Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks to Anddenex for the explanation.

I'm actually in agreement with much of what Rob says (assuming Anddenex's explanation is correct). I get mighty tired of atheists using evolution as a weapon to rub the faces of believers in their atheism. Their dishonesty in doing so is breathtaking.

But the appropriate response to such actions is not to wage a holy jihad on organic evolution. It is to separate out the facts from their lies, and then demonstrate that one's beliefs are not in opposition to fact, and that the other implications are indeed lies.

For the record, I reject what I consider the Watchmaker Fallacy. Yes, if I see a watch on a forest path, I don't assume it evolved by natural means. But if I see a tiny cog in a watchmaker's factory, I do assume it's part of the factory and not that it was brought it from outside the factory in a separate special creation.

Our bodies are part of the world around us, made from the world's elements, and existing in the milieu of the biology and microbiology of the world. Nature is the canvas upon which we are painted. We are made of the same genetic material as the animals (and plants!) around us. There are even animals that look astoundingly like us, and that share the vast majority of our genome. We see animals exhibit love, devotion, loyalty, anger, betrayal, guilt, shame, and hatred. These things are a part of our biological heritage, not just our spiritual heritage. The ability to feel such emotions is a function of how our brains work -- a point we share with the "lesser beasts". People with brain damage or malformations in the areas of such emotions can be rendered unable to function on that level, not because they're evil, but because they're damaged.

The evidence for organic evolutuion is overwhelming. The evidence for it in our own bodies is overwhelming. If there were a valid religious reason to reject organic evolution, I might do so despite this evidence -- but there is no such reason. Latter-day Saint theology vs. organic evolution is not a choice that has to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the avenues I have long wondered about is the enigma of "intelligence" from a purely scientific view. Sure, in religious belief we know tge source of this intelligence comes from spirit matter. But in purely a secular scientific way, there is no answer to explain the existance and rise of intelligence. We can look at all forms of life and nature, even the galaxies in the universe and see order, purpose and design elements. Even right down to the DNA itself, it being a coded intelligent blueprint for making life, we can see the elements of design, purpose and order. But, taking to that understanding level of without "intelligence" itself existing, none of it makes any sense. For instance- The DNA itself does not encode for the intelligence required to build such life form. Its kind of like a blueprint for a building- the blueprint is true but without an intelligent operator or intelligent entity to read and understand fully what it is the blueprint itself cannot just spontaneously build buildings. The blueprint and instructions may even specify how certain tasks are to be completed but without an intelligently trained operator it still means absolutely nothing. And so it is with life, the protein builders themselves, made from the DNA itself are not programmed with an intelligent operation that tells them how to operate and function in regards to carrying out the work itself. For, if that were true, then intelligence is nothing more than a mathematical equation applied to chemistry. But that isnt true, matter, being acted upon gains no intelligence by itself. Properly understood, the protein itself requires an external component of intelligence in order for it to work. Nature itself cant create this intelligence that understands and comprehends and is self aware, so where does it originate? Science, by itself, without God, will never ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Thanks to Anddenex for the explanation.

I'm actually in agreement with much of what Rob says (assuming Anddenex's explanation is correct). I get mighty tired of atheists using evolution as a weapon to rub the faces of believers in their atheism. Their dishonesty in doing so is breathtaking.

But the appropriate response to such actions is not to wage a holy jihad on organic evolution. It is to separate out the facts from their lies, and then demonstrate that one's beliefs are not in opposition to fact, and that the other implications are indeed lies.

For the record, I reject what I consider the Watchmaker Fallacy. Yes, if I see a watch on a forest path, I don't assume it evolved by natural means. But if I see a tiny cog in a watchmaker's factory, I do assume it's part of the factory and not that it was brought it from outside the factory in a separate special creation.

Our bodies are part of the world around us, made from the world's elements, and existing in the milieu of the biology and microbiology of the world. Nature is the canvas upon which we are painted. We are made of the same genetic material as the animals (and plants!) around us. There are even animals that look astoundingly like us, and that share the vast majority of our genome. We see animals exhibit love, devotion, loyalty, anger, betrayal, guilt, shame, and hatred. These things are a part of our biological heritage, not just our spiritual heritage. The ability to feel such emotions is a function of how our brains work -- a point we share with the "lesser beasts". People with brain damage or malformations in the areas of such emotions can be rendered unable to function on that level, not because they're evil, but because they're damaged.

