Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Guest]

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

My take-away is that they promote those scientific theories and findings that comport with a very literal interpretation of the Bible's creation accounts, and especially of a younger earth. This contrasts greatly with Intelligent Design and groups like the Discovery Institute, which keep their arguments mostly academic and scientific.

Yes, I got that too.  But they weren't really arguments or evidence.  They essentially said,"We have a preconceived notion.  And we're going to ignore anything that doesn't agree with it."  To me, that's like saying nothing at all.

They essentially showed a kindergarten level understanding of the evidence of an old earth.  I at least have a high school level understanding of it.  so, they didn't even try to refute any of it except by saying that God has said this or that.  And if I don't share their interpretation of the scriptures they cite, we're obviously not going to see eye-to-eye.

I'm going to acknowledge yet again that you've said you don't necessarily agree with them either.  But I just go back to my original position that I can't understand people who can ignore the evidence for an older earth.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

You're exaggerating again Zil. Much as you like to think of the man of your compound as being big and bold I think this is a more accurate picture

I'll let @MormonGator defend himself on this one... I need to go check our server security and find out who's been digging around in the scans of childhood photos.

Edited January 17, 2017 by zil

[Jane_Doe]

14 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

When? In the Garden? Even though there was no blood in any of the bodies there and no death until the Fall? Why did these physical preforms leave bones behind?

The creation of Adam's body happened before the Garden.  Much of Genesis is allegorical.  

14 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

Was Adam a human being or a monkey-like creature?

Human.

14 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

MY point, in case it was missed, was that the discussion is irrelevant until you take into account what the scriptures say. If you're mormon and have a testimony of the scriptures then I'd really like a belief in evolution also to be explained because no, they are not compatible. 

They are 100% compatible.  Scripture tells the big picture of "why" things are done and the supremacy of God.  Evolution is man's best guess at the current moment on the "how" He works a small fraction of His miracles.  

 

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, zil said:

I'll let @MormonGator defend himself on this one... I need to go check our server security and find out who's been digging around in the scans of childhood photos.

I was cute back then, and I'm handsome and charming now. 

[Guest Godless]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Intelligent design theory is about refuting random evolutionary processes from chance alone. ID theory doesnt say evolution isnt possible, its saying the mechanism fir evolution is flawed. ID seeks to show that intelligent designs in nature only come about by intelligent designs preceding it. Now, who or what drives that process of design in nature is not important to ID theory.

It may not be important to ID theory, but it's academically vital to traditional evolutionary theory. And the answer is simple, the driving force of evolution is DNA. Evolution is guided by genetic mutations. DNA patterns adapt and evolve to enhance the sustainability of a species. Everything we observe in the biological world is the result of evolving DNA. And no, it's not a perfect mechanism by any means. I don't think any "secular" biologist has ever claimed that it is.  

Quote

Science is the drive to provide answers to what we observe. If what we observe as intelligence shows an intelligent process precedibg it then we shoukd acknowledge it. Thats science isnt it?

When genetic mutation is the prevailing theoretical model, there is a substantial burden of proof that needs to be met if you want serious consideration to be given to the idea of an intelligent designer, something that you will have a very hard time testing empirically using accepted scientific methods. You may be able to cast doubt on existing theories, but that's not the same as providing evidence to support your own.

17 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

I don't know...evolution kind of seems to me that it's saying God's design of us was imperfect. That He needed to tweak it and progress us from fish to ape to man or whatever. Why? When we look like Him already why would he go through all that as if searching for what to finish us as? Adaptation makes sense because we've seen it happen but missing link does not jibe with what we know about the nature of God.

If you think about it, the human body is quite imperfect in many regards. Compared to other members of the animal kingdom, our hearing, vision, and agility are significantly inferior. Our immune systems are tragically imperfect, as is our skeletal structure. 

As for the "why", I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that God never intended for any part of creation to take place outside of the natural laws of the universe (which, arguably, were created by him in the first place). Instead, he allowed nature to run its course, knowing what the end result would be. To continue the cake analogy, your God mixed the ingredients together and then let science "bake the cake". While I don't personally accept this worldview, I don't think it presents any conflict between dogma and "secular" biology.

I also want to address scriptural accounts of scientific occurrences real quick. Like @Vort mentioned, the Bible was written by people with a very limited understanding of science and, indeed, the nature of the Earth itself. Even if they were inspired by God, as you believe, there's no way that they could possibly put what was revealed to them into the context of modern scientific (and geographic) understanding.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Godless

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, Godless said:

When genetic mutation is the prevailing theoretical model, there is a substantial burden of proof that needs to be met if you want serious consideration to be given to the idea of an intelligent designer

Only if by "serious consideration" you mean "scientific consideration". I seriously consider many things that are not strictly (or at all) scientific. They're still important, and true, and meaningful. Science is but one paradigm for discovering things, and though the scientific method is impressively powerful in its arena, that arena is actually a small and not-very-significant part of human experience.

