Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Personally, I would more easily accept that Pasteur's experiments showed that mice don't spontaneously generate from sweaty rags and wheat, for example, and not that he proved life cannot arise in so-called natural processes. I'm skeptical that we can scientifically prove that intelligent design is required for life to arise (even though I believe that God created the Universe) any more than we can scientifically prove God exists.

But think about this- 

For the better part of a century scientists- the best we have in this world, have come to understand the inner workings of microbiology. They have worked quite tirelessly to come up with a viable workable solution through natural law to create an environment and process that will replicate life. What they have so far found is that as of yet, no scenerio exists that can create life through natural laws. Talk about being skepticle!  The problem only compounds the more they understand all the working parts of the inner cell. The amount of intelligent information is so vast inside a cell we do not even have a computer with computatiobal ability that can match its workings and ability. And yet our body is made of trillions of them that work in harmony, networked together like a super computer we cannot even fathom. And yet, scientists have yet to observe just one incident of biological material being formed that can even carry one bit of intelligent information. Yeah, Im pretty skepticle of them.

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But think about this- 

For the better part of a century scientists- the best we have in this world, have come to understand the inner workings of microbiology. They have worked quite tirelessly to come up with a viable workable solution through natural law to create an environment and process that will replicate life. What they have so far found is that as of yet, no scenerio exists that can create life through natural laws. Talk about being skepticle!  The problem only compounds the more they understand all the working parts of the inner cell. The amount of intelligent information is so vast inside a cell we do not even have a computer with computatiobal ability that can match its workings and ability. And yet our body is made of trillions of them that work in harmony, networked together like a super computer we cannot even fathom. And yet, scientists have yet to observe just one incident of biological material being formed that can even carry one bit of intelligent information. Yeah, Im pretty skepticle of them.

I  don't disagree with anything you've posted just now. But scientists have yet to observe just one incident of many things including as I mentioned measurable evidence of God's existence. And I think that's alright. It may easily be that all knowledge of how God creates life is forever unavailable to mortals in a temporal sphere. I don't by any means say that scientists should therefore give up searching--because continual scientific research is the door to so many wonderful advancements. I am saying that perhaps part of God's method for creating life is more wonderful and fascinating than anything we can fully imagine or discover even though we can certainly come closer as we continue to research than we were a thousand years ago, or even 20 years ago. In my world view there is room for faith and knowledge even though neither my faith nor my knowledge is what I'd like it to be. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I  don't disagree with anything you've posted just now. But scientists have yet to observe just one incident of many things including as I mentioned measurable evidence of God's existence. And I think that's alright. It may easily be that all knowledge of how God creates life is forever unavailable to mortals in a temporal sphere. I don't by any means say that scientists should therefore give up searching--because continual scientific research is the door to so many wonderful advancements. I am saying that perhaps part of God's method for creating life is more wonderful and fascinating than anything we can fully imagine or discover even though we can certainly come closer as we continue to research than we were a thousand years ago, or even 20 years ago. In my world view there is room for faith and knowledge even though neither my faith nor my knowledge is what I'd like it to be. 

For me its simple- God created man through procreation. Why make it more complicated than that?

[Mike]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

For me its simple- God created man through procreation. Why make it more complicated than that?

It seems we've gone from Pasteur's experiment and all life in general--which is what I was speaking about--to the specifics of human life which isn't what I happened to really be thinking about at all at the time. But to say it's simple that Got created man through procreation just doesn't feel simple to me. That statement, and so much in life brings so many more questions into my mind. I'm often left with just my faith since as yet I haven't heard satisfactory answers to all my questions.

[MarginOfError]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

To be fair, you brought that upon yourself.  You began by telling the story of how a scientific lab did exactly what you're decrying.  Then you pointed to ID and said that's what the ID side does, just after pointing out the "scientific method" side does that.

You're somewhat conveniently failing to emphasize the decrying part. Indeed, the fact that I'm willing to call out failure to adhere to core scientific principles within my own laboratory rather strengthens my position.

