Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Rob Osborn]

I guess we really do need to define what "science" is. I hate doing it but somehow we have digressed into basic semantics.

[askandanswer]

The attached article comes from the current online version of New Scientist. I don't fully understand it and I neither endorse or oppose it, I simply add it here because it seems to be highly relevant to this discussion. It makes the claim that life may have appeared many different times on earth. It also claims that the basic building blocks and processes for creating life do not require any fantastic events or unusual inputs, and that the main ingredients can be readily found in even a basic chemistry lab. Interestingly, the article makes a few references to the importance of clay in the creation of life.

 

multiple emergence of life.docx

[askandanswer]

Here is a link to an investigation carried out by the Australian equivalent of the American National Public Radio into how the whole peer review process can be massively manipulated. Its about a publishing company in India that publishes 700 peer reviewed titles, but apparently many of the academics who the publishing company claims reviews the articles have no idea that their names and reputations are being used in this way. 

For the record, I have no quarrel with the methodologies of science although I do note that politicians and governments can generally buy whatever scientific opinion they need to support their agendas.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/predatory-publishers-criticised-unethical-unprincipled-tactics/6656122

See also 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/bogus-society-offers-to-publish-papers-without-peer-review/6653748

If you wish to publish your paper immediately without peer review. We can do it for you.' Background Briefing exposes the predatory practices of an open access publisher that claims to be one of Sydney's leading scientific associations.

 

A scholarly publisher that claims to follow 'world best academic publishing protocol' has agreed to publish an academic paper 'immediately without peer review' in exchange for a $704 fee.

The Australian Society for Commerce Industry and Engineering (SCIE) agreed to the arrangement in an email exchange with Background Briefing during an investigation into predatory practices on the fringes of the academic publishing industry.

This publisher lifts pictures of professors from the internet, gives them new names, and advertises them as editors-in-chief of its mediocre journals.

JEFFREY BEALL, ACADEMIC LIBRARIAN

Academic publishing is a multi-million-dollar industry, with big names like Elsevier often accused of charging libraries extortionate fees for access to journals.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

1. The standard definition- "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

2. Im gonna rephash this a bit because we are speaking in terms of lifes origins here. Generally, the theory of evolution has all species coming from a common ancestor and from that common ancestor it was evolved from nonlife matter.

3. Peer review can mean many different things in context. Generally it refers to a common acceptance of your paper or works from your peers in that field. But, in this field its generally swayed automatically against intelligent design theory. ID theory papers and studies have gained acceptance in the peer review from time to time but its far from common.

4. Not sure what you are asking. If you are referring to ID and evolution then here is my response- I dont really see any weak arguments in ID theory. I find it very refined and worked out by established scientists who really know their stuff. The strong point of ID in my opinion is that it directly counters evolutions weakest point on the origin of life and how DNA is understood.

With evolution, its strongest point is micro evolution or change/varrience in species. We all are witnesses to variety amongst species. Its a no brainer, it exists. One of its weakest points besides explaining how life first arose, is how to explain how different species all come from a common ancestor. We cant observe it, we cant test it, it just sits there on paper as an ideaology. Science has no real answer here and because we cant observe or test it, it really shouldnt even qualify as a scientific theory. Its just a philosophy at this point in my opinion.

5. Im not sure what anyone in here really believes in honestly. Jane doe says she believes in ID but then argues against it scientifically. Kind of a paradox to me.

Ok.  Thank you.

The thing is that I agree with everything you've written in this post.  But all the posts prior seem to be filled with more rhetoric than definitions or logical statements.  It is the rhetoric that I'm having difficulty with (at least most of it).

Edited January 19, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The attached article comes from the current online version of New Scientist. I don't fully understand it and I neither endorse or oppose it, I simply add it here because it seems to be highly relevant to this discussion. It makes the claim that life may have appeared many different times on earth. It also claims that the basic building blocks and processes for creating life do not require any fantastic events or unusual inputs, and that the main ingredients can be readily found in even a basic chemistry lab. Interestingly, the article makes a few references to the importance of clay in the creation of life.

