Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

But, evolutionists, and scientists in general, can only accept that naturalism accomplished everything including the first formation of life. They may care less how it happened, just as long as some "God" didnt do it.

Rob, this is the crux of the matter. And it simply is not so. I admit that many individuals who call themselves "scientists" have this attitude, but it is not implicit in science itself. In reality, there are many scientists who are also theists. Read my post above on the "God of the gaps" if you want to understand why I think this issue arises so often.

[NeedleinA]

On 1/16/2017 at 1:54 PM, Vort said:

Latter-day Saint theology vs. organic evolution is not a choice that has to be made.

Amen!

[Rob Osborn]

Scientists will even agree that there is design complexity in their supposed first life cambrian explosion phase, just as long as that design complexity isnt intelligently directed from the sidelines.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, this is the crux of the matter. And it simply is not so. I admit that many individuals who call themselves "scientists" have this attitude, but it is not implicit in science itself. In reality, there are many scientists who are also theists. Read my post above on the "God of the gaps" if you want to understand why I think this issue arises so often.

I have met and talked with some. Steven Peck from BYU is one such theist who believes in evolution. But, like most of them, he excludes the Creator from an actual part of the process of how life came to be. Thats a fact.

[unixknight]

Just a few thoughts.

When defending Evolution Theory, people tend to cite the notion of reliability that is supposed to come from peer reviewed material and other scientific sources.  The problem I've seen first hand is that the peer review system is fantastic in theory, and looks great on paper.  The reality is that it isn't nearly as reliable as it's made out to be.

As to spontaneous biogenesis:  As has been pointed out it's sort of the Big Bang theory of biology but the problem is that it's statistically impossible.  Pure random chance cannot account for the problems inherent in trying to get proteins to form in the sort of environment that would have existed. 

The same goes for the diversity of life.

Now, I know some folks reconcile it by suggesting that Evolution Theory is true, but that it's simply the mechanism by which God brought about Creation.  Maybe it's so, but my skepticism of Evolution isn't because of religion, but because of the realities of the theory and the environment in which it's touted.  The theory itself is very inconsistent and riddled with problems, but because it's the only alternative to Creationism or Intelligent Design, it's the only port in the storm for an atheistic academic culture.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

The theory itself is very inconsistent and riddled with problems

Can you list out those problems?

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

I appreciate and partially agree with the distinction you draw. But in the spirit of openness, I think it only fair to point out that this problem you mention is one that theists have brought upon themselves by constantly insisting on the "God of the gaps" every time there's an unknown in science (which is to say, all the time).

I also agree with this sentiment.  And this is why I don't 100% agree with ID as it has been commonly submitted.  It is also why I made the clarification regarding probability and social science conclusions.

If it truly is "every time" some unknown comes up that we point to God, yes, that gets annoying.  It's the crying wolf syndrome.  I'd parallel it to saying every negative interracial interaction is a result of racism.  Obviously, some of the time it is racism.  But to call it that all the time makes most of us roll our eyes and start ignoring the very notion at the outset.

On the other hand, I know of some die-hard atheists who will do this, even claim it, but at their core, they refuse to believe it FIRST because it involves God, and SECOND because it seems to be crying wolf.

Gravity Fairies.  Yup.  That could start a new kids show to replace My Little Pony.  Don't tell NT.  He'll get his feelings hurt. 

This one's my favorite.

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

My theory: "Gravitons", eh? I'd say those sound an awful lot like, hmm, well, let's see, what could it be? Oh, that's right, GRAVITY FAIRIES!!!

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Just a few thoughts.

When defending Evolution Theory, people tend to cite the notion of reliability that is supposed to come from peer reviewed material and other scientific sources.  The problem I've seen first hand is that the peer review system is fantastic in theory, and looks great on paper.  The reality is that it isn't nearly as reliable as it's made out to be.

As to spontaneous biogenesis:  As has been pointed out it's sort of the Big Bang theory of biology but the problem is that it's statistically impossible.  Pure random chance cannot account for the problems inherent in trying to get proteins to form in the sort of environment that would have existed. 

The same goes for the diversity of life.

Now, I know some folks reconcile it by suggesting that Evolution Theory is true, but that it's simply the mechanism by which God brought about Creation.  Maybe it's so, but my skepticism of Evolution isn't because of religion, but because of the realities of the theory and the environment in which it's touted.  The theory itself is very inconsistent and riddled with problems, but because it's the only alternative to Creationism or Intelligent Design, it's the only port in the storm for an atheistic academic culture.

I may add that "peer reviewed" must be purely atheistic. No legitimate papers are accepted by the "peer reviewed" process that include the possibility of deity.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No legitimate papers are accepted by the "peer reviewed" process that include the possibility of deity.

In the scientific community, this is true, but only in the sense that appealing to God as an explanation for some phenomenon is not acceptable. Do you understand why this is the case?