The evidence for organic evolutuion is overwhelming. The evidence for it in our own bodies is overwhelming. If there were a valid religious reason to reject organic evolution, I might do so despite this evidence -- but there is no such reason. Latter-day Saint theology vs. organic evolution is not a choice that has to be made.

The story changes however when one accepts the idea that perhaps man himself was placed on the earth before the animals. Then what? Or what about the idea that there was a global flood in Noahs day. These ideas change everything in regards to evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The story changes however when one accepts the idea that perhaps man himself was placed on the earth before the animals. Then what? Or what about the idea that there was a global flood in Noahs day. These ideas change everything in regards to evolution.

I accept neither idea. Even if you want to interpret Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the endowment presentation as a literal mechanical account of the order of creation, it's clear that man came last, not first. As for Noah's flood, the ancients who wrote that account (probably handed down from what I assume was Moses' original) did not understand the spherical nature of the earth. There are many instances in scripture of the narrator saying that thus-and-such occurrence covered 'the whole earth", when what is clearly meant is that it covered the entire area under discussion, not the whole globe -- a concept with which the ancients would most likely not have understood. In short, I see no reason to believe that Genesis' particular usage of "the whole earth" regarding Noah's flood should be interpreted to mean the entire planet. That is a markedly anachronistic interpretation. like saying that the division of the earth in Peleg's time refers to continental drift. Just does not make sense in context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking, again, from my own ignorance, I think there is more to this than just an "evil" plot to remove God from our lives.

One of the problems that I saw in the creationwiki law of biogenesis page Rob posted, is that, while arguing for a very strict adherence to the law of biogenesis (life must arise from other life), it fails to go back far enough. My ignorance of cosmology will probably show through, but I understand that essentially any reputable cosmology currently theorized acknowledges that our observable universe has a finite history -- time and space have a definable, observable beginning (even if we currently lack all of the tools and knowledge to fully observe that beginning point). With this as a starting point, I see two possibilities -- life as we know somehow existed as part of the matter "without form and void" that our universe sprang from, or there is a period after creation where the observable universe is lifeless. I also wonder if God/the Designer would have existed as part of the uncreated universe, or if He must have existed outside of that universe.

In these cases, is God/the Designer within my mortal ability to observe? If God exists outside of the universe, is He even observable by any mortal means? To my knowledge, there is not precedent (outside of religion) of observing anything outside of the universe interacting with the observable universe. Likewise, my cosmology cannot even begin to fathom an intelligence that existed as part of the universe before time 0 and could cause the time and space to begin. Other possibilities seem even further from the cognitive abilities of my mortal mind.

Likewise, if life "begins" before time 0, then its beginning is beyond my observation, and discussion of its beginning has no meaning. If life begins after time 0 (so that there is an observable time before life begins, then I should be able to observe the beginnings of life. If, however, the Designer is unobservable, whatever process He used to create life is going to appear to my observation as some form of abiogenesis.

IMO, the only way that ID has meaning as a scientific pursuit is if I hypothesize that both the beginnings of life and the Designer and His workings are both observable. For better or for worse, It seems to me that God exists almost exclusively outside of observation (except through spiritual means), which means that His part in the beginnings of life are also beyond observation. I don't believe that His existence beyond observation means that I must inevitably reject His existence, nor His influence in the observable universe.

There you go, the meaningless ramblings of another internet nobody, who may be just crazy enough to believe his own lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Belief in the Creator= LDS beliefs

Belief in the Creator= Belief in Intelligent Design

Its interesting though that a lot of LDS reject intelligent design. To me its the grand paradox how the two could possibly coexist.