 

multiple emergence of life.docx

The link shows just why I balk at evolutionists claims. All these "what-ifs". And yet, even with their intelligently designed experiments they still cant get chemicals to form, create building directions for proteins and build biologic material. This is where it matters the most- chemical chains have to form that actually carry out a design that can be duplicated and carry out a purposeful action. Its what we would define as an intelligent design.

Computer programs, made to simulate this chemical chance of events are unable to simulate the necessary specified intelligent information. William Dembski has actually published work on this fact that specified information requires an intelligent input.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The link shows just why I balk at evolutionists claims. All these "what-ifs". And yet, even with their intelligently designed experiments they still cant get chemicals to form, create building directions for proteins and build biologic material. This is where it matters the most- chemical chains have to form that actually carry out a design that can be duplicated and carry out a purposeful action. Its what we would define as an intelligent design.

Computer programs, made to simulate this chemical chance of events are unable to simulate the necessary specified intelligent information. William Dembski has actually published work on this fact that specified information requires an intelligent input.

Now, that's better.

[prisonchaplain]

When it comes to the sciences I have a healthy dose of humility. Further, I am thoroughly biased when it comes to the big picture question of how it all began. God did it. He's the Original Cause, the Prime Mover, etc. I'm fully aware that some scientists have performed poorly in Evolution vs. Creation debates, hosted at churches, because they did not know how to communicate with a faith-based audience. The reverse has likely happened, as well--where outside creation-proponents, or creation-believing university students are called on to debate their position against peers, or even professors, in a science department setting.  Even this string shows me how quickly I found myself in over my head on details I was not proficient at.

The point of my OP was to suggest to believers that our basic faith that God made us ought to be such a strong encouragement.  Sometimes--especially in the setting I work in--that truth may be the only one convincing me that God might still care about my wretched life.  At the same time, agnostics and atheists might find this issue to be the ultimate win/lose. After all, if God did not make me and this world, I'm not accountable to Him at all. I might as well live my life as a freethinking rationalist, and try to live a joyful, interesting, and positive 80+ years, unencumbered by invented religious ethics.

The apple or the Garden?  I choose the garden. 

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

At least point out where I am wrong. You cant just give a blanket statement like that. You make it sound like I have ID theory erong when I copied it word for word from a leading ID site.

An ID site is not a scientific site.  Scientific definitions below--

1.  Intelligent design is a theory that suggests that that the results of the evolutionary process are not random, but follow an intelligent design determined beforehand by some source.  An example source would be a a creator God.

Difference: no reference to the origin of this life and uses evolution as a process within it.

2. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Difference: no reference to the origin of life, only the diversification of species.  A more detailed explanation would specify that this is through the transmission of genetic inheritable traits through successive generations.  

3. Peer review: the process in which pending publications are reviewed by peers in the field for scientific rigor and accuracy.  

Difference: this is a process, not specific to ID. 

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

When it comes to the sciences I have a healthy dose of humility. Further, I am thoroughly biased when it comes to the big picture question of how it all began. God did it. He's the Original Cause, the Prime Mover, etc. I'm fully aware that some scientists have performed poorly in Evolution vs. Creation debates, hosted at churches, because they did not know how to communicate with a faith-based audience. The reverse has likely happened, as well--where outside creation-proponents, or creation-believing university students are called on to debate their position against peers, or even professors, in a science department setting.  Even this string shows me how quickly I found myself in over my head on details I was not proficient at.

The point of my OP was to suggest to believers that our basic faith that God made us ought to be such a strong encouragement.  Sometimes--especially in the setting I work in--that truth may be the only one convincing me that God might still care about my wretched life.  At the same time, agnostics and atheists might find this issue to be the ultimate win/lose. After all, if God did not make me and this world, I'm not accountable to Him at all. I might as well live my life as a freethinking rationalist, and try to live a joyful, interesting, and positive 80+ years, unencumbered by invented religious ethics.

The apple or the Garden?  I choose the garden. 

What confuses me is why religious people believe that this is an either-or scenario - either we are created by God or we evolved.  I do not see why evolution has to be in conflict with God's creation.

I keep on going back to the example of Galileo.  The Church created a conflict where one doesn't exist - either we are the center of creation or the earth revolves around the sun.  They somehow couldn't grasp the concept that the earth can revolve around the sun and still be the center of creation.

These things doesn't have to be in conflict. 