[unixknight]

Just now, Vort said:

Can you list out those problems?

Well I can give you an example that sort of represents the mentality I'm taking issue with.

A close friend of mine is a high school Biology teacher and this occasionally comes up.  (Go figure.)  I once confronted him about the Ernst Haeckel embryonic drawings that were supposed to demonstrate the common origin of species by showing them as being nigh identical during part of the embryonic stage.  Despite the fact that these drawings are widely known to have been made up as opposed to being actual illustrations of observed embryos, the drawings continue to find their way into biology textbooks.  I asked him why, if Evolution is so obvious, so well researched and so utterly reliable, why is it necessary to use falsified data to teach it? 

His answer was that while it's true that there are flaws in Evolution Theory, it's still taught because "It's the best we've got."  Mind, you, he believes with his whole heart in Evolution Theory, so he's not conceding that it's wrong when he says this.  He believes it so completely that when debating it he says that Evolution is obviously true because he can observe squirrels in his yard... where else could they have come from?

So when someone says "It's the best we've got" that's far from a ringing endorsement.  It's taught as fact despite its problems by the very people who are supposed to be the objective, open minded thinkers that are supposed to be the last line of defense against junk science.  It is treated now not as a scientific theory, but as religious dogma.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

In the scientific community, this is true, but only in the sense that appealing to God as an explanation for some phenomenon is not acceptable. Do you understand why this is the case?

But we arent even talking about appealing to God. In ID theory, they propose nothing more than appealing to topics such as irreducible complexity. But because that signifies that some sort of "intelligent" or directed process is involved they shunt it because it could be extrapolated or connected that the "intelligent" or directed process may include creation believers belief in God. The irony of it is that they cannot even accept that we ourselves are intelligent designers. They avoid the words intelligent and design like the plague because it too closely is associated with God! Heaven forbid!

[Guest]

One more thing.  Another explanation of life beginning is that it began somewhere else and landed through meteors and began life here.  Or, even, better, aliens seeded life on this planet.

The problem with either of those theories is also timeline.  Most people don't realize just how long it takes for galaxies to form.  Then those galaxies have to form stars.  Then the stars gather enough particles in orbit to eventually form planets.  Then a planet has to be the right temperature with the right water and oxygen conditions to create life in the first place.  Then that life would have to move through the immensity of space to come to this little blue orb at precisely the right time in the cooling of the earth to allow that cellular material to replicate.

If you take the supposed age of the universe from the big bang onward, our planet would be one of the first that would have been able to have the right conditions to form life.  So, the "old guard of the universe" theory is nonsense.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Well I can give you an example that sort of represents the mentality I'm taking issue with.

A close friend of mine is a high school Biology teacher and this occasionally comes up.  (Go figure.)  I once confronted him about the Ernst Haeckel embryonic drawings that were supposed to demonstrate the common origin of species by showing them as being nigh identical during part of the embryonic stage.  Despite the fact that these drawings are widely known to have been made up as opposed to being actual illustrations of observed embryos, the drawings continue to find their way into biology textbooks.  I asked him why, if Evolution is so obvious, so well researched and so utterly reliable, why is it necessary to use falsified data to teach it? 

His answer was that while it's true that there are flaws in Evolution Theory, it's still taught because "It's the best we've got."  Mind, you, he believes with his whole heart in Evolution Theory, so he's not conceding that it's wrong when he says this.  He believes it so completely that when debating it he says that Evolution is obviously true because he can observe squirrels in his yard... where else could they have come from?

So when someone says "It's the best we've got" that's far from a ringing endorsement.  It's taught as fact despite its problems by the very people who are supposed to be the objective, open minded thinkers that are supposed to be the last line of defense against junk science.  It is treated now not as a scientific theory, but as religious dogma.

True enough, your example shows an unadmirable mindset and an almost religious devotion that are almost polar opposite to what science claims to be. But can you provide me with a list, even a short list, of the inconsistencies and problems that riddle evolutionary theory?

On a side note, this sort of half-baked garbage is what I have come to expect of high school teachers. Since having children go through high school, I have lost a great deal of respect for the average HS teacher. I already regaled you with my story about my daughter's high school teacher last year warning us that we would not longer be able to help the students, because the topics were Just Too Advanced; for example, they were then involved in the horribly complex and mind-taxing study of -- steel yourselves -- CONTINENTAL DRIFT! Some are dedicated and wonderful, I know, but far too many are faking it. It's enough to drive someone far enough into cynicism to (gasp!) pull their kids out of public schools and teach them themselves.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

In the scientific community, this is true, but only in the sense that appealing to God as an explanation for some phenomenon is not acceptable. Do you understand why this is the case?

I know and understand the argument which is provided for that position.  And if that were the true motivation to reject ID, I'd fully support it.  But the vehemence with which any mention of God in any such discussion is renounced tells a different story.  So, again, we have to separate those who are simply "staying true to science and scientific method" vs. those who are actively rejecting God.