The subtext of the story was clear: such behavior, regardless of where it is performed, is undeserving of the label 'science.'

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I  don't disagree with anything you've posted just now. But scientists have yet to observe just one incident of many things including as I mentioned measurable evidence of God's existence. And I think that's alright. It may easily be that all knowledge of how God creates life is forever unavailable to mortals in a temporal sphere. I don't by any means say that scientists should therefore give up searching--because continual scientific research is the door to so many wonderful advancements. I am saying that perhaps part of God's method for creating life is more wonderful and fascinating than anything we can fully imagine or discover even though we can certainly come closer as we continue to research than we were a thousand years ago, or even 20 years ago. In my world view there is room for faith and knowledge even though neither my faith nor my knowledge is what I'd like it to be. 

 

Very little in science has been discovered until someone was able to develop a good idea of how to look for it.  Somethings are discovered by chance but these things are usually a grand surprise and take time to figure out what it is that was discovered.  Dark matter being a fine example.  The only reason we think we have discovered dark matter is because of the effect it has on other stuff we know a little about. 

That science has not found G-d should not be much of a surprise to anyone.  The religions of man cannot even find the same G-d (or attributes of G-d) even when they read the same scriptures.   Obviously it is because those looking are looking for conflictingly different things.

Most that I have conversed with do agree that an engineered universe like this one is possible and in light of the existence of this universe – it is likely that even if a similar engineered universe does not yet exist - that it is probable that with evolution and the infinite possibilities that brought about this universe that it is likely and probable that at some point a similar to this universe will be intelligently engineered.    Now the question is – is this the inevitable intelligently engineered universe? 

This should make what we are looking for to prove engineered or not engineered more straight forward and more open to scientifically definition.  Looking instead for what any particular religion purports to be G-d appears to be to be too many variable and unknowns.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 20, 2017 by Traveler

[Mike]

@Traveler Thanks for your remarks. I'm curious, do you have an opinion one way or another about Gods own intentions with regard to being "discoverable" by science? I'm asking you to speculate.

[Traveler]

48 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

For me its simple- God created man through procreation. Why make it more complicated than that?

The only man (man and woman) spoken of as specifically created by G-d in scripture is Adam and Eve.  Many in religion believe Eve to have been created from a rib of Adam and not procreation. In addition many believe that your assumption that Adam and Eve were created by procreation; itself opens a can of religious worms with problems of pre-Adamites that procreated Adam and Eve.

Religious doctrine is that Adam was the first man.  But then science has found traces of Neanderthal DNA (currently extinct human like creatures – whose bones have been found and DNA samples taken) in small segments of human populations.

For me nothing is ever simple – the moment I think I have found an answer even, the most simple answer – it would seem that there are a thousand more questions.

 

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

@Rob Osborn, there is a fundamentail flaw in your argument. You claim is that the failure to prove the absence of a Designer is proof that said Designer exists. This line of logic is a fallacy.

When it comes down to it, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically rule confirm the existence of the Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until at least one of them is identified as The Designer.

Likewise, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically prove that there is no Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until it has been shown that exactly zero of them can be identified as The Designer.

That's it. End of story. And any honest scientist will concede that simple logical truth when pressed on the matter.

But you simply cannot conclude that the failure to disprove The Designer is proof that said Designer exists. That is a logical fallacy until the time that every last intelligent being in the universe has been observed (at which point the truth will be self evident).

If you can conceive of the impossibility of observing every intelligent being in the universe, then you might understand why science doesn't trivialize itself with the search for God, and why ID fails as honest scientific inquiry.

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

@Traveler Thanks for your remarks. I'm curious, do you have an opinion one way or another about Gods own intentions with regard to being "discoverable" by science? I'm asking you to speculate.

 

I use Chaos Theory and fractals often in my work.  If you understand fractals and how the micro relates to the macro then perhaps you may understand that not only do I believe that G-d is discoverable by science – I believe that all things witness that there is a G-d and are evidence of him.  But proof is something else and a most difficult thing to define – in mathematics a proof begins with assumptions and then using known principles a conclusion is proven.  But with G-d it is almost impossible to begin with assumptions – because most have already drawn conclusions. 