44 minutes ago, Godless said:

Like @Vort mentioned, the Bible was written by people with a very limited understanding of science and, indeed, the nature of the Earth itself. Even if they were inspired by God, as you believe, there's no way that they could possibly put what was revealed to them into the context of modern scientific (and geographic) understanding.

To be clear: The ancients were not stupid. They were, if anything, smarter than we are. But we have different models than they had, and our models in what we call "scientific" areas tend to be much more complex and powerful, and do a better job of representing external physical reality. We have sophisticated math that they had not developed and that allow us insight into many natural phenomena. But their understanding of important divine truths, including truths about the natural world as well as human relationships and what we rather foolishly call "psychology", were just as deep as ours, and in many cases probably much deeper. So if they did not understand the model of the earth as a gigantic spherical ball, they would never conceive of a "global" flood. But things like that are as much cases of us misunderstanding what they plainly wrote as it is of them being ignorant about our oh-so-glorious depth of knowledge. And in matters of actual consequence, we should learn from them, not disgrace ourselves in ignorant and ridiculous criticisms about "the superstitions of bronze-age shepherds".

[Guest Godless]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Only if by "serious consideration" you mean "scientific consideration". I seriously consider many things that are not strictly (or at all) scientific. They're still important, and true, and meaningful. Science is but one paradigm for discovering things, and though the scientific method is impressively powerful in its arena, that arena is actually a small and not-very-significant part of human experience.

Yes, I definitely like your wording better. 

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be clear: The ancients were not stupid. They were, if anything, smarter than we are. But we have different models than they had, and our models in what we call "scientific" areas tend to be much more complex and powerful, and do a better job of representing external physical reality. We have sophisticated math that they had not developed and that allow us insight into many natural phenomena. But their understanding of important divine truths, including truths about the natural world as well as human relationships and what we rather foolishly call "psychology", were just as deep as ours, and in many cases probably much deeper. So if they did not understand the model of the earth as a gigantic spherical ball, they would never conceive of a "global" flood. But things like that are as much cases of us misunderstanding what they plainly wrote as it is of them being ignorant about our oh-so-glorious depth of knowledge. And in matters of actual consequence, we should learn from them, not disgrace ourselves in ignorant and ridiculous criticisms about "the superstitions of bronze-age shepherds".

Very true. Ancient history abounds with people who were geniuses for their time, and far more enlightened than this digital-age "tavern keeper".  We can learn a lot from them provided that we don't lose sight of the context of their time.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

It may not be important to ID theory, but it's academically vital to traditional evolutionary theory. And the answer is simple, the driving force of evolution is DNA. Evolution is guided by genetic mutations. DNA patterns adapt and evolve to enhance the sustainability of a species. Everything we observe in the biological world is the result of evolving DNA. And no, it's not a perfect mechanism by any means. I don't think any "secular" biologist has ever claimed that it is.  

When genetic mutation is the prevailing theoretical model, there is a substantial burden of proof that needs to be met if you want serious consideration to be given to the idea of an intelligent designer, something that you will have a very hard time testing empirically using accepted scientific methods. You may be able to cast doubt on existing theories, but that's not the same as providing evidence to support your own.

If you think about it, the human body is quite imperfect in many regards. Compared to other members of the animal kingdom, our hearing, vision, and agility are significantly inferior. Our immune systems are tragically imperfect, as is our skeletal structure. 

As for the "why", I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and suggest that God never intended for any part of creation to take place outside of the natural laws of the universe (which, arguably, were created by him in the first place). Instead, he allowed nature to run its course, knowing what the end result would be. To continue the cake analogy, your God mixed the ingredients together and then let science "bake the cake". While I don't personally accept this worldview, I don't think it presents any conflict between dogma and "secular" biology.

I also want to address scriptural accounts of scientific occurrences real quick. Like @Vort mentioned, the Bible was written by people with a very limited understanding of science and, indeed, the nature of the Earth itself. Even if they were inspired by God, as you believe, there's no way that they could possibly put what was revealed to them into the context of modern scientific (and geographic) understanding.

We certainly have mutating DNA, thats no doubt. But could that same random mechanism have brought about life itself? Evidence strongly shows it cant. 