It may be that what many LDS reject is the most rigid versions of Young Earth Creationism, that insist the earth is 6,000 years old.  Are there really some active LDS who do not believe that the complexity and functioning of the universe suggest something intelligent fashioned it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

I accept neither idea. Even if you want to interpret Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the endowment presentation as a literal mechanical account of the order of creation, it's clear that man came last, not first. As for Noah's flood, the ancients who wrote that account (probably handed down from what I assume was Moses' original) did not understand the spherical nature of the earth. There are many instances in scripture of the narrator saying that thus-and-such occurrence covered 'the whole earth", when what is clearly meant is that it covered the entire area under discussion, not the whole globe -- a concept with which the ancients would most likely not have understood. In short, I see no reason to believe that Genesis' particular usage of "the whole earth" regarding Noah's flood should be interpreted to mean the entire planet. That is a markedly anachronistic interpretation. like saying that the division of the earth in Peleg's time refers to continental drift. Just does not make sense in context.

Through secular conditioning of godless years of schooling this is most peoples belief. It kind of proves the whole point of our discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

They do not reject intelligent design; they reject Intelligent Design.

  • intelligent design: "God is the Creator and stands behind all that happens." (Note that this is not at all incompatible with organic evolution.)
  • Intelligent Design: "There is no possible way the eye could have evolved incrementally. Ergo, organic evolution is a false idea."

Intelligent Design has nothing directly to do with religion; it is a pseudoscientific effort to discount evolutionary theory, mostly by handwaving arguments.

I hesitate to jump into this, given my own lack of scientific background. However, imho, secondary science teachers perceived Intelligent Design as Young Earth Creationism in a more sophisticated mask, and attacked it aggressively and polemically.  The I.D. material I've seen seems very intent on keeping the conversations scientific and academic. I contrast that to the childhood Creationist presentations I saw that were much more Bible study than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

It may be that what many LDS reject is the most rigid versions of Young Earth Creationism, that insist the earth is 6,000 years old.  Are there really some active LDS who do not believe that the complexity and functioning of the universe suggest something intelligent fashioned it?

I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Speaking, again, from my own ignorance, I think there is more to this than just an "evil" plot to remove God from our lives.

One of the problems that I saw in the creationwiki law of biogenesis page Rob posted, is that, while arguing for a very strict adherence to the law of biogenesis (life must arise from other life), it fails to go back far enough. My ignorance of cosmology will probably show through, but I understand that essentially any reputable cosmology currently theorized acknowledges that our observable universe has a finite history -- time and space have a definable, observable beginning (even if we currently lack all of the tools and knowledge to fully observe that beginning point). With this as a starting point, I see two possibilities -- life as we know somehow existed as part of the matter "without form and void" that our universe sprang from, or there is a period after creation where the observable universe is lifeless. I also wonder if God/the Designer would have existed as part of the uncreated universe, or if He must have existed outside of that universe.

In these cases, is God/the Designer within my mortal ability to observe? If God exists outside of the universe, is He even observable by any mortal means? To my knowledge, there is not precedent (outside of religion) of observing anything outside of the universe interacting with the observable universe. Likewise, my cosmology cannot even begin to fathom an intelligence that existed as part of the universe before time 0 and could cause the time and space to begin. Other possibilities seem even further from the cognitive abilities of my mortal mind.

Likewise, if life "begins" before time 0, then its beginning is beyond my observation, and discussion of its beginning has no meaning. If life begins after time 0 (so that there is an observable time before life begins, then I should be able to observe the beginnings of life. If, however, the Designer is unobservable, whatever process He used to create life is going to appear to my observation as some form of abiogenesis.

IMO, the only way that ID has meaning as a scientific pursuit is if I hypothesize that both the beginnings of life and the Designer and His workings are both observable. For better or for worse, It seems to me that God exists almost exclusively outside of observation (except through spiritual means), which means that His part in the beginnings of life are also beyond observation. I don't believe that His existence beyond observation means that I must inevitably reject His existence, nor His influence in the observable universe.

There you go, the meaningless ramblings of another internet nobody, who may be just crazy enough to believe his own lies.

We have to begin with the false notion that our universe had a known beginning. Not sure if you are aware but science has yet been unable to even view the far reaches of our universe. How can they know something of which they cant even see and know whats there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.