I personally do not believe that the G-d that created this universe and life on earth as we know it is trying to hide anything.  I think the G-d I would worship has every intent to be discovered and known in great detail.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

10 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

@Rob Osborn, there is a fundamentail flaw in your argument. You claim is that the failure to prove the absence of a Designer is proof that said Designer exists. This line of logic is a fallacy.

When it comes down to it, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically rule confirm the existence of the Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until at least one of them is identified as The Designer.

Likewise, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically prove that there is no Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until it has been shown that exactly zero of them can be identified as The Designer.

That's it. End of story. And any honest scientist will concede that simple logical truth when pressed on the matter.

But you simply cannot conclude that the failure to disprove The Designer is proof that said Designer exists. That is a logical fallacy until the time that every last intelligent being in the universe has been observed (at which point the truth will be self evident).

If you can conceive of the impossibility of observing every intelligent being in the universe, then you might understand why science doesn't trivialize itself with the search for God, and why ID fails as honest scientific inquiry.

 

Would you concede that if the universe is evolving and becoming more complex that the burden of a possibility that intelligence is not involved has the greater burden of proof?  That likewise, the discovery of an artifact more complex than what current intelligence is capable of achieving – that such is evidence and perhaps even proof that a more complex and more intelligent civilization once existed?

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I personally do not believe that the G-d that created this universe and life on earth as we know it is trying to hide anything.  I think the G-d I would worship has every intent to be discovered and known in great detail.

 

The Traveler

The verb "to hide" is easy to misinterpret, and I wouldn't want to be misunderstood as suggesting a meaning akin to mortal motivations. I would think, however, that God designed this world for our sake with the unavoidable caveat that faith in all its aspects is part-and-parcel of mortal experience. Wouldn't you agree?

[MarginOfError]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

For example- is the laws of chemistry and nature capable of, piece by piece, creating intelligent information such as DNA from chance events in nature? Of course scientists have been trying to test this for a very long time. So far, the evidence shows that chemistry and nature combined does not produce intelligent information. 

 

This is a jaw droppingly short sighted thing to say. 

Fun fact: it's quite likely that the time elapsed between homo sapien and stegosaurus is LESS than the time elapsed between stegosaurus and triceratops. 

The start of the Jurassic period was 200 million years ago. That time period represents less than 5% of the Earth's  age.  The age of the earth itself represents only a little less than a third of the age of the universe. 

And you're going to claim that because homo sapien has failed to replicate the conditions of your Designer as proof of your Designer's existence? 

Homo sapien's existence is still being measured on the scale of thousands of years. And it took your Designer over eight BILLION years to produce intelligent life!

When put into perspective, I have to say, your Designer doesn't sound anywhere near as Intelligent as you make her sound.

[MarginOfError]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Would you concede that if the universe is evolving and becoming more complex that the burden of a possibility that intelligence is not involved has the greater burden of proof?  That likewise, the discovery of an artifact more complex than what current intelligence is capable of achieving – that such is evidence and perhaps even proof that a more complex and more intelligent civilization once existed?

 

The Traveler

Proof of no God has always borne the greater standard of proof. That's an obvious artifact of the requirement to observe every single intelligent being (as opposed to stopping at the firat god). But at this point, it's we're arguing degrees of impossibility

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The age of the earth itself represents only a little less than a third of the age of the universe.

And we know the age of the universe how?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

@Rob Osborn, there is a fundamentail flaw in your argument. You claim is that the failure to prove the absence of a Designer is proof that said Designer exists. This line of logic is a fallacy.

When it comes down to it, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically rule confirm the existence of the Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until at least one of them is identified as The Designer.

Likewise, there is only one way to objectively and scientifically prove that there is no Designer. That is to systematically observe each and every intelligent being in the universe until it has been shown that exactly zero of them can be identified as The Designer.

That's it. End of story. And any honest scientist will concede that simple logical truth when pressed on the matter.