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

An ID site is not a scientific site.  Scientific definitions below--

1.  Intelligent design is a theory that suggests that that the results of the evolutionary process are not random, but follow an intelligent design determined beforehand by some source.  An example source would be a a creator God.

Difference: no reference to the origin of this life and uses evolution as a process within it.

2. Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Difference: no reference to the origin of life, only the diversification of species.  A more detailed explanation would specify that this is through the transmission of genetic inheritable traits through successive generations.  

3. Peer review: the process in which pending publications are reviewed by peers in the field for scientific rigor and accuracy.  

Difference: this is a process, not specific to ID. 

Whatever makes you happy. Pretty much said the same thing...

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Whatever makes you happy. Pretty much said the same thing...

Rob, this is the issue.  To a scientist, these are not the same things.  That's why it becomes a big argument.  If we're going to talk science at least acknowledge the presence/absence of science.  If we can't see the difference, then we can't understand why ID does not pass scientific muster.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

What confuses me is why religious people believe that this is an either-or scenario - either we are created by God or we evolved.  I do not see why evolution has to be in conflict with God's creation.

I keep on going back to the example of Galileo.  The Church created a conflict where one doesn't exist - either we are the center of creation or the earth revolves around the sun.  They somehow couldn't grasp the concept that the earth can revolve around the sun and still be the center of creation.

These things doesn't have to be in conflict. 

It depends on how literally we take the creation accounts. For those of us that trend towards a literal-historical reading of the OT, our impulse to favor younger-earth creationist perspectives, because these allow for a simple, direct reading of Scripture. Those who embrace higher criticism and are willing to see much of the Bible as parable, allegory, and inspiration are much more open to the old-earth, naturalistic/materialistic understandings of science.  They prefer a more academic understanding of the sciences (and of Bible interpretation), believing that our faith is mainly in God and his ethics, and not so much on the details of scripture.

Edited January 19, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

It depends on how literally we take the creation accounts. For those of us that trend towards a literal-historical reading of the OT, our impulse to favor younger-earth creationist perspectives, because these allow for a simple, direct reading of Scripture. Those who embrace higher criticism and are willing to see much of the Bible as parable, allegory, and inspiration are much more open to the old-earth, naturalistic/materialistic understandings of science.  They prefer a more academic understanding of the sciences (and of Bible interpretation), believing that our faith is mainly in God and his ethics, and not so much on the details of scripture.

The Galileo experience pretty much opened and shut this case, didn't it?  Okay, so yes, there are still people who believe the earth is flat but they are on the fringes of Christianity.  I would think that the Galileo experience taught the Church that it need not be afraid of scientific discovery.  The truth of the scripture remains true regardless of what comes out of science.  Science merely gives us a better understanding of what scriptural verses actually imply.  So, instead of fighting science, the Church can use science.  Old-earth versus young-earth are both theories.  But old-earth has gone through scientific rigor and mountains of scientific evidence.  There's no need to resist the scientific evidence to cling to something without much evidence just because it is easier to reconcile with a few verses in scripture.  Rather, one can accept the evidence for either theory without it affecting in any way our belief in the truth of the gospel.  Why does it have to be a fight between religion and science?  They should work hand in hand to bring us closer to our understanding of God.

Edited January 19, 2017 by anatess2

[prisonchaplain]

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Galileo experience pretty much opened and shut this case, didn't it?  Okay, so yes, there are still people who believe the earth is flat but they are on the fringes of Christianity.  I would think that the Galileo experience taught the Church that it need not be afraid of scientific discovery.  The truth of the scripture remains true regardless of what comes out of science.  Science merely gives us a better understanding of what scriptural verses actually imply.  So, instead of fighting science, the Church can use science.  Old-earth versus young-earth are both theories.  But old-earth has gone through scientific rigor and mountains of scientific evidence.  There's no need to resist the scientific evidence to cling to something without much evidence just because it is easier to reconcile with a few verses in scripture.  Rather, one can accept the evidence for either theory without it affecting in any way our belief in the truth of the gospel.  Why does it have to be a fight between religion and science?  They should work hand in hand to bring us closer to our understanding of God.

