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

riverdrifter 2 years, 11 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

lanceruffel 2 years, 11 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

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 11 months ago

lanceruffel, there are those that believe that someday physics and astronomy will complete the circle, and at that point the following conclusion will be reached:

It will be understood that just about all of the major religions are looking at the exact same thing, but from different cultural viewpoints, and not one of them describes the complete picture in its entirety.

See my post below.

0

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 11 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

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 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.

0

TopJayhawk 2 years, 10 months ago

Good points and of course no answer is forthcoming from the intellingent crowd.

When they have no answer, they do what they are doing now.
1) They say something silly and unrelated like autie just did. or 2) They do not even address what you said, like it never happened,.

0

Gary Denning 2 years, 10 months ago

An "ordered universe"? I think perhaps the scientists would want a definition of what this term means. I don't believe they would say we live in an "ordered universe". They might concede that certain physical principles exist, but I doubt that is what you mean by ordered.

0

Bob Forer 2 years, 10 months ago

What or who caused the Big Bang is the Ultimate Question. And its a question that will always remain unanswerable, at least to the intellectually astute among us. The only opinion I have is that those who claim to have the answer through religious beliefs are so far out in left field as to be laughable.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 11 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

Ben_657 2 years, 11 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

GalapagosPete 2 years, 11 months ago

"Evolution Implies Intelligent Design"

Actually, no it doesn't.

0

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 10 months ago

Actually, it's called begging the question.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 11 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

Liberty275 2 years, 11 months ago

"What are the three words humans hate to say? I don't know."

No, the three words humans hate to say are probably three offensive words which would get me banned if I uttered them on this award-wining news corporation's forum - while the mod giggles in a subdued manner. However I'll ignore the technical error and accept your phrase as part of the logic showing the metaphor. You win the logical argument even though your premise is not supported.

"doesn't mean we shouldn't examine those questions and speculate upon the answers"

Everything is a statistic, right? It has some percentage less than 100 of being correct. That really throws a gear into the machine because if it isn't true, which it can't be at any amount below 100 (absolute truth aka philosophy) or it has to generally be a lie because we rarely rate incorrectness. That sentence proves itself because it predicts differing theories/opinions (which you can purchase a statistic to prove) and will also generate similar opinions/theories even if they are not voiced because everyone is too lazy to read a whole paragraph.

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 10 months ago

I pretty much agree with what you're saying. A little less than 100%, but more than 0%.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 11 months ago

Forgot the rest, Sorry.

What was the universe prior to the big bang? Nothing What was there before God? God doesn't exist. What lies beyond the universe? Other universes full of sentient, super-sentient or sentient -impaired (that would be most of our friends on the right) beings.

0

funkdog1 2 years, 11 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

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 11 months ago

Here's where you're wrong: No changes have been made for quite some time. The proof of that is that miracles seldom occur.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 11 months ago

Changes have been attempted and found beneficial to the species. For instance, well endowed women and Asians - and especially well endowed Asian women. You cannot base your argument on "No changes have been made for quite some time" because I just fairly proved the assertion wrong with a more detailed and better proven theory.

I'm sure a bookworm could provide actual concrete examples.

"The proof of that is that miracles seldom occur."

LOL. Did that car hit you today? How about the other hundreds you passed? If you believe in miracles you have to believe every positive moment down to a nil time period is a miracle.

Any more inaccuracies for me to throw rocks at today? :-)

0

Liberty275 2 years, 11 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

Liberty275 2 years, 11 months ago

"life in the university unrelated biologically to any organism that has ever lived on Earth"

I wasn't speaking of our lately defeated Jayhawks attending my beloved Alma Mater, KU. I meant that university with the panther thing.

LOL. Seriously, that's a pretty silly mistake. A fie on thee (for our creator-believing friends, that means "I curse you") automatic spell check for making me look dumber than I am by pointing out I made a typo while spelling "universe", which I do in fact know how to spell.

Most 47 year old men never "learned" to type, we just sort of started doing it at 30, so we do it wrong. I do it wrong at about 20 WPM, although I passed a test at 37. Sue me.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 11 months ago

He means hernias. Read "Your Inner Fish". Great book.

0

webmocker 2 years, 10 months ago

Liberty_One (anonymous) says…

"Hernias prove intelligent design is wrong."

So does having the tube humans use to breathe mixed up with the one we use to eat and drink.

0

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Even worse, our elimination and sexual systems are connected.

This has been considered very good evidence that God is a civil engineer - who else would put a waste disposal line in the middle of a great recreational area?

0

funkdog1 2 years, 10 months ago

jafs: This is only true for men, not women. Proof that women are superior? Proof that god's a woman? Probably proof that god's a man.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 11 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

Stuart Evans 2 years, 11 months ago

Pascal's wager. I have experienced or witnessed enough sorrow and misery to know that any god that is responsible for this mess, is not one that I would worship. The Abrahamic god of the bible has killed and killed and killed, to satisfy his jealousy and other humanistic emotions; The devil is responsible for 10 killings. Not that either of them are real, or anything to actually fear.

You find our minds to be narrow, and our actions to be belligerent. But you fail to understand that most atheists grew up with religion; education, or broad experiences drew us away from our religious backgrounds. Also, as most people do, when their thought process is challenged, you assume that we're being belligerent or antagonistic; We're really just expressing our own point of view. It only seems mean-spirited, because you've probably been brought up to never challenge another persons belief system. What atheists have discovered though, is that people use their beliefs in gods to sway legislation, and force those private beliefs on everyone. This makes your private beliefs open for challenge, and most don't like that; It challenges them to think about what they believe, or go on the defensive to try and protect what they believe.

