The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

darjeeling

Galvasean wrote: »

Not great punishment considering how well snakes are doing.
Question: Would the Biblical snake of Eden have had legs?

Yes:


No:


Maybe:

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

But not all ID proponents belong to this 'ID movement' of which you speak. You are doing the exact same thing as people who would lump all atheists in with 'the atheist movement' in America which, under Madeline Murray O'Haire, was profoundly homophobic. Therefore, by the same logic, atheists are homophobes.

The idea of ID makes sense to a lot of people who are not Creationists, and prominent ID proponents believe and state that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor.

The problem is one of terminology. The contemporary term "Intelligent Design" is normally associated with the intelligent design movement, which claims it is scientific to infer design.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I don't think it refers to all Christians who believe god created the universe.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but equally there is an actual ID movement, centered around a specific defined idea of Intelligent Design, coming from groups like the Discovery Institute who popularized the term "Intelligent Design" (notice the capitals) in modern times (specifically Charles Thaxton) and use it regularly to refer to their specific idea, an idea that does not state that all life have evolved from a common ancestor.

I think it is safe to assume when people on this thread discuss ID they are probably referencing this group or movement, just like it is safe to assume when people say "evolution" they mean the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution, as opposed to say Lamarckism evolution, or theories of economic evolution.

While you may be someone who holds to both intelligence and design in the natural world that doesn't mean you hold to the ideas of the Discovery Institute, so when people talk about ID as a specific thing, rather than the general non-specific notions of intelligence and design, it is safe to assume they aren't talking about you.

I think it is going to get unnecessarily pedantic if you require this to be clarified every time someone says ID.

So Michael Behe, who believes that we are all descended from a common ancestor via evolution, is not to be considered as an ID proponent?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So Michael Behe, who believes that we are all descended from a common ancestor via evolution, is not to be considered as an ID proponent?

Michael Behe doesn't believe that so the question is some what irrelevant in a Do you still beat your wife? sort of way.

Behe (as of 2007, he might have changed his position once again I don't know) doesn't believe that random mutation and the natural selection of said mutations can produce jumps in species, and thus could not have produced bio-diversity of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Michael Behe doesn't believe that so the question is some what irrelevant in a Do you still beat your wife? sort of way.

Behe (as of 2007, he might have changed his position once again I don't know) doesn't believe that random mutation and the natural selection of said mutations can produce jumps in species, and thus could not have produced bio-diversity of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

This is one of those classic facepalm moments when someone says one thing and someone else responds with a statement that is totally irrelevant.

Michael Behe does believe that, via evolution, we have all descended from a common ancestor.

He doesn't believe it has happened by random mutation.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This is one of those classic facepalm moments when someone says one thing and someone else responds with a statement that is totally irrelevant.

Michael Behe does believe that, via evolution, we have all descended from a common ancestor.

He doesn't believe it has happened by random mutation.

Groan. :mad:

See my earlier post

I think it is safe to assume when people on this thread discuss ID they are probably referencing this group or movement, just like it is safe to assume when people say "evolution" they mean the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution, as opposed to say Lamarckism evolution, or theories of economic evolution.

When we refer to "evolution" we mean Darwinian biological evolution. Behe does not believe in that. That he believes in general evolution meaning simply small gradual change is not relevant to the point.

PDN the only issue seems to be you dip into this thread every once and a while and aren't very up with the short hand terminology use. You are taking specific posts out of context and assuming the terminology used in them is something it isn't.

The polite thing to be would be to say something like "What do you guys mean when you say evolution?" or "When you refer to ID do you mean everyone who believes in a designer?", rather than simply bringing out the accusations trying to score points.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan. :mad:

See my earlier post

I think it is safe to assume when people on this thread discuss ID they are probably referencing this group or movement, just like it is safe to assume when people say "evolution" they mean the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution, as opposed to say Lamarckism evolution, or theories of economic evolution.

When we refer to "evolution" we mean Darwinian biological evolution. Behe does not believe in that. That he believes in general evolution meaning simply small gradual change is not relevant to the point.

So you are using 'evolution' to mean something that by definition must be unguided or undirected? OK

PDN the only issue seems to be you dip into this thread every once and a while and aren't very up with the short hand terminology use. You are taking specific posts out of context and assuming the terminology used in them is something it isn't.

So because I only visit the nuthouse now and again rather than living here then I miss your peculiar use of language.

So, let's get this clear,according to Wicknight, 'Creationist' refers to someone who accepts that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor, believes that this happened by a process of gradual evolution over millions of years, but doesn't accept that this process was random?