The problem is always in determining what is unnecessary interpretation and what the Bible is clearly saying. Sometimes Bible interpretations are proven faulty. Sometimes scientific theories that have rigorous vetting and mountains of supporting data are proven wrong. Modernists say, "Don't fear the science," and traditionalists say, "Don't be so quick to dismiss biblical understanding." Most of us find ourselves between these two. I lean towards traditionalism, but sure, Galileo proved that religious leadership does well to practice some humility, and to extend a good deal of respect towards those who dedicate their lives to scientific learning.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Rob, this is the issue.  To a scientist, these are not the same things.  That's why it becomes a big argument.  If we're going to talk science at least acknowledge the presence/absence of science.  If we can't see the difference, then we can't understand why ID does not pass scientific muster.

As long as you say ID isnt science, then we will always disagree. Im surprised that scientists in generall  cant see ID as science. It truly boggles my brain. Folks like Behe and Dembski must be idiots eh?

Edited January 19, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The problem is always in determining what is unnecessary interpretation and what the Bible is clearly saying. Sometimes Bible interpretations are proven faulty. Sometimes scientific theories that have rigorous vetting and mountains of supporting data are proven wrong. Modernists say, "Don't fear the science," and traditionalists say, "Don't be so quick to dismiss biblical understanding." Most of us find ourselves between these two. I lean towards traditionalism, but sure, Galileo proved that religious leadership does well to practice some humility, and to extend a good deal of respect towards those who dedicate their lives to scientific learning.

I haven't heard of scientific theories that have rigorous vetting and mountains of supporting data proven wrong by religion.  Rather, they are proven wrong by science.  Science have that extraordinary capacity to correct its mistakes.

I think the problem points back to the Great Apostasy.  "Traditionalism" is affected by it because religion deigned to overstep God's revelations to apply philosophy and make them doctrine.  Science and religion is not as much of a conflict in LDS teaching.  Well, Rob is LDS but if this thread is any indication I think he is on the LDS minority in his rejection of evolution theory - I may be wrong on that.

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Galileo experience pretty much opened and shut this case, didn't it?  Okay, so yes, there are still people who believe the earth is flat but they are on the fringes of Christianity.  I would think that the Galileo experience taught the Church that it need not be afraid of scientific discovery.  The truth of the scripture remains true regardless of what comes out of science.  Science merely gives us a better understanding of what scriptural verses actually imply.  So, instead of fighting science, the Church can use science.  Old-earth versus young-earth are both theories.  But old-earth has gone through scientific rigor and mountains of scientific evidence.  There's no need to resist the scientific evidence to cling to something without much evidence just because it is easier to reconcile with a few verses in scripture.  Rather, one can accept the evidence for either theory without it affecting in any way our belief in the truth of the gospel.  Why does it have to be a fight between religion and science?  They should work hand in hand to bring us closer to our understanding of God.

There really isnt mountains of evidence as you claim. Both sides have evidence and each side is on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

As long as you say ID isnt science, then we will always disagree. Im surprised that as a scientist you cant see ID as science. It truly boggles my brain. Folks like Behe and Dembski must be idiots eh?

Let me remind you about my statement on Behe:

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

As far as Behe.  He is a scientist.  His ID claims were deemed lacking in scientific validity.  That doesn't mean that his ID conclusions are false.  It simply means that the scientific community agree that his method used to support ID does not meet scientific process standards.

So, you can take that 2 ways - ID is not science or ID is faulty science.  I'm fine with either one.

[Vort]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Well, Rob is LDS but if this thread is any indication I think he is on the LDS minority in his rejection of evolution theory - I may be wrong on that.

I suspect you are. Most Latter-day Saints, like most people in general, don't have a very good understanding of evolution. There is a longstanding bias in the Church against evolution, and many Saints are under the impression that the theory of evolution is some Satanic conspiracy to separate us from God. As someone with interest in these areas, I find that such an attitude sort of rankles.

But I generally keep my mouth shut about it, and usually only say something when someone starts pontificating in Church about the evils of evolutionary theory or some such. I'm happy to let people believe what they will without insisting that they share my viewpoint in every detail. When Christ healed the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, he didn't first lecture the man about the foolishness of believing such clearly non-doctrinal superstition about angels troubling the waters and the first one in gets a free healing. He just healed the guy. To me, that's a lesson that we don't need to be correct in all our beliefs to come unto God, and that in fact God may not even particularly care if we hold to certain false beliefs or superstitions.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There really isnt mountains of evidence as you claim. Both sides have evidence and each side is on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Ugh.  The evidence for old-earth vastly outweighs the evidence for young-earth.  Vastly.  Of course, we'll have to first agree on what constitutes SCIENTIFIC evidence.

