Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Evolution Implies Intelligent Design

Advertisement

If evolutionists are correct that biological life developed through a process of gradual changes, then it is far more likely that some type of Intelligence Designed life rather than that life developed without any intelligent controls.

Development through gradual change is the process humans use to produce things from automobiles to literary works to computer programs. The original automakers developed a simple vehicle with some type of motor, wheels, chassis, etc. Subsequent engineers modified these various components to produce faster, more efficient and safer vehicles.

Two groups of True Believers control the debate over the origin of life. The Evolutionists believe that life could only have developed from one original cell through a slow process of gradual changes that was not controlled by any type of Intelligent Being. Creationists believe that God created life and the only way God could have created life was to zap each individual species into existence fully developed.

Creationists don't explain why God would go to the trouble of designing life that can develop from a microscopic sized cell to something the size of an elephant or whale and then initially make each one fully developed instead of creating the cells and letting them develop in some nutrient rich medium. A being capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating an environment in which individual cells could develop into fully sized forms.

Nor do they explain where this belief comes from. Genesis says for the various life forms that God commanded the earth to "bring forth" and the earth "brought forth". That does not indicate God created each species separately. It indicates He ordered the earth to produce various classes of life forms such as plants or fish.

Both groups misunderstand the concept of Intelligent Design. The Intelligence wouldn't necessarily be the God of Abraham. The Designer might be inhabitants of a distant planet who put the necessarily biological products in comets and sent them throughout the galaxy. A Designer might have controlled the initial development of biological life and then allowed it to change without control. The Designer probably would not have made the first member of each species fully developed as Creationists believe.

Both Creation and Evolution involve ancient ideas. Charles Darwin didn't invent the idea of one species becoming another, he merely tried to come up with an argument for it. The ancient Tibetan religion went so far as to suggest that humans descended from monkeys. Darwin only suggested that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

The biggest argument for Intelligent Design is the extremely sophisticated characteristics of biological life, especially animal life. Presumably intelligent humans have only recently developed the necessary knowledge to duplicate the ability of the sophisticated audio input output "devices", video input devices, etc. possessed by animals. It seems unlikely such devices could just have happened to develop.

The cell itself can be described as a computer because, like a computer, when it receives an input, it checks its memory for the appropriate instruction and then executes that instruction. Biologists refer to the bases that make up the DNA molecule using four letters, but they can also be represented by "zeros" and "ones" like in a computer. Each link in the DNA molecule consists of one set of bases or the other("0" or "1"). Within a link one member of the set or the other ("0" or "1") is attached to a specific side.

One approach an Intelligent Designer might have been likely to have used would have been to create one cell to serve as a prototype. The Designer could then have added different modifications to the daughter cells of that original cell. A Designer unaffected by time might periodically have changed the design of life forms for various reasons including being bored with the older life forms.

An Intelligent Designer could have developed subsystems like eyes, hearts, etc. by making specific genetic changes, but development of such subsystems through random genetic changes would be mathematically improbable at best.

Evolutionists ignore the fact that an environment capable of producing one cell would almost certainly produce millions of cells that would probably have begun with subtle differences. Such cells could have had the ability to produce different sets of DNA and then "share" DNA when one cell ate another.

Creationists and Evolutionists would have more believable theories if they would switch one of the components of their theories. Creationists should be claiming that God started with a single cell and developed different species from it. Evolutionists should claim that different species developed from separate cells with the necessary DNA to produce animals with hearts, skeletons, etc. as the animal developed.

Comments

esj2003 2 years, 6 months ago

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... This guy.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

SM: Good points. The difference betwen the two belief systems:

The creationists will never admit the universe could be 'random.' If the scientists ever found the skygod sitting on her throne pulling these allegedly universal strings, they would admit they were wrong all these centuries, publish the results and move on to the next thing that needed study.

If it were possible to 'prove' universally powerful beings do not exist, the creationst would not accept the results and continue their magical explanations, no matter the evidence. Come to think of it, that's what they do now.