That's interesting. So a theistic evolutionist is, according to Wicknight, a Creationist. It leads me to two more questions:

a) Do other posters here agree with Wicknight's definition of 'Creationist'?

b) Doesn't anyone think it likely to cause confusion by applying a loaded term like 'Creationist' to those who, according to how 99% of English-speakers use the term, are not Creationists?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this clear,according to Wicknight, 'Creationist' refers to someone who accepts that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor, believes that this happened by a process of gradual evolution over millions of years, but doesn't accept that this process was random?

Why not look at creationist sites and see what they say on the subject.

http://creationwiki.org/Creationism#Types_of_Creationism

Oh look Intelligent Design is a type of creationism as stated on a creationist website. Who would have ever thunk it!

Oh that's right. Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to this thread and wasn't making random entrances and exits trying to gain points.

That's interesting. So a theistic evolutionist is, according to Wicknight, a Creationist. It leads me to two more questions:

Why don't you take it up with the creationwiki folks ?

Or better yet why don't you pay attention to this thread if your going to try and comment on it ?

a) Do other posters here agree with Wicknight's definition of 'Creationist'?

What type of creationist ? Just to clarify since you seem to confused about terms everyone else here can use and understand. See you got your Old Earth ones and your new Earth ones and your muslim ones and your christian ones and your fundamentalist ones and ....

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

That's interesting. So a theistic evolutionist is, according to Wicknight, a Creationist. It leads me to two more questions:

a) Do other posters here agree with Wicknight's definition of 'Creationist'?

b) Doesn't anyone find that a wee bit dishonest since over 99% of English speakers mean something very different by 'Creationist'?

Can't paint them all with the same brush even though all are creationists i.e. they believe it was created. How that was done is where they differ.

Young Earth Creationists cannot believe in the gradual long term evolution simply because their theory does not incorporate the lengths of time required.

Old Earth Creationists don't usually have a problem with the time element involved. Some of them believe that there was millions of years of evolution but still don't believe that this process was random.

Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created life by a process of gradual evolution over time.

Other Theistic Evolutionists don't believe God has left any trace of His hand in creation at all, so they don't even bother to look for it even though the apostle Paul tells us in the early chapters of the book of Romans that He did.

ID proponents believe that Intelligence can be detected at the most fundamental levels of living systems. This is supported by the complexity and specificity of DNA. Protein formation is based on the specific folding of amino acids into specific three dimensional structures. The specific sequence in which to fold these amino acids is derived from encoded information within the DNA molecule. It is DNA which holds the information required to instruct the specific folding of amino acids into three dimensional proteins. This information needs to be first decoded then executed.

And it is proteins which perform all the various functions in the cell in order to have a proper functioning cell. And there a many different types of cells. Depending on the coding, cells will become either liver tissue, bone tissue or brain tissue and so on. Cells are preprogrammed with the information they need in order to become a certain type of cell and then to carry out the various functions in all living organisms. Plus all the various organs that the cells go to make up all have to work in tandem and support of each other in order for the organism in question to function adequately. If one organ is not working properly then it will affect the health of the body as whole.

To say that it is a leap of faith to infer that there is a higher intelligence behind all of this is just stupefying to the point of numbness of the brain. At what point can intelligence be inferred if not at this microscopic level of complexity? ID explains it very elegantly, whereas Chance, Necessity or even a combination of both do not, can not and never will.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So you are using 'evolution' to mean something that by definition must be unguided or undirected? OK

I'm using evolution to mean the selection (natural or otherwise) of beneficial random mutations.

This is Darwinian evolution.

Behe doesn't believe the selection of random mutations (natural or otherwise) can account for the emergence of species, thus he doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution (or as we shorten it here, "evolution")

PDN wrote: »

So because I only visit the nuthouse now and again rather than living here then I miss your peculiar use of language.

It would seem so. Traditionally it is considered better to spend a bit of time understanding the flow of large threads on Boards.ie rather than just jumping in. It avoids misunderstandings.

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this clear,according to Wicknight, 'Creationist' refers to someone who accepts that all living creatures have descended from a common ancestor, believes that this happened by a process of gradual evolution over millions of years, but doesn't accept that this process was random?

Non-random mutations is not Darwinian evolution. It is just building. If you build a house, evolving it from a few bricks in mud to a full house, you are not following Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution is an explanation of the process that selects random changes to only allow the beneficial to survive in future generations.

The selection process can be natural or artificial. But if the mutation process is constructed that isn't Darwinian evolution, it is just building.

PDN wrote: »

That's interesting. So a theistic evolutionist is, according to Wicknight, a Creationist.

Theistic evolution seems to change everytime one of you come on to give us a definition of theistic evolution, so I'm reluctant to give any definition since it is like trying to trap air with a net.

