator and yet accept all of science, evolution included. Most mainstream churches in fact do so without any difficulty.

In fact the mystery to most of us is why it is so crucial, for people like you, that evolution should be wrong. Can you explain what the doctrinal problem is that it causes? I presume there is more to it than simple biblical literalism, as many creationists seem to have no difficulty with the age of the Earth and cosmology, even though these also contradict the literal words of Genesis.

What is the special objection to evolution, that does not apply to these other theories? I've long wanted to understand this, simply from the point of view of insight into different branches of Christianity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I recall asking you before for the test you use to check whether any statement is true or not. But you never did spell out that test.

How about this method? It can be applied to the claims of the scriptures:

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

 

[jonathan180iq]

1 Intelligent design is detectable:

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design:

Your "simple case for intelligent design" is just circular logic...

 

[exchemist]

How about this method? It can be applied to the claims of the scriptures:

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Observation? Bearing in mind that, in context, this refers to reproducible observations of natural phenomena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about this method? It can be applied to the claims of the scriptures:

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

What happens when the scriptures fail, and it will happen again and again. One is not allowed to ignore failure using the scientific method. Nor are logical fallacies, such as the No True Scotsman, allowed.

 

[gnostic]

Your "simple case for intelligent design" is just circular logic...

Every cases for Intelligent Design are the results of creationists using circular reasoning or other fallacies, whether it be here at RF, or those wack jobs at AiG and at the Discovery Institute.

 

[exchemist]

Every cases for Intelligent Design are the results of creationists using circular reasoning or other fallacies, whether it be here at RF, or those wack jobs at AiG and at the Discovery Institute.

I wonder if Phillip Johnson realised, when the Discovery Institute was set up, that it would prove impossible for it to do any research.

There is a funny article about this, that I read some years ago and have kept an archive link to, here: The DI’s Genuine Imitation Leather Research Lab

This article refers to a visit by a reporter from the British magazine New Scientist, which actually resulted in the director being sacked, for inadvertently mentioning God and thus blowing the scam! It also mentions a computer simulation the Disco 'Tute did, which was supposed to illustrate how evolutionary mechanisms couldn't possibly work, but which ended up showing the exact opposite! Hilarious.

(This was the 2004 Behe and Snoke paper cited in the Kitzmiller trial.)

 

[ecco]

How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

If you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with god's existence, then god has only existed 6000 years.

Conversely, if you want to argue that god has always existed and...
if you want to equate the creation of the heavens and the earth with gods existence, then the heavens and the earth have always existed.

So, which is it or is it something else?

As I said God created all things and powers, even all things "invisible." This means God created time.

I realize that by posting multiple questions I may have caused confusion. So I'll simplify things and ask only one question:
How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

 

[viole]

This means God created time.

When did He do that?

Ciao

- viole