0

skootermonkey 2 years, 6 months ago

Evolution isn't a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory that helps to explain and predict. In order for a theory to be testable, one must be capable of controlling the variables and evolution has proven to be very testable.

So why don't evolutionary biologists ever say, "God must be behind this!"? Because in order to come to any conclusion, a theory (namely, "God did this") must be testable. In order to be testable, the variables must be controllable. Last time I checked, if your theory of God is correct, s/he cannot be taken out of the equation. Therefore, whether or not God is responsible can never be answered scientifically.

If you want to come to that conclusion, go for it. But a scientific theory won't come to that conclusion simply because it can't.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 6 months ago

Could god microwave a burrito so hot that he could not eat?

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Myname: Good points. An intelligent designer, should she exist, would not rework a fish over 300+ million years and turn that basic body design into what eventually became primates and humans. Danged hiccups (left over from tadpoles,) hernias (left over from male fish gonads when they had to exit the body and 'hang out there') and sinus infections (left over from the old fish-head design, etc., etc., etc. ===== "There has never been a shortage of jokes about the moral inadequacies of the legal profession. Take this golden offering: why do sharks not eat lawyers? Professional courtesy, of course. Thus, barristers are equated with savage, underwater killers and distanced, albeit jokingly, from humanity. And why not? you might ask. Lawyers scarcely deserve a reputation for being lovable or cuddly. Yet fossil expert Neil Shubin will have no lampooning of the legal trade. We are all sharks under the skin, he says or, to put it more precisely: 'We're all modified sharks - or worse, there is a lawyer inside each of us.' It is a disturbing notion. Nevertheless, it is based on sound science. As Shubin makes clear, evolution does not proceed in mighty anatomical jumps but through a process of gradual change, by transforming - very slightly - a gene, cell or bone so that it acts to a new purpose. In this way, a new species is eventually created, albeit one that still carries the hallmarks of its evolutionary predecessors, an inner connection that can - and often does - stretch over the aeons, from fish to humans. You can see these biological stigmata today, says Shubin. 'Our hands resemble fossil fins, our heads are organised like those of long-extinct jawless fish and major parts of our genomes still look and function like those of worms and bacteria.' We are all shark siblings, in short." --------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/feb/10/shopping.scienceandnature From a review of "Your Inner Fish." Shubin points out he could have called it "Your Inner Yeast" but it was not interesting as a title. The humble yeast could be our ultimate ancestor.

0

MyName 2 years, 6 months ago

Evolution doesn't imply any sort of design intelligent or otherwise. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the theory.

Two words: natural selection. That means that living organisms which survive pass on their traits to their children and those that do not survive do not. This drives the process of evolution. If you have a designer, then at best you have "unnatural" or "artificial" selection, which is one of the opposites of this process, I suppose the other being supernatural selection, or change driven by something that science doesn't accept as possible.

There is no evidence that either of those processes is what caused life on Earth to be the way that it is, but there is plenty for evolution by natural selection.

0

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 6 months ago

For the nonreligious, I think that it's worth mentioning that many of those who are theists simply cannot fathom a godless universe. They just can't conceive it. It doesn't mean that they're right. It also doesn't mean that they're wrong. What it means is, that rational argument gives way to blind faith.

For theists, design = God

For the nonreligious, design = Nature

It's just that simple.

The only compelling thing for me is to look at the immensity of the universe and ask myself whether an omnipotent, omniscient creator intended to create such a vast universe for our species. That thought always clarifies things for me.

0

citizen1 2 years, 6 months ago

Ron that is a distinction without a difference.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 6 months ago

Let me ask this question. If there really is just one God, and that one God has existed for all eternity and will last for all of eternity, and he/she made us in their image, does this God ever get lonely? It almost sounds like solitary confinement, without ever having death as a welcome end. Maybe instead of worshiping this God we should be giving sympathy to him/her.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 6 months ago

A few years ago I had a conversation with two young brothers (12 - 16) that were believing members of a very fundamentalist, that is, literal creationist, church here in town.