The most common definition of theistic evolution I've seen is that God selects from the random mutations. This would still be Darwinian evolution (it is an artificial selection process but still a selection process).

Though quite why anyone would think God would bother to do this rather than simply make the mutation he was looking for in the first place is beyond me, but then I find theistic evolution profoundly silly position to take to begin with. Compared to Creationism theistic evolution seems ridiculously convoluted, which is saying something.

PDN wrote: »

a) Do other posters here agree with Wicknight's definition of 'Creationist'?

Do other posters still beat their wives? Yes or no answers only please.

PDN wrote: »

b) Doesn't anyone think it likely to cause confusion by applying a loaded term like 'Creationist' to those who, according to how 99% of English-speakers use the term, are not Creationists?

I think people who don't understand this topic should avoid attempting to label themselves Evolutionists, Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, theistic evolutions etc etc all together.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Oh that's right. Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to this thread and wasn't making random entrances and exits trying to gain points..

I suggest you try to understand how internet discussion fora work. Posters are free to engage in a thread on a regular basis, or on an infrequent basis.

If you don't like that, then you are free to leave.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Michael Behe doesn't believe that so the question is some what irrelevant in a Do you still beat your wife? sort of way.

I think that Behe would disagree with you. Indeed, I believe he said as much last week when he was on the Unbelievable last week debating with Keith Fox, a fellow Christian scientist who doesn't accept ID as a valid scientific theory.

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

The ID proponents have mathematically proven that the chance hypothesis of the Materialists is wrong ... and only the appliance of intelligence can scientifically explain the origins and/or development of the CFSI in life.


[/B]There are three reasons for this:-
1. The Materialists (and their `fellow travellers') are currently in control of the scientific establishment ... and they openly proclaim that they will not `allow a Divine foot inside their doors'.
2. The Materialists have no evidence or any plausible reason why materialistic processes could ever spontaneously produce life or develop the massive levels of CFSI in even the simplest cell, to say nothing about a Human Being ... while there is ample scientific evidence for an intelligent origin of life.
Faced with this reality, it would seem that the only viable strategy is to suppress the debate entirely ... using a self-serving materialistic definition of science to exclude the evaluation of an intelligent origin of life from science itself.
3. The Materialists are supported in this by many Christians who also seem to have bought into the idea that God either didn't create anything or left no evidence of His actions.


You seem to be assuming that logic has something to do with the Materialist position ... when it is abundantly clear that their position is founded on the emotional and illogical denial of the existence of God ... in contravention of maths, logic and the physical evidence for His intelligent actions!!!;):)
If you doubt this, just look at the emotional diatribes directed against ID and Creationism on this thread, while simultaneously not providing a screed of unambiguous physical evidence for the preposterous notion that muck somehow spontaneously produced mankind by a process of selected mistakes, over billions of (nonexistent) years !!!
The whole thing is an obvious (and specious) nonesense ... as John May says, it is the result of "the high priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable.":eek:

So its a mathematical impossibility for even one simple protein to self assemble from the basic building blocks of life i.e. amino acids? And yet we are asked to believe that the human brain - the most complex information processing machine (we know of) in the universe - came about through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's funny...

Only a person who has excluded God a priori would be able to barefacedly stand up in a crowd of people and proclaim such ridiculous nonsense. I'm sick of people of faith being the butt of smears and laughs by those who ridicule religion because it is based on faith. You can't have any more faith than to believe in this random mutations crap. Like J C says, there is no evidence for it at all. It cannot be observed in nature and it cannot be tested in the lab. Anytime you try, it fails miserably and yet it is still held up there as a valid scientific mechanism for how life evolved. The mind boggles???

It is scary to think that this idea still holds sway over the mainly materialistic scientific community because it simply suits their world view. No wonder they have a hard time letting go of it. It really is the only game left in town for them.

Ever notice that this theory is always compared to the theory of Gravity and General Relativity and never the other way around? That's how sound it is as an actual scientific theory. The serious scientific disciplines give it a wide berth and would not want to be compared to it. Nobody really believes in it but most scientists are afraid to even question it or challenge it. It used to explain things in a naturalistic way up until the 50s but due to what science has discovered over the last 50 years or so it is reduced to grabbing at straws and making those who still hold to it loose a lot of credibility as scientists in the eyes of people who have not abandoned reason or their natural instincts in seeing the obvious hand of a creator in all of nature. Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations is a dead theory, get over it.

To all people of faith, the next time some dim wit puts you down for having faith in an invisible God just rub these facts in their face. They have as much, if not more faith, in their theory than you do in God.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that Behe would disagree with you. Indeed, I believe he said as much last week when he was on the Unbelievable last week debating with Keith Fox, a fellow Christian scientist who doesn't accept ID as a valid scientific theory.