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We certainly have mutating DNA, thats no doubt. But could that same random mechanism have brought about life itself? Evidence strongly shows it cant. 

Evolution is a theory of the origin of different species, not the origin of life. 

[Vort]

Strictly speaking, the genesis of life is a separate issue from organic evolution. The two are obviously intimately related. I'm actually in sympathy with a lot of what Rob writes, or at least with (what I perceive to be) the mindset behind it. Evolutionary scientists tend to argue that life began in a soupy sea of chemicals, blah blah blah. This is the "Big Bang" of biology -- an inferred singular, inexplicable event that gives a starting point for the model to start working. And like astrophysics, evolutionary biology is much better understood in the present than in the distant past.

Insofar as Rob dislikes the implicit and overbearing atheist pose often taken by evolutionary scientists, I agree with him. I think those are careless (or more likely not-very-honest) scientists who go out of their way to assert the atheistic nature of their model of evolution. In this, we are at least on similar ground.

On the other hand, evolution looks like a long series of random events. The basis of the model assumes that processes are random. But -- and this is important -- in this case, "random" means "looks random to us". In other words, "We can't distinguish any patterns, so our assumption is that there are no patterns." If God's actions are not distinguishable by us from random events, then for all (scientific) intents and purposes, we can say they are random.

I don't really want to get into a philosophical discussion of why God looks random. I think LDS theology offers an easy and (to me) compelling answer, regarding our need to live by faith, coupled with the fact that we can learn to see the hand of God in our lives and understand the not-so-random-after-all nature of his actions. But that is a different issue.

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Strictly speaking, the genesis of life is a separate issue from organic evolution. The two are obviously intimately related. I'm actually in sympathy with a lot of what Rob writes, or at least with (what I perceive to be) the mindset behind it. Evolutionary scientists tend to argue that life began in a soupy sea of chemicals, blah blah blah. This is the "Big Bang" of biology -- an inferred singular, inexplicable event that gives a starting point for the model to start working. And like astrophysics, evolutionary biology is much better understood in the present than in the distant past.

Insofar as Rob dislikes the implicit and overbearing atheist pose often taken by evolutionary scientists, I agree with him. I think those are careless (or more likely not-very-honest) scientists who go out of their way to assert the atheistic nature of their model of evolution. In this, we are at least on similar ground.

On the other hand, evolution looks like a long series of random events. The basis of the model assumes that processes are random. But -- and this is important -- in this case, "random" means "looks random to us". In other words, "We can't distinguish any patterns, so our assumption is that there are no patterns." If God's actions are not distinguishable by us from random events, then for all (scientific) intents and purposes, we can say they are random.

I don't really want to get into a philosophical discussion of why God looks random. I think LDS theology offers an easy and (to me) compelling answer, regarding our need to live by faith, coupled with the fact that we can learn to see the hand of God in our lives and understand the not-so-random-after-all nature of his actions. But that is a different issue.

I'm sympathetic as well @Vort but science is a harsh mistress who doesn't care about our sympathies or personal feelings. Science doesn't care if I don't accept the theory of gravity. If I jump off the Space Needle odds are that I'll plunge to my death. 

 

That said, I do think that God created life. How, I don't claim to know. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

19 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

When? In the Garden? Even though there was no blood in any of the bodies there and no death until the Fall? Why did these physical preforms leave bones behind?

Was Adam a human being or a monkey-like creature?

MY point, in case it was missed, was that the discussion is irrelevant until you take into account what the scriptures say. If you're mormon and have a testimony of the scriptures then I'd really like a belief in evolution also to be explained because no, they are not compatible. 

What if you are using the scriptures to argue science, but have a misunderstanding of scripture?  That can happen as well.  

For example, you mentioned no death until the Fall.  If we assume that means for man, plants and animals, we would be incorrect, and likely follow up with some incorrect assumptions. Talmedge was a gospel scholar, and he was also a geologist.  He said that the fall brought death for man; many plants and animals died before the earth was prepared for man.  (No I don't have the reference it's in my notes from BYU-I science class. )

Russel M. Nelson said, "All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it si compatible.  All truth is part of the everlasting gospel. There is no conflict between science and religion.  Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion or both."  https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-gather-at-byus-life-sciences-building-for-dedication?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Evolution is a theory of the origin of different species, not the origin of life. 

Evolution theory encompasses the origin of life from chemical evolution. Any basic biology class will teach you that.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I'm sympathetic as well @Vort but science is a harsh mistress who doesn't care about our sympathies or personal feelings. Science doesn't care if I don't accept the theory of gravity. If I jump off the Space Needle odds are that I'll plunge to my death. 