I posed to them the question, "Which do you think is the greater miracle, the creation of the earth, or the creation of light?"

They seemed to be both fascinated and stunned at the implications of such a question.

0

citizen1 2 years, 6 months ago

What is interesting is two different people with the exact same data set input can arrive at two different conclusions. This is because of their life experiences. This does not make either one necessarily wrong.

Given this result it is always interesting to see that thru the above posts the situation is "either/or". Why isn't there room for both scenarios. There is no question that the scope of the universe & the life that exists within the universe is truly magnificent and beyond the scope of randomness. Isn't it also interesting that the universe allows for the existence both the sciences & mathematics. Can the randomness alone explain this fact?

Given our level of knowledge there is nothing we have learned that would deny a "controlled event with built in constraints" that has led to the evolution of the universe & life as we currently know it. Thus it is fair to say both sides of the "creation versus evolution" theories can coexist.

0

ivalueamerica 2 years, 6 months ago

While I am a Christian, headlines like this throw me for a loop.

I think it is reasonable to have a belief in intelligent design, but I know many Christians that also believe differently, that it is a matter of science and chaos. it is arrogant to think that the universe and all its complexities are all about Humanity and ours to understand completely through science or religion.

And it is arrogant for Christians to feel some sort of right to force our their belief on other people through government intervention school. We have a belief system that should be taught by us to our children in our churches and our homes. We have no divine authority to force everyone to follow our beliefs and tell them that they have to think like we do or they are wrong.

My faith in God is NOT about power and control and supremacist, it is a very personal journey and I will share it to those who are open, I would be sinful to force it upon others, and it would be contrary to my understanding of God's word.

Of course, I am not your typical Christian, I have little regard for Churches as I feel most of them left God long ago for power and money, the Bible has some great lessons, but is not a perfect literal document and I do not feel that, for example, a Wiccan is not a child of God and will not go to heaven, I think they just understand God very differently than me.

Then of course, the Christian Supremacists and Bible literalists *read Bible re-writers will now come in and say that then I have no morals or rules because I do not follow their morals and rules. I say hogwash to them as I have morals and values and rules, based on my personal experience with God. He is my king, not them.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

"Please tell us why there is such a thing as an ordered universe & why it exists. An then try to explain why all of this ordered universe just happened by happenstance. All the while ignoring the science that says none of the order in the universe could have existed without a controlling influence." ==== What is, is. What has been discovered is demonstrated, even the big bang. Just because we don't understand something or cannot completely explain it doesn't automatically lead us to a magical explanation. See Sagan above for a review.

0

Lindsey Buscher 2 years, 6 months ago

"Evolutionists" is probably not the best term to use. Try "We-have-empirical-evidencists."

0

citizen1 2 years, 6 months ago

RonHolzwarth, I am a person who has studied the subjects you mentioned and holds a degree in science. Through out my life I have tried to evaluate both points of view regarding life.

One conclusion is evident, scientists only discover what is possible in an ordered universe. They create nothing new, only what is possible. They can change the prospects of our lives but they can not & do not change the order in the universe.

Scientists like to talk about the "creation of the universe" thru the so called "Big Bang" because their equations result in an so called "singularity". Does that mean their equations are correct? No, it just means their level of knowledge is not sufficient to explain why a "Big Bang" could or should have happened.

The big bang theory just glosses over the fact that matter existed & something changed in the state of that matter prior to the big bang. Why did the matter exist & why did its state change?

Most importantly scientists gloss over the fact that we live in an ordered universe and they try to accept prizes and adulation for just discovering what is possible thru the cover of discovery.

Please tell us why there is such a thing as an ordered universe & why it exists. An then try to explain why all of this ordered universe just happened by happenstance. All the while ignoring the science that says none of the order in the universe could have existed without a controlling influence.

0

devobrun 2 years, 6 months ago

Evolution, creation, spaghetti monster.......believe in all, none.....and nothing in your life changed.