Probably. Behe changes his position so regularly it is very difficult to keep up. As I said to PDN I was basing my 2007 Behe, which is by now 3 years out of date compared to 3 weeks ago Behe :pac:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Can't paint them all with the same brush even though all are creationists i.e. they believe it was created. How that was done is where they differ.

Young Earth Creationists cannot believe in the gradual long term evolution simply because their theory does not incorporate the lengths of time required.

Old Earth Creationists don't usually have a problem with the time element involved. Some of them believe that there was millions of years of evolution but still don't believe that this process was random.

Some Theistic Evolutionists believe that God created life by a process of gradual evolution over time.

Other Theistic Evolutionists don't believe God has left any trace of His hand in creation at all, so they don't even bother to look for it even though the apostle Paul tells us in the early chapters of the book of Romans that He did.

ID proponents believe that Intelligence can be detected at the most fundamental levels of living systems. This is supported by the complexity and specificity of DNA. Protein formation is based on the specific folding of amino acids into specific three dimensional structures. The specific sequence in which to fold these amino acids is derived from encoded information within the DNA molecule. It is DNA which holds the information required to instruct the specific folding of amino acids into three dimensional proteins. This information needs to be first decoded then executed.

And it is proteins which perform all the various functions in the cell in order to have a proper functioning cell. And there a many different types of cells. Depending on the coding, cells will become either liver tissue, bone tissue or brain tissue and so on. Cells are preprogrammed with the information they need in order to become a certain type of cell and then to carry out the various functions in all living organisms. Plus all the various organs that the cells go to make up all have to work in tandem and support of each other in order for the organism in question to function adequately. If one organ is not working properly then it will affect the health of the body as whole.

To say that it is a leap of faith to infer that there is a higher intelligence behind all of this is just stupefying to the point of numbness of the brain. At what point can intelligence be inferred if not at this microscopic level of complexity? ID explains it very elegantly, whereas Chance, Necessity or even a combination of both do not, can not and never will.

You appreciate, I hope, that intelligent design can be used to explain everything and anything, so long as you are happy to accept the existence of the required intelligence.

Intelligence X designed phenomena Y for reason Z explains everything, just replace the variables with what ever you want to explain and you will find you have an explanation for it, from why atoms are the way they are to why my shower isn't working.

So the issue has never really been can intelligent design explain something, since as I said it can explain anything.

The issue is are we justified in accepting the existence of the required intelligence. After all intelligent design cannot work unless the intelligence required actually exists.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So its a mathematical impossibility for even one simple protein to self assemble from the basic building blocks of life i.e. amino acids?

No it isn't.

For a start the protein problem argument doesn't even say it is impossible, just very unlikely. You could win the lotto tomorrow, but you probably won't.

The protein problem argument says that the search space is so large it is very very very unlikely that you will randomly find form the specific protein you are looking for in a short period of time (4 billion years is relatively short given the search space).

Secondly the protein problem argument assumes that the protein is trying to assemble itself into a specific arrangement, rather than simply any arrangement. The odds someone will win the lotto are a lot more likely than you will win the lotto.

But then that is the puzzle Darwinian evolution solves! It is not an issue with evolution, it is what evolution is explaining.

Anyone who thinks this is a problem for evolution rather than the specific problem evolution is solving doesn't understand evolution.

Ergo JC doesn't understand evolution (neither do you apparently).

Ergo why would you listen to what he says about evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And yet we are asked to believe that the human brain - the most complex information processing machine (we know of) in the universe - came about through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations?

Yes we are. Yet that isn't what JC is talking about. It is easy for a protein to form itself through a process of natural selection. The search space shrinks significantly. Creationists know this, which is why they never talk about a protein forming itself through natural selection, just a protein forming itself magically out of thin air.

Watch JC when this is pointed out to him. What does he do? He shifts to talking about something else.

Soul Winner wrote: »

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's funny...

Funny, that is my response everytime JC says something as well, though possibly for a different reason. :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sick of people of faith being the butt of smears and laughs by those who ridicule religion because it is based on faith. You can't have any more faith than to believe in this random mutations crap.

If you are sick of people ridiculing you about evolution or Creationism stop saying ignorant things about evolution or Creationism (that goes for JC too).

Whether you believe it or not is up to you. But it would be a good idea to bother to understand it first.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

So its a mathematical impossibility for even one simple protein to self assemble from the basic building blocks of life i.e. amino acids? And yet we are asked to believe that the human brain - the most complex information processing machine (we know of) in the universe - came about through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's funny...