In order to engage in the conversation we would probably need to assume that these professors truly believe what they teach.  Peer pressure begins in preschool, but my guess is that most who become full-time professors teach what they believe.  They may tailor their presentations and do some self-editing, to protect their careers, but I doubt that many would outright refuse new understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We have to begin with the false notion that our universe had a known beginning. Not sure if you are aware but science has yet been unable to even view the far reaches of our universe. How can they know something of which they cant even see and know whats there?

Correct. As with Vort, it is probably "the secular conditioning of godless years of schooling" (perhaps irredeemably so), but the extrapolation from our observations back to a beginning for both space and time seems pretty good. In the absence of any kind of observation suggesting that time extends backwards indefinitely and that space extends outwards indefinitely, the extrapolation from the known observations into the unknown back to a single starting point/time seems to make the most sense of the observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We have to begin with the false notion that our universe had a known beginning. Not sure if you are aware but science has yet been unable to even view the far reaches of our universe. How can they know something of which they cant even see and know whats there?

The last sentence, as a believer (although I believe I understand the point) comes off with subtle irony. How did Joseph Smith know of the degrees of heaven when he could not see or know what's there?

This is part of the reason I have a hard time with purely organic evolution arguments that seek to remove "faith" from scientific advancement. The reality, is they can't without faith in believing something true that is not yet seen, and that we do not have a perfect knowledge in. With "faith" every scientist can move forward with what is not yet seen and not yet known, in relation to what knowledge we have.

This is why I really liked one of Elder Scott's talks who referenced "faith" with science that there was even a smaller unit for building blocks of the universe which has not yet been discovered, seen, or known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

In order to engage in the conversation we would probably need to assume that these professors truly believe what they teach.  Peer pressure begins in preschool, but my guess is that most who become full-time professors teach what they believe.  They may tailor their presentations and do some self-editing, to protect their careers, but I doubt that many would outright refuse new understanding.

Its the cicular dilemma. Until we can again raise children in a God centered environment without so much secular persuasion were gonna continue to see a rise in Christian believers who no longer believe in the Old Testament teachings. Then when you add in the pressure of peers at the teaching level it just steamrolls. This has led to our secular science that somehow is worshiped as the Almight nowdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I hesitate to jump into this, given my own lack of scientific background. However, imho, secondary science teachers perceived Intelligent Design as Young Earth Creationism in a more sophisticated mask, and attacked it aggressively and polemically.  The I.D. material I've seen seems very intent on keeping the conversations scientific and academic. I contrast that to the childhood Creationist presentations I saw that were much more Bible study than anything else.

I really can't seem to understand people who honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old (or thereabouts).

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.

Who?  That doesn't even make sense.

The leaders in the BYU biology department in my day did a very good job of combining scripture with organic evolution and how they were not mutually exclusive.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.

Obviously, I cannot speak for these BYU professors. Since their position is not adequately described, other than to say they "believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet," I cannot be sure exactly what these professors believe in. If I had to guess, based solely on Rob's description, I would guess some kind of "theistic evolution", where God initiates the creation (I don't know if it matters if it is at the universe, galaxy, solar system, or planetary level), and, with His perfect knowledge of natural laws (that He decreed?), was able to create/manipulate those initial conditions in such a way that He did not need to intervene further for His creations to appear and evolve exactly as He desired.

I recognize that theistic evolution has mixed acceptance among Christians. Some like it, others despise it. My impression is that the LDS church does not have an official position, so a good Mormon (including a BYU professor) could, in good conscience, accept and even promote such a philosophy -- recognizing that it would not have perfect answers to all of the philosophical, scientific, or theological questions that would arise. I could be wrong, but I suspect that Joseph Fielding Smith and others would be offended by Mormons promoting some forms of theistic evolution, but these opinions, to my knowledge, have never been elevated to "the official position of the Church."

A couple of links: https://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

http://www.oldearth.org/theistic_evolution.htm

https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution/

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its the circular dilemma.

Is that like a figure eight / infinity sign (two circles, which one to travel is the dilemma)?  Or just a circle that allows travel in either direction (one circle, which direction to go is the dilemma)?