 

That said, I do think that God created life. How, I don't claim to know. 

I will take a stab at it. I think plant life started here through planting seeds, watering them, some sun, etc. Animal and human life started by parents procreating them. 

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution theory encompasses the origin of life from chemical evolution. Any basic biology class will teach you that.

That is simply incorrect.  

[Rob Osborn]

52 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

What if you are using the scriptures to argue science, but have a misunderstanding of scripture?  That can happen as well.  

For example, you mentioned no death until the Fall.  If we assume that means for man, plants and animals, we would be incorrect, and likely follow up with some incorrect assumptions. Talmedge was a gospel scholar, and he was also a geologist.  He said that the fall brought death for man; many plants and animals died before the earth was prepared for man.  (No I don't have the reference it's in my notes from BYU-I science class. )

Russel M. Nelson said, "All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it si compatible.  All truth is part of the everlasting gospel. There is no conflict between science and religion.  Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion or both."  https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-gather-at-byus-life-sciences-building-for-dedication?lang=eng

It just depends on what brands of science and religion one believes in. My brand of science doesnt include millions of years of evolution just as my brand of religion believes in the creation, fall, and redemption and immortality of all life.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

That is simply incorrect.  

Perhaps you need to tell Berkeley then

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

[Jane_Doe]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Perhaps you need to tell Berkeley then

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

This is talking about the field of Evolutionary Biology, not the Theory of Evolution.  The former is much more broad (being an entire field of study) than the latter (which is one particular theory).  

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It just depends on what brands of science and religion one believes in. My brand of science doesnt include millions of years of evolution just as my brand of religion believes in the creation, fall, and redemption and immortality of all life.

I'm missing your point here.

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm missing your point here.

There is no point. Science is science. There might be different types of science (medical, archeological,physics) but science overall is a take it or leave it. You can reject it- after all there are still people who apparently believe the world is flat-but that doesn't mean you are right. 

I posted this on my Facebook page once: Everyone "loves science" until it conflicts with their values. That's generally why the left ignores evidence for vaccines and GMO foods and the right ignores evolution. I think I made a good point. 

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There is no point. Science is science. There might be different types of science (medical, archeological,physics) but science overall is a take it or leave it. You can reject it- after all there are still people who apparently believe the world is flat-but that doesn't mean you are right. 

I posted this on my Facebook page once: Everyone "loves science" until it conflicts with their values. That's generally why the left ignores evidence for vaccines and GMO foods and the right ignores evolution. I think I made a good point. 

I disagree that a person has to take or leave all of science together (I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to say or not).   There are some parts of science which are well and thoroughly studied, and some which are not.  in fact, a critical part of being a scientist is learning the difference between well-done and half-baked studies.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

I disagree that a person has to take or leave all of science together (I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to say or not).   There are some parts of science which are well and thoroughly studied, and some which are not.  in fact, a critical part of being a scientist is learning the difference between well-done and half-baked studies.  

Yup.

 IE-if a 99.9% of scientists think that world is sphere and you think it's a pancake, you are the one that is wrong no matter what d-list "peer reviewed" journal publishes you. You could say "But I'm just being critical!" Same with history. If you think the holocaust never happened even though 99% of historians think it did, it doesn't matter how "critical" you are. 

[Jane_Doe]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

IE-if a 99.9% of scientists think that world is sphere and you think it's a pancake, you are the one that is wrong no matter what d-list "peer reviewed" journal publishes you. 

Note: if 99.9% of scientists disagree with you, your research is not accepted science (because science is a peer review process).  Now whether or not your work is True is a different question.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Note: if 99.9% of scientists disagree with you, your research is not accepted science (because science is a peer review process).  Now whether or not your work is True is a different question.

fine. But my point stands. When the majority of scientists/doctors/etc agree with something and you don't, you are the one who is probably wrong. Skepticism, like everything else in life shouldn't be taken to an extreme. We aren't Descartes here setting the bar for proof foolishly high. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

This is talking about the field of Evolutionary Biology, not the Theory of Evolution.  The former is much more broad (being an entire field of study) than the latter (which is one particular theory).  

Berkeley wouldnt bring up the origins of life in the evolution portion of online study if it wasnt part of it. Evolutionists like to distance themselves from the discussion because there isnt really any evidence and what they do have is subjective conjecture at best. ID proponents know this and jump all over it and so evolutionists try to skate around it alltogether. The fact remains though that whatever was their supposed "first life form" came about under the same Darwinian theory of evolution process that created it as also that propogated it afterwards. It didnt just "poof" into existance.