You don't use any of it except to engage in argument. You can't use the information that we all descended from apes. You can't use the information that God created all of this.

The discussion is "of humanity". It is about hubris, politics, love, hate.......useless except in a human sense. You all argue your humanity. Your humanity. You are not able to do a test, build a device. It is about your feelings and thoughts and your humanity. Jeezy peezy, folks...you don't know how all this got here. Grow up and move on. Create a job for somebody....do something real.

Apelike creatures and God are for useless people. I want some science I can use to build something that will solve a problem. What?......Inner city youth will stop being gangsters because of Darwin? The Taliban will adopt a magnanimous approach toward women because spider monkeys and they share the 4 millionth, threehundredthusandth, twohundred and fifty seventh base pair in the 19 gene of their 6th chromosome?

What a bunch of malarkey. On all sides.
Do something, Leonard. Create a job that builds a future for the Greeks, they're broke......

0

its_just_math 2 years, 6 months ago

Faith in god does not reside in a building with a steeple, or based on what a man on TV tells me or what my upbringing dealt me. It resides in the heart. And I have it, and am very glad to possess it.

0

cthulhu_4_president 2 years, 6 months ago

As to the grand claim made by the author:

"Evolutionists should claim that different species developed from separate cells with the necessary DNA to produce animals with hearts, skeletons, etc. as the animal developed."

Claiming with no evidence that primordial cells contained DNA information for hearts and skeletons is like claiming that the DNA in the wheat I ate last night had DNA coding for calzones present, or else how could I have a calzone?

Actually, the above example is a pretty good metaphor for creationist logic in general.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

IJM: Thanks for the kind support. I supposed I'd stand by Shermer's statement from "The Believing Brain" if I had to:

"Lord, I did the best I could with the tools you granted me. You gave me a brain to think skeptically and I used it accordingly. You gave me the capacity to reason and I applied it to all claims, including that of your existence. You gave me a moral sense and I felt the pangs of guilt and the joys of pride for the bad and good things I chose to do. I tried to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and although I fell far short of this ideal far too many times, I tried to apply your foundational principle whenever I could. Whatever the nature of your immortal and infinite spiritual essence actually is, as a mortal finite corporeal being I cannot possibly fathom it despite my best efforts, and so do with me what you will." p. 55 Shanti

0

its_just_math 2 years, 6 months ago

Hoping for your sake many of you belligerent athiests/agnostics are certain about this. Hate to imagine the immediate moment after you draw your last breath. Could be in for a li'l surprise---a very unpleasant suprise. Buuuut, that's your choice, not mine.

May god bless your narrow-minded souls.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Carl said it best: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)" === except for magical thinking, all the evidence points to descent from common ancestors. Those who allege otherwise need something other than speculation to back up their claims. For example, the 'hox' gene, variations of which we share with many animals. Now where did that come from? Simple, our ancestors.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Agno: LOL. Did you see the story about the Pastafarian who was allowed to wear his sacramental colander on his head during an official picture? Priceless. May you, Agno, be touched by his or her noodly appendage. Shanti........Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

0

Agnostick 2 years, 6 months ago

Evolution implies Intelligent Design in much the same way that Olive Garden implies Flying Spaghetti Monster.

0

Paul R Getto 2 years, 6 months ago

Reasonmclucus : Yes, the religionists insist on continuing the age of magic. There are ancient books to read and there a few a bit more modern. Some suggestions http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474 http://www.amazon.com/Acquiring-Genomes-Theory-Origins-Species/dp/0465043925/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317670552&sr=1-2 http://www.amazon.com/Symbiotic-Planet-New-Look-Evolution/dp/0465072720/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317670552&sr=1-3 http://www.amazon.com/Microcosmos-Billion-Years-Microbial-Evolution/dp/0520210646/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317670552&sr=1-4 ======= Origins and evolution are not the same thing. If one wants to call the big bang the eye of god, makes no difference to me. The rest of the debate is just plain silly. We are animals and should not take umbrage at that. Dangerous, gifted and sometimes mean animals, but what the heck? What is is.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

"Creationists don't explain why God would go to the trouble of designing life that can develop from a microscopic sized cell to something the size of an elephant or whale and then initially make each one fully developed"

He was on acid had a great idea. That's as good a theory as any.