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really can't seem to understand people who honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old (or thereabouts).

They were really loooooooooooooooooooong years. :)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really can't seem to understand people who honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old (or thereabouts).

Who?  That doesn't even make sense.

The leaders in the BYU biology department in my day did a very good job of combining scripture with organic evolution and how they were not mutually exclusive.

Both Duane Jeffery and Steven Peck are two I have had personal conversations with. Duane Jeffery retired this last year but notable is the fact that he is a board member for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and has been for a long time. The NCSE was purposely established for the entire reason to combat any form of creation science and intelligent design theory and uphold a godless paradigm for our existance on this earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Obviously, I cannot speak for these BYU professors. Since their position is not adequately described, other than to say they "believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet," I cannot be sure exactly what these professors believe in. If I had to guess, based solely on Rob's description, I would guess some kind of "theistic evolution", where God initiates the creation (I don't know if it matters if it is at the universe, galaxy, solar system, or planetary level), and, with His perfect knowledge of natural laws (that He decreed?), was able to create/manipulate those initial conditions in such a way that He did not need to intervene further for His creations to appear and evolve exactly as He desired.

I recognize that theistic evolution has mixed acceptance among Christians. Some like it, others despise it. My impression is that the LDS church does not have an official position, so a good Mormon (including a BYU professor) could, in good conscience, accept and even promote such a philosophy -- recognizing that it would not have perfect answers to all of the philosophical, scientific, or theological questions that would arise. I could be wrong, but I suspect that Joseph Fielding Smith and others would be offended by Mormons promoting some forms of theistic evolution, but these opinions, to my knowledge, have never been elevated to "the official position of the Church."

A couple of links: https://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html

http://www.oldearth.org/theistic_evolution.htm

https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution/

I think its notable to add that recognized secular science does not support nor uphold theistic evolution. To do such would be admitting acceptance of intelligent design theory. You will not get someone like Steven Peck at BYU to admit to any kind of theistic evolutionary model. He may acknowledge the Creator in his religious and Sunday worship, but thats where it stops. He even told me once that he doesnt really see where or how the Creator fits in and perhaps the Creator himself is probably the result of this evolution preceding him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.

Speaking as a profession peer-reviewed scientist, such mockery would be EXTREMELY inappropriate.  A scientist may have whatever religious views they want.  However, for peer-reeved scientific research, we need to address scientific questions and "whether or not there is a God/designer" is not a question that fits into the scientific method.  The limitations of the scientific method are very well known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It may be that what many LDS reject is the most rigid versions of Young Earth Creationism, that insist the earth is 6,000 years old.  Are there really some active LDS who do not believe that the complexity and functioning of the universe suggest something intelligent fashioned it?

It is central to LDS beliefs that God is the creator.  Evolution is a theory on how the various species came to be through time.  It does not address the why nor can it.  For those answers, we can turn to religion, but not science.  Hence the idea of evolution (the how) and creationism (the why) actually compliment each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems obvious to me that secular science would not support theistic evolution, leaving that to religious philosophy. I cannot comment for Peck, though my impression from a brief glance through some of his blogs and talks that Google brings up suggest that his views are much more nuanced than "atheist 6 days of the week and theist one day of the week". Specifc to Peck, as near as I can tell, his supervisors at BYU are content to have him on faculty, his ecclesiastical leaders are content to sign of on his endorsements. I am not aware of anything official from the Church declaring him (or anyone like him) to be an apostate or heretic. If none of these are willing to publicly declare him apostate or heretic, I am certainly in no position to declare him anything like that.

I can read and listen to his stuff and see what I will disagree with him on. Perhaps there are things I will disagree with him on, but I don't think my opinions of his opinions will make any of our opinions more correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I really can't seem to understand people who honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old (or thereabouts).

 

I offer the following link, not to advocate the site or perspective, but so that any who wish may read the basic beliefs of "biblical creationism" from a primary source (sort of like trying to learn about LDS beliefs by going to lds.org).  http://www.icr.org/tenets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share