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Let me remind you about my statement on Behe:

So, you can take that 2 ways - ID is not science or ID is faulty science.  I'm fine with either one.

The nice part is I dont have to believe you. I already know Behe is a scientist and does scientific work in ID theory. Take it or leave it I guess- you think one way I think another.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suspect you are. Most Latter-day Saints, like most people in general, don't have a very good understanding of evolution. There is a longstanding bias in the Church against evolution, and many Saints are under the impression that the theory of evolution is some Satanic conspiracy to separate us from God. As someone with interest in these areas, I find that such an attitude sort of rankles.

But I generally keep my mouth shut about it, and usually only say something when someone starts pontificating in Church about the evils of evolutionary theory or some such. I'm happy to let people believe what they will without insisting that they share my viewpoint in every detail. When Christ healed the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, he didn't first lecture the man about the foolishness of believing such clearly non-doctrinal superstition about angels troubling the waters and the first one in gets a free healing. He just healed the guy. To me, that's a lesson that we don't need to be correct in all our beliefs to come unto God, and that in fact God may not even particularly care if we hold to certain false beliefs or superstitions.

This is actually very surprising for me.  Thanks for the eye-opener.  It's difficult for me to imagine that the Catholics are more open to evolution theory than Mormons.  The Catholic magesterium and the Papacy has accepted evolution theory as non-conflicting to God way back in the 1950's causing most Catholics to be either accepting of it or ambivalent to it.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suspect you are. Most Latter-day Saints, like most people in general, don't have a very good understanding of evolution. There is a longstanding bias in the Church against evolution, and many Saints are under the impression that the theory of evolution is some Satanic conspiracy to separate us from God. As someone with interest in these areas, I find that such an attitude sort of rankles.

But I generally keep my mouth shut about it, and usually only say something when someone starts pontificating in Church about the evils of evolutionary theory or some such. I'm happy to let people believe what they will without insisting that they share my viewpoint in every detail. When Christ healed the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, he didn't first lecture the man about the foolishness of believing such clearly non-doctrinal superstition about angels troubling the waters and the first one in gets a free healing. He just healed the guy. To me, that's a lesson that we don't need to be correct in all our beliefs to come unto God, and that in fact God may not even particularly care if we hold to certain false beliefs or superstitions.

I think most people do have a pretty good view of evolution and are pretty smart with rejecting it. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The nice part is I dont have to believe you. I already know Behe is a scientist and does scientific work in ID theory. Take it or leave it I guess- you think one way I think another.

Of course you don't have to believe me.  But at least understand what I'm saying.  I've never argued that Behe is not a scientist nor that he didn't use the scientific method in ID.  But, just because you ran a scientific experiment doesn't make it science.  My son can submit science projects every year for the science fair.  Doesn't necessarily mean that the science fair accepts it as sound science.  And like I said - this requires us to have the same understanding of the standards of acceptable scientific method.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is actually very surprising for me.  Thanks for the eye-opener.  It's difficult for me to imagine that the Catholics are more open to evolution theory than Mormons.  The Catholic magesterium and the Papacy has accepted evolution theory as non-conflicting to God way back in the 1950's causing most Catholics to be either accepting of it or ambivalent to it.

The Church has disclaimed any ecclesiastical condemnation of evolution at least as far back as the early 20th century. But even though the Church has no formal institutional teaching against evolution, many Church members (including leaders, even General Authorities) have continued to harbor deep suspicions and even resentment against the idea. I suspect that, like the supposed "angel of the pool of Bethesda", this is one of those issues that God sees as unrelated to his work and therefore not worthy of revelatory clarification.

Besides, if God were to give a revelation, what would he say? "Evolution is true"? Even the scientists who support the theory don't pretend it's correct in every detail. God reveals divine truths. As far as I can tell, he doesn't weigh in on societal trends, including scientific theories or models.