"Evolutionists ignore the fact that an environment capable of producing one cell would almost certainly produce millions of cells that would probably have begun with subtle differences. Such cells could have had the ability to produce different sets of DNA and then "share" DNA when one cell ate another. "

Are you sexually attracted to women with big noses, I mean like really huge ones? It would have a better sense of smell for finding food, but we still prefer smaller-nosed women that don't smell so much. We prefer to the extent that we continually euthanize those and other random genetic anomalies through natural selection. Of course, the opposite could be said about red-headed women, I can't explain why there aren't more. The Australians probable stole them while sailing to their nice prison colony to join the stone-age aboriginals teetering their way out of the stone ages, with big noses, I mean like really huge ones.

0

Liberty_One 2 years, 6 months ago

Hernias prove intelligent design is wrong.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

"Two groups of True Believers control the debate over the origin of life. The Evolutionists believe that life could only have developed from one original cell through a slow process of gradual changes that was not controlled by any type of Intelligent Being."

Three groups. A third that accepts the odds given the billions of groups, galaxies, stars, planets, planetoids, moons, asteroids and comets that there is life in the university unrelated biologically to any organism that has ever lived on Earth. Their is life out there, but they don't care about the earth. If they did we'd already be dead and served like beef to a Texan.

On a side note, I welcome our new (insert random noun here) overlords and plead with our wise and mighty rulers (peas be up on them) to not cook me in tomato sauce. Just eating it gives me heartburn. If you refer to the book at # 8,468,484,055 on universizon.glx, you will find a pleasant human-based recipe in Oolon Colluphid's "To Serve Man" for sashimi. I prefer to be consumed so. It is best served with a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster with Saki substituted for that sinful Ol' Janx Spirit. And none of that low-salt soy sauce. That's stuff lack enough kick.

0

funkdog1 2 years, 6 months ago

If life were designed by an all-knowing, all-wise creator then no changes would ever have to be made. Right? Am I wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 6 months ago

What are the three words humans hate to say? I don't know. What was the universe prior to the big bang? I don't know. What was there before God? I don't know. What lies beyond the universe? I don't know.

But just because we don't know now, doesn't mean we shouldn't examine those questions and speculate upon the answers even when we don't have enough information to know the answer. Science has developed rules for how it speculates, religion has developed it's own set of rules. And as long as we don't confuse which is which, I see no problem. When religion calls itself science or when science calls itself religion, then the confusion begins. Be clear where you're coming from and there should be no conflict.

0

autie 2 years, 6 months ago

Ben, your piece sounds more like some really bad science fiction written by an idiot that was convicted of fraud on occassion. Next thing we'll be hearing about space men and exploding volcanoes. Golden tablets from the top of a mountain or just found out in the Ohio woods...Evolution is not searching for any perfect form nor is "design" in the process. Random sputters and starts of what works and what doesn't. And there is no Easter bunny out there helping us along the path.

0

GalapagosPete 2 years, 6 months ago

"Evolution Implies Intelligent Design"

Actually, no it doesn't.