But you simply cannot conclude that the failure to disprove The Designer is proof that said Designer exists. That is a logical fallacy until the time that every last intelligent being in the universe has been observed (at which point the truth will be self evident).

If you can conceive of the impossibility of observing every intelligent being in the universe, then you might understand why science doesn't trivialize itself with the search for God, and why ID fails as honest scientific inquiry.

Not sure how many times weve tried to cover this here but again- ID theory is not looking for the designer, its only looking for finding out, or ruling out, that it isnt just chance from laws of nature that life arose.

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This is a jaw droppingly short sighted thing to say. 

Fun fact: it's quite likely that the time elapsed between homo sapien and stegosaurus is LESS than the time elapsed between stegosaurus and triceratops. 

The start of the Jurassic period was 200 million years ago. That time period represents less than 5% of the Earth's  age.  The age of the earth itself represents only a little less than a third of the age of the universe. 

And you're going to claim that because homo sapien has failed to replicate the conditions of your Designer as proof of your Designer's existence? 

Homo sapien's existence is still being measured on the scale of thousands of years. And it took your Designer over eight BILLION years to produce intelligent life!

When put into perspective, I have to say, your Designer doesn't sound anywhere near as Intelligent as you make her sound.

I dont even believe life is older than thousands of years old on this planet. We gotta start there cause millions of years is so far removed from my understanding

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont even believe life is older than thousands of years old on this planet. We gotta start there cause millions of years is so far removed from my understanding

I don't believe life is over 120 years old. NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH can personally confirm that the earth even existed 120 years ago! It's all smoke and mirrors!

Fact is, the earth was created fifteen minutes ago, but with the entire backstory in place. Brilliant and amazing, but nothing is too hard for God.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't believe life is over 120 years old. NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH can personally confirm that the earth even existed 120 years ago! It's all smoke and mirrors!

Fact is, the earth was created fifteen minutes ago, but with the entire backstory in place. Brilliant and amazing, but nothing is too hard for God.

"If I wanted too, I could come up with a theory that claims we were all created five minutes ago with wrinkles on our faces, food in our stomachs, and memories of events that never took place. Some people would believe it too."-Freshmen philosophy professor. He was 100% correct 

[MarginOfError]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure how many times weve tried to cover this here but again- ID theory is not looking for the designer, its only looking for finding out, or ruling out, that it isnt just chance from laws of nature that life arose.

That is the blatant, ugly spin used to overshadow the subtext of ID, which boils down to "I don't understand it, so it must be God."

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont even believe life is older than thousands of years old on this planet. We gotta start there cause millions of years is so far removed from my understanding

Based on the introduction to Intelligent Design on intelligentdesign.org--which I quote, "Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

I think you may have just disqualified yourself from constructively contributing to the discussion, seeing as you just declared that you believe ID to be false.

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

That is the blatant, ugly spin used to overshadow the subtext of ID, which boils down to "I don't understand it, so it must be God."

Based on the introduction to Intelligent Design on intelligentdesign.org--which I quote, "Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. "

I think you may have just disqualified yourself from constructively contributing to the discussion, seeing as you just declared that you believe ID to be false.

Theres many beliefs regarding how long life has been on the earth. Its irrelevent to ID theory. 

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't believe life is over 120 years old. NOT ONE PERSON ON EARTH can personally confirm that the earth even existed 120 years ago! It's all smoke and mirrors!

Fact is, the earth was created fifteen minutes ago, but with the entire backstory in place. Brilliant and amazing, but nothing is too hard for God.

Thats all right, go ahead a mock, when my Creator comes and reveals the truth you can buy me dinner

[Rob Osborn]

BTW, my understanding is actually spot on with official church doctrine so make sure you laugh at the church too.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

BTW, my understanding is actually spot on with official church doctrine so make sure you laugh at the church too.

Huh. Strange, because MY understanding is actually spot on with "official church doctrine", too. How 'bout that?

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Huh. Strange, because MY understanding is actually spot on with "official church doctrine", too. How 'bout that?

Hum..so you too believe that there was no death before the fall. Right on, good to have you on the right side