Only a person who has excluded God a priori would be able to barefacedly stand up in a crowd of people and proclaim such ridiculous nonsense. I'm sick of people of faith being the butt of smears and laughs by those who ridicule religion because it is based on faith. You can't have any more faith than to believe in this random mutations crap. Like J C says, there is no evidence for it at all. It cannot be observed in nature and it cannot be tested in the lab. Anytime you try, it fails miserably and yet it is still held up there as a valid scientific mechanism for how life evolved. The mind boggles???

It is scary to think that this idea still holds sway over the mainly materialistic scientific community because it simply suits their world view. No wonder they have a hard time letting go of it. It really is the only game left in town for them.

Ever notice that this theory is always compared to the theory of Gravity and General Relativity and never the other way around? That's how sound it is as an actual scientific theory. The serious scientific disciplines give it a wide berth and would not want to be compared to it. Nobody really believes in it but most scientists are afraid to even question it or challenge it. It used to explain things in a naturalistic way up until the 50s but due to what science has discovered over the last 50 years or so it is reduced to grabbing at straws and making those who still hold to it loose a lot of credibility as scientists in the eyes of people who have not abandoned reason or their natural instincts in seeing the obvious hand of a creator in all of nature. Natural Selection acting on Random Mutations is a dead theory, get over it.

To all people of faith, the next time some dim wit puts you down for having faith in an invisible God just rub these facts in their face. They have as much, if not more faith, in their theory than you do in God.

I expected this kind of behaviour from JC, but from you Soul Winner?

The mathematical probability of the first self-replicating system evolving is on the order of 1 in 10^40. Highly improbable by the time-scale of a human lifetime, but entirely plausible across geological time-scales of billions of years. And once natural selection gets going, a complex human brain can evolve in as little as a few billion years. Couple this with the positive evidence that this has actually occured, and you have a very powerful theory.

We have been over all this before, but instead of acknowledging this, you go down the route of rhetorical nonsense paved by J C.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's funny...

Like J C says, there is no evidence for it at all.

Only a person who has excluded scientific research a priori could barefacedly stand up to a crowd and proclaim such ridiculous nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-3820
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/

Above is a small fraction of the research output of the scientific community. Some are open access. Some are subscription. Read the ones you can.

And the reason Gravity is never "compared" to evolution is Cosmologists et al don't have religious nut-job organisations claiming the theory is offensive to their particular interpretation of their particular book.

So please, let JC have the monopoly on asinine and vapid posts in future.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Only a person who has excluded scientific research a priori could barefacedly stand up to a crowd and proclaim such ridiculous nonsense.

http://www.nature.com/
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0014-3820
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/
http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/

+1

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

The mathematical probability of the first self-replicating system evolving is on the order of 1 in 10^40. Highly improbable by the time-scale of a human lifetime, but entirely plausible across geological time-scales of billion of years.

More on the actual probability here -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

a) Do other posters here agree with Wicknight's definition of 'Creationist'?

b) Doesn't anyone think it likely to cause confusion by applying a loaded term like 'Creationist' to those who, according to how 99% of English-speakers use the term, are not Creationists?

Personally, I like to make a point of saying 'Young Earth Creationists' as not to have people think I'm referring to your average run of the mill theist who accepts that the universe is billions of years old.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Personally, I like to make a point of saying 'Young Earth Creationists' as not to have people think I'm referring to your average run of the mill theist who accepts that the universe is billions of years old.

Ok, so that's making a distinction between an Old Earth Creationist and a Young earth creationist. But an OEC may still believe the world was created in six days, just that it was billions rather than 6000 years ago.

What about someone like Michael Behe? He differs from the OEC in that he doesn't believe the world was made in 6 days, nor does he believe species were created fully formed. He accepts that the earth is billions of years old. He accepts that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor - pretty much following the same gradual changes as you within a similar time framework as you do. (He accepts this for scientific reasons, such as DNA, geology, carbon dating etc). The only difference is that he doesn't accept that these gradual changes took place randomly.

Now think about that for a moment. Is it fair to label such a person as a 'Creationist' - knowing fine well that the word 'Creationist', in many people's minds, is a pejorative term describing a YEC? Do you think that to label such people as Creationists promotes informative discussion? Or is it more a form of muck-raking?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ok, so that's making a distinction between an Old Earth Creationist and a Young earth creationist. But an OEC may still believe the world was created in six days, just that it was billions rather than 6000 years ago.