0

Ben_657 2 years, 6 months ago

Progressive evolution of design by advanced science and not nature is the key to understanding a new theory as to our origins.Understand the scientifically predictablity of the situation our humanity finds itself in today, then you can understand the original good intention, behind ALL the world religions, of which Buddhism without the mysticism, is nearest to the truth.ALL the world religions contain traces of evidence and it so happens that the Bible contains a somewhat compressed version of the timeline, of this particular master epic.We have 12000 years of progressive evolution of design by advanced science, slightly overlapping with 13000 years of our humanities history, together with one particular flood,possibly amongst others about 3800 bc. The only reason our humanity is here today is that it was decided to give us another chance on the basis that if we were dangerous as a humanity, we would self-destruct, for the rather self-evident reasons we can understand today.This is set against a backdrop of there have been many humanities on this very ancient planet, which have disappeared. Once you can consider this theory then the function of ALL the world religions becomes clear.Simply put to help our humanity to survive on it's own.We are on our own, but not alone

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 6 months ago

"Evolutionists ignore the fact that an environment capable of producing one cell would almost certainly produce millions of cells that would probably have begun with subtle differences. Such cells could have had the ability to produce different sets of DNA and then "share" DNA when one cell ate another. "

Actually, this is a common view of early life among Biologist (the idea of the Bush of Life at the base of Darwin's Tree of Life). For the vast majority of the history of life on Earth, it was all single cell life which, even today, is capable of exchanging portions of DNA in the form of plasmids. This and other parts of your screed suggest you need to get more current with evolutionary theory.

0

prospector 2 years, 6 months ago

Intelligent Design implies magic. Hokus pokus hokie.

0

autie 2 years, 6 months ago

If you are in the hallway with a mop or a broom in your hands, chances are you are a janitor.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 6 months ago

There are many things that are simply far beyond what some people require in order to change their firmly held opinions on subjects they have never studied. They simply have not studied physics or astronomy enough for their uneducated opinions to be taken seriously.

So, don't even try. It would be much easier to teach the Calculus to a first grader.

Many people simply do not believe that a multidimensional universe is even possible. It's quite a coincidence that these very same people have not got a clue of what exactly the General Theory of Relativity states, what the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty states, or for the more simple minded, they don't even really understand the Theory of Relativity, let alone quantum mechanics.

And of course they have not got a clue how to explain the existence of dark matter and dark energy, they simply prefer to leave the exploration of the fact of their existence to the physicists and astronomers at the cutting edge of their fields, and then claim that the experts on those fields are wrong for this reason:

They think they are wrong, just as Einstein's Theory of Relativity was not believed at all in 1905.

But for everything else, they have all of the complete answers, and they have no hesitation to tell you that they are experts on what they say.

Which of those two groups of people do you think has a more complete understanding of what reality really is?

0

lanceruffel 2 years, 6 months ago

There is nothing taught , studied, or investigated in the field of Geology that says or indicates that there is or is not a God. That evolution has occurred,says nothing about life's origin.Please take time to examine the wonderful examples of life's many complexities and changes through time.I feel saddened that so much effort is being expended to attack science in the desire to teach a religious agenda.A literal interpretation of any religious text misses the basis for that text.All religious texts are written by people.People put interpretations on religious documents that differ from each other. However if you believe in a God then look at the beauty of this planet, today and through the millions of years that this planet has existed. Look at the beauty and wonder of the changes life and the planet have gone through during those millions of years.Believe in your God and believe in the basic goodness of people , be kind to those around you.Try to do "good" works. The study of geology and the fact that evolution occurs can have no adverse impact to the belief in a God.Scientific investigation does not have to conflict with a BELIEF in a God.We have minds to look at the world around us, we have minds that can believe or not believe in a God.To close those minds to scientific investigation in the name of a God does disservice to the belief in that God and the teachers that first taught about one's religious beliefs.There are many religions,taught by many different people. If only one interpretation is thought to be correct,then people tend to fight to preserve their interpretation. The result is that people forget about being kind to each other and the original teachings of their religious masters.Scientific investigation does not have to conflict with religion. Teach religion in your home or place of worship, based on your beliefs. Teach science in our schools to examine how we and our universe are made and how we and our universe have evolved.Allow your religious beliefs try to answer "why".

0

riverdrifter 2 years, 6 months ago

"If evolutionists are correct that biological life developed through a process of gradual changes, then it is far more likely that some type of Intelligence Designed life rather than that life developed without any intelligent controls."

And if your sister had balls she'd be your brother.

Next.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.