Evolution is a fact; it's happening right now, all around us, just as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Pretending it isn't real, so that you can protect your pearly-gates dream, may keep you happy, but it doesn't make it true.

0

cthulhu_4_president 2 years, 11 months ago

I LOVE Pascal's wager, because it is so easy to debunk.

The above comment implies that the wager for the atheist follows like so:

choice A: Believe in God to play it safe, so just in case the atheist is wrong, he can still partake in God's everlasting love (seems like kind of a selfish reason to proclaim the faith. Sort of like a lie, actually. But, hey, if your god is cool with it then that's his business. Though I wonder if God polygraphs you before you can be let in?). Then if the atheist is correct, nothing happens. This choice is the supposed happy ending for the atheist.

choice B: Don't believe in god, die, then if the atheist is wrong, he gets to lament his wrong-ness for eternity as the ever-loving, (but somehow gay-hating) christian god torments him. Nice guy. Again, if the atheist is correct, nothing happens.

Given these two choices, the obvious bet would seem to be to believe in God, just to play it safe, however that's where reality unfortunately interferes. To win the wager, one must not only believe in god, but they must believe in the CORRECT god in order to his/her favor in the afterlife. All of a sudden, the above scenerio isn't as simple, as we now have a choice to make for every god that does and ever has existed. In the incredibly unlikely scenerio that a diety of some kind does exist, I really hope the above commenter has chosen the correct one to align himself with, or they'll find themselves warming the bench right next to the atheists! I'll probably see him there! Or, more likely, nowhere.

0

cthulhu_4_president 2 years, 11 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

Kirk Larson 2 years, 11 months ago

It burns in the heart...like acid reflux. Whether or not god exists, I believe all religions were created by men. If god exists, he knows what I believe and I don't need to pray loudly that other men might think me righteous.

0

cthulhu_4_president 2 years, 11 months ago

That's a very beautiful sentiment, however, it seems to be at odds with your previous comment @ 3:40. In that comment, you pretty much say that faith in god comes down to a simple choice that one can make to avoid eternal punishment in the afterlife. So, which is it? Is faith in god a lifechanging, incorporeal, heart-residing awesomeness, or is just a 'get out of hell free' card?

Or, in more general terms, is faith something that you actually take seriously, as you state here, or something that you can just pretend to take seriously just to get entry into heaven, as you said @ 3:40?

0

devobrun 2 years, 11 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

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 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

Lindsey Buscher 2 years, 10 months ago

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

0

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Maybe.

But there is a certain hubris in assuming that we can/will be able to explain everything eventually, when some of the biggest questions seem quite elusive, even after many years of scientific inquiry.

Like the creation of the universe, the fundamental nature of matter, etc.

0

Grant_Runyun 2 years, 10 months ago

Perhaps, but i think it takes more hubris to assume it was all done by a supernatural being that we have some inside information on. It is only very very recently in human history that we've been able to take a good look at some of the questions you mention. The amount of knowledge we've acquired in a short time is truely breath-taking (concerning everything from black holes, to dark matter, fundamental particles, etc etc). We may never reach a unified theory of everything, but it excites me to no end to see the advancements we have made and continue to make.

0

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

Religious folks certainly have their share of hubris as well.

But, many understand that we don't know everything, and that their faith is not knowledge.

I think it's sort of a funny joke of sorts that as we learn more, the fundamentals escape us - there's something in the nature of the way we study reality that makes it unlikely that we can get a really "objective" understanding of the basics.

It's interesting and fun to learn about it, of course.

But, as quantum physics shows, at a certain point, our study and examination of reality affects the results, and so "objectivity" is not really possible at those levels.

And, as Kuhn shows in his work on scientific paradigms, our theories affect the way we see things as well.

0

ivalueamerica 2 years, 10 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

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 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

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 10 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

jhawkinsf 2 years, 10 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

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

Ron that is a distinction without a difference.

0

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 10 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

jafs 2 years, 10 months ago

There's no need to believe the entire universe was created for human beings alone, or even primarily.

0

MyName 2 years, 10 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

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 10 months ago

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

0

skootermonkey 2 years, 10 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

David Reynolds 2 years, 10 months ago

"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."

Sorry but it is not testable! There are no proven links to humanity. There are "suppositions, maybe's & many...many assumptions" & "Scientific opinions" but nothing concrete.

Regarding predictability, evolutionists & scientists, of all backgrounds, do not have the ability to predict anything related to the universe & especially life. If predictability was possible then humanity would have been able to tells us every type of species and their variability.

As the situation currently stands scientists are surprised each year by the hundreds of new species discovered.

Evolution is at best a theory lacking any predictability either forward or backward. Any supposed links on any tree of life are based purely on field observation.

With regard to the human tree, there are so many missing links, and vast time periods between any supposed links, that the credibility of any link can questioned if push comes to shove. Just because we find a skeleton with a certain shape & articulation does not prove a definitive link to humans of today.

We make predictions regarding existing & new celestial bodies by observing the effects of gravity, light and heat signatures. We can not accurately predict anything specifically based on our current knowledge. All current predictions are based on observations. Thus forecasting is a mute point.

A key characteristic of science and a scientific fact is the ability to predict thru mathematics and repeated thru experimentation. You can do none of these with the theory of evolution.

0

esj2003 2 years, 10 months ago

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... This guy.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.