What about someone like Michael Behe? He differs from the OEC in that he doesn't believe the world was made in 6 days, nor does he believe species were created fully formed. He accepts that the earth is billions of years old. He accepts that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor - pretty much following the same gradual changes as you within a similar time framework as you do. (He accepts this for scientific reasons, such as DNA, geology, carbon dating etc). The only difference is that he doesn't accept that these gradual changes took place randomly.

Now think about that for a moment. Is it fair to label such a person as a 'Creationist' - knowing fine well that the word 'Creationist', in many people's minds, is a pejorative term describing a YEC? Do you think that to label such people as Creationists promotes informative discussion? Or is it more a form of muck-raking?

You know I didn't call Behe a Creationist, right? You for some reason jumped from demanding to know if I though he was an ID proponent to saying I was defining him as a Creationist.

As I said to you and Fanny I would be cautious about calling Behe anything since his position seems to shift every second day. The "only difference" that you mention above is a whopper of a difference, swapping out Darwinian evolution for direct building by God.

I have a question for you. When you say "evolution" are you talking about a form of gradual evolution other than Darwinian evolution? If that is the case perhaps you should clarify that, since when we say evolution here most of us are talking about Darwinian evolution, and thus it is some what confusing when you say that Behe holds to "evolution" since he doesn't hold to Darwinian evolution.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

You appreciate, I hope, that intelligent design can be used to explain everything and anything, so long as you are happy to accept the existence of the required intelligence.

Intelligence X designed phenomena Y for reason Z explains everything, just replace the variables with what ever you want to explain and you will find you have an explanation for it, from why atoms are the way they are to why my shower isn't working.

So the issue has never really been can intelligent design explain something, since as I said it can explain anything.

The issue is are we justified in accepting the existence of the required intelligence. After all intelligent design cannot work unless the intelligence required actually exists.

It would appear that Natural Selection can also be used in the exact same way. There's even a Natural Selection theory which can be applied to the Cosmos doing the rounds now. Anyway, yes Intelligence can explain most things in nature because intuitively it makes sense to our cognitive faculties. The reason Natural Selection is so popular with materialists is because it can explain design without a designer. In its wider scope it can do this, but with closer scrutiny it starts to fall apart as a valid explanation for how life got going and how it evolved. If Natural selection only starts acting when life comes about then it was not active prior to life forming. Hence life forming under strictly natural means was just a fluke chance happening, or it was deliberately constructed by a Constructor.

The only people who object to a Constructor are those who feel that the implications of that being true would just devastate their world view. That's why they will jump through all kinds of hoops - even imaginary hoops - in order to keep their sacred theory based in Materialism alive.

So the real conflict is not between Religion and Science as such, its between certain world views. Depending on how you interpret the available evidence you will side with one or the other. Materialist interpret the evidence with the need to appeal to a designer and ID proponents interpret the same evidence as obviously designed. Unlike the materialists they have no problem with whatever religious implications that interpretation might have.

That you can't detect the Intelligence source itself has no bearing on the fact that a thing is designed. When you find the remains of an Inca village you don't assume that design is a bad explanation because we can't find the Inca people who built it. That would be stupid. Some people look at DNA and it is blatantly obvious to them that there must have been intelligence involved simply due to the fact that there are billions of lines of code - enough to fill hundreds of bibles - encoded within its double helix structure. A code that has stored (encoded) within it all the information and instructions needed to build cells, tissue, organs, blood vessels, arteries, skin, hair, bone and so on. How did that information get there? How did DNA come about? How did it get from coming about to learning how to encode information like this? What is it????

Will get to your other post later. Have to pop out now...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would appear that Natural Selection can also be used in the exact same way.

No actually it can't.Natural selection can only apply to self replicating systems that are subject to environmental factors.

You have to demonstrate these precursors first, where as intelligent design you don't have to demonstrate said designer exists or is even possible or what he is like, you can just imagine he is probably there, can probably do what you require him to do, probably wanted to do what you require him to do, and then explain anything.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Anyway, yes Intelligence can explain most things in nature because intuitively it makes sense to our cognitive faculties.

Doesn't that make it some what pointless? Everything is a nail if all you have is a hammer, and everything is intelligently designed if all you are considering is said designers.

You don't have to justify said designer exists, had the power to do the design or even wanted to do since you simply assume all these things are true. Thus you can explain anything. Wipe all scientific theory from human history and you could simply replace it with "Because designer X said so"

Soul Winner wrote: »

The reason Natural Selection is so popular with materialists is because it can explain design without a designer.

Correct.

And since we don't have a designer (scientists tend not to just pick things out of the air that they require to make something work) it is a very elegantly explanation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

In its wider scope it can do this, but with closer scrutiny it starts to fall apart as a valid explanation for how life got going and how it evolved. If Natural selection only starts acting when life comes about then it was not active prior to life forming.

Natural selection doesn't only start working when life comes about. Natural selection works on anything that replicates and suffers environmental pressure.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hence life forming under strictly natural means was just a fluke chance happening, or it was deliberately constructed by a Constructor.

You don't have a Constructor to test that with. You simply make one up, and conveniently give him the ability to do this in the first place.

Again you can explain anything by doing that.

Say you wake up in the morning and find your car over turned. Since a a hurricane was forecast your wife says maybe it was the wind

You on the other hand suppose someone did it. Your wife says who would have done that and you say you aren't sure but you are sure someone must have, such an explanation makes more sense to you than the wind theory.

Your wife says but no one could lift a car to flip it over

You go then it must have been someone with super human strength.

Your wife says but it was pitch dark last night, who could have seen where the car was.

A man with night vision eye sight you say.

Satisfied by this explanation you return to your breakfast knowing that a x-ray visioned super human criminal threw your car over in the night. The question does such a being actually exist is avoided, in fact it must exist, your car is after all flipped over and the existence of such a being explains that fact.

See how silly that is.

You just made up what ever intelligent being was required to justify thinking it was done by an intelligent being. And then used the fact that your car was over turned as support for the existence of said super criminal, justifying it all by saying it explains what happened to your car.

You do the same thing with Intelligent Design. You suppose the existence of a being necessary to perform this design without justifying that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only people who object to a Constructor are those who feel that the implications of that being true would just devastate their world view.

No, the only people who object to a Constructor are those who object to scientists simply picking an arbitrary explanation just to fit a conclusion.

Lots and lots and lots of the objections to ID come from Christians and members of other religions. Trying to make this out to be atheists afraid to face up to the truth of God is just a diversion tactic because you can't actually justify inserting a designer into the world.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the real conflict is not between Religion and Science as such, its between certain world views.

The conflict is between non-science and science. Arbitrarily picking a designer that just so happens to have the necessary properties in order to make intelligent design work is not science. Why? Because you have no idea if you picked right, or if such a being actually exists.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That you can't detect the Intelligence source itself has no bearing on the fact that a thing is designed.

Yes actually it does, because if the being with the properties necessary to design the thing doesn't exist then it could not have been designed.

If an x-ray super criminal doesn't exist then your car could not have been flipped over in the night by an x-ray super criminal.

If an omnipotent super intelligent being capable of manipulating matter at an atomic level in any place on Earth at any time doesn't exist then life on Earth could not have been designed by an omnipotent super intelligent being capable of manipulating ... well you get the idea.

That something looks designed (in our entirely subjective and very prone to error opinion) is irrelevant if said designer doesn't exist.

Using the existence of this "it looks designed" thing to then suppose that there must be a designer out there with the properties necessary to create such a design is circular reasoning, and not science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

When you find the remains of an Inca village you don't assume that design is a bad explanation because we can't find the Inca people who built it.

That is because we know people exist, people who build villages. We knew this before we came across the Inca village. We already knew this fact, thus a being capable of doing this isn't the issue since humans are capable of doing this and we already know humans exist. .

On the other hand when you find your car flipped over you do assume that a super powerful x-ray being is a bad explanation because you have no evidence said being exists at all, he was simply invented with the required properties to get the car flipped over.

Likewise with God. We don't know God exists. You can argue you believe he does but that is not a scientific position since you cannot justify it.

Thus you are supposing the existence of a being required to produce the desired explanation with nothing to justify the assumption of that existence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Some people look at DNA and it is blatantly obvious to them that there must have been intelligence involved simply due to the fact that there are billions of lines of code - enough to fill hundreds of bibles - encoded within its double helix structure.

Some people don't have a clue about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

PDN

You know I didn't call Behe a Creationist, right?

No, I don't know that, since you equated ID poponents with Creationists. That's why I asked you if you consider Behe to be an ID proponent. However, if you are now admitting that ID proponents are not necessarily Creationists then I will happily accept that you didn't call Behe a Creationist.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have a question for you. When you say "evolution" are you talking about a form of gradual evolution other than Darwinian evolution? If that is the case perhaps you should clarify that, since when we say evolution here most of us are talking about Darwinian evolution, and thus it is some what confusing when you say that Behe holds to "evolution" since he doesn't hold to Darwinian evolution.

I can't answer that question unless I know whether you are using a normal dictionary definition of evolution, or your own special meaning.

If we take dictionary definitions:

free dictionary wrote:

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Merrian Webster wrote:

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

biology-on-line.org wrote:

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

None of these definitions (all of which Behe affirms) require that evolution be random. Nor does natural selection. Natural selection explains why some traits win out over others, but does not attempt to explain whether those traits arose via a random process or as a result of some other agent.

What Behe does not subscribe to is a definition of evolution that explicitly specifies that the process must be random (I'd love to see evidence for such a claim) and thereby rigidy excludes any intervention by an outside agent in the process.

So, if you are using 'evolution' to refer to a concept that can only be random, then I am happy to accept that you are using both 'evolution' and 'Creationist' in ways contrary to how they may be understood by the majority of the English-speaking world. That's fine - but it pretty well renders meaningless any statements I will see posted by you in the future referring to either 'evcolution' or 'Creationists'.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't know that, since you equated ID poponents with Creationists.

Wow, my time machine works, its a day ago. :rolleyes:

Well yes, that was sort of my point and why I quoted the proponents bit, like you might talk of "Christians" who blow up abortion centers.

I was responding to JC's use of the terminology:

JC - The ID proponents have mathematically proven that the chance hypothesis of the Materialists is wrong

That is a Creationist claim, and it is based on a lie about what the theory of evolution says. While I disagree with the wider ID claims I wouldn't directly say they are lying. Creationists like JC on the other hand...

I wasn't equating IDers with Creationists, I was pointing out that the idea JC was attributing to IDers is actually a Creationist idea (and a very deceitful one at that).

I suspect he was trying to make it sound more reasonable by attributing it to IDers.

PDN wrote: »

However, if you are now admitting that ID proponents are not necessarily Creationists then I will happily accept that you didn't call Behe a Creationist.

Did you read my first reply to you, or did you just skip over it and assume what ever it was I said it was probably wrong so no need to bother?

PDN wrote: »

I can't answer that question unless I know whether you are using a normal dictionary definition of evolution, or your own special meaning.

As I've stated already I'm using evolution as short hand for Darwinian evolution.

just like it is safe to assume when people say "evolution" they mean the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution, as opposed to say Lamarckism evolution, or theories of economic evolution.

Since I've already clarified that point it would be helpful if you are using evolution in a different context to Darwinian evolution to let rest of us know.

PDN wrote: »

What Behe does not subscribe to is a definition of evolution that explicitly specifies that the process must be random (I'd love to see evidence for such a claim) and thereby rigidy excludes any intervention by an outside agent in the process.

And as such Behe does not subscribe to Darwinian evolution, which is what most people on this thread are talking about when they say "evolution" or the theory of evolution.

If you simply mean Behe subscribes to the idea that things can gradually change then I would happily agree, but then so does everyone so it is a bit of a non sequitur.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

If you simply mean Behe subscribes to the idea that things can gradually change then I would happily agree, but then so does everyone so it is a bit of a non sequitur.

You know that's not what I said. But, since I'm about to board a 17 hour flight, I won't bother arguing about it.

So in essence you are arguing in the Christianity forum for a theory that, by definition, rules God out of the process. No wonder this thread goes nowhere.

Adios.

Jimmy444

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only people who object to propose a Constructor are those who feel that the implications of that not being true would just devastate their world view. That's why they will jump through all kinds of hoops - even imaginary hoops - in order to keep their sacred theory based in Materialism alive.

...

Now your post makes sense - cuts both ways pal.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You know that's not what I said. But, since I'm about to board a 17 hour flight, I won't bother arguing about it.

So in essence you are arguing in the Christianity forum for a theory that, by definition, rules God out of the process. No wonder this thread goes nowhere.

Adios.

The time to point out you were using a different notion of "evolution" from Darwinian evolution (which I had already clarified was the use I was using) was here

PDN wrote: »

So Michael Behe, who believes that we are all descended from a common ancestor via evolution, is not to be considered as an ID proponent?

this was after I already said that on this thread "evolution" is taken, in the majority of cases, to refer to Darwinian evolution.

To make doubly clear I said this to you soon after

When we refer to "evolution" we mean Darwinian biological evolution. Behe does not believe in that. That he believes in general evolution meaning simply small gradual change is not relevant to the point.

I said all of this yesterday.

To turn around now and start making out that the confusion is some how my "special definition" of evolution when I have clarified exactly what definition I've being using is just pointless arguing.

Enjoy your flight, hopefully it will give you time to reflect on your unnecessarily argumentative and aggressive posting style.

Zombrex

Jimmy444 wrote: »

Now your post makes sense - cuts both ways pal.

Good point. It is difficult to come across a proponent of a designer who doesn't have an ideological vested interest in said designer existing that has nothing to do with the question of the origin of life.

On the other hand you get proponents of biological evolution from all walks of life and all religions, some of which believe in a creator deity and others that don't.

Makes the claim of bias on the part of biologists a little hard to swallow.