I believe the trap that Rob is falling into is that he can't tell the difference.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But we arent even talking about appealing to God. In ID theory, they propose nothing more than appealing to topics such as irreducible complexity. But because that signifies that some sort of "intelligent" or directed process is involved they shunt it because it could be extrapolated or connected that the "intelligent" or directed process may include creation believers belief in God. The irony of it is that they cannot even accept that we ourselves are intelligent designers. They avoid the words intelligent and design like the plague because it too closely is associated with God! Heaven forbid!

Rob, for at least the third time -- this is simply not so. Yes, there is a lot of sneering and eye-rolling toward the ID community. (In my judgment, much of this sneering is not undeserved, but I think it's the wrong way to respond.) But there are also solid responses to every point the ID people bring up. Irreducible complexity? Such as -- what? The eye is not irreducibly complex. Simply making up a term such as "irreducible complexity" does not mean that term is truthful, or that the examples are irrefutable.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

One more thing.  Another explanation of life beginning is that it began somewhere else and landed through meteors and began life here.  Or, even, better, aliens seeded life on this planet. The problem with either of those theories is also timeline

Another problem is that it begs the question of the origins of life.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, for at least the third time -- this is simply not so. Yes, there is a lot of sneering and eye-rolling toward the ID community. (In my judgment, much of this sneering is not undeserved, but I think it's the wrong way to respond.) But there are also solid responses to every point the ID people bring up. Irreducible complexity? Such as -- what? The eye is not irreducibly complex. Simply making up a term such as "irreducible complexity" does not mean that term is truthful, or that the examples are irrefutable.

They cant prove irreducible complexity wrong. It bothers them tremendously.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

True enough, your example shows an unadmirable mindset and an almost religious devotion that are almost polar opposite to what science claims to be. But can you provide me with a list, even a short list, of the inconsistencies and problems that riddle evolutionary theory?

Sort of.  My issues have less to do with the specifics of the theory and more with the methodology.  There was a case (and we'll have to treat this as anecdotal, admittedly, because I can't find the reference for it now.)  Where a fossil was unearthed.  The researcher who found it set its age at 18,000 years because it fit his prefab notions of where it would fall in the evolutionary chain between apes and humans.  He then sent samples to be radiocarbon dated in order to confirm his theory. 

In those days there were only 3 labs where researchers could have sampled carbon dated and he sent some to each.  The results were:

• 15,000 years
• 50,000 years
• 150,000 years

So he kept the 15,000 year figure because it was close enough to his own estimate, and disregarded the other two. 

Some other issues have been brought up in this thread already, like Irreducible Complexity.  (Of which the eye is a bad example.  It is not irreducibly complex) 

There's also a recent problem that has come to light over just the last few years.  Fruit flies, a favorite subject for study because if it's incredibly fast life cycle, have now been through enough generations under human study that evolution should have been observed by now.  Drawings dating back a couple of hundred years show no significant changes, even in different environments.

Mind you, we're also talking about a theory that has not been observed and isn't falsifiable.  This is a problem right form the start.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

They cant prove irreducible complexity wrong. It bothers them tremendously.

Can you provide some examples of "irreducible complexity" that the science types just cannot prove wrong?

[Guest Godless]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Abiogenesis is the belief that life evolved from nonliving matter. The theory on this origin of life came about due to their theory of evolution.

What part of the theory of evolution covers the evolution of nonliving matter? Just curious. 

 

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But we arent even talking about appealing to God. In ID theory, they propose nothing more than appealing to topics such as irreducible complexity. But because that signifies that some sort of "intelligent" or directed process is involved they shunt it because it could be extrapolated or connected that the "intelligent" or directed process may include creation believers belief in God. The irony of it is that they cannot even accept that we ourselves are intelligent designers. They avoid the words intelligent and design like the plague because it too closely is associated with God! Heaven forbid!

 

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

They cant prove irreducible complexity wrong. It bothers them tremendously.

Let's suppose for a moment that an irreducibly complex organic feature does exist. You say it is evidence of an intelligent designer. But who could that designer be? You insist that it doesn't necessarily have to point to God, but what else could it be pointing to? What else, other than God or the natural laws of evolution, could be responsible for irreducible complexity?

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

Let's suppose for a moment that an irreducibly complex organic feature does exist. You say it is evidence of an intelligent designer. But who could that designer be? You insist that it doesn't necessarily have to point to God, but what else could it be pointing to? What else, other than God or the natural laws of evolution, could be responsible for irreducible complexity?

If I may jump in...

Intelligent Design theory doesn't concern itself with the nature of the Intelligent Designer.  You're reasoning that such an Intelligent Designer must be God, which is fine, but you're stepping outside the theory to do so.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, evolutionists, and scientists in general, can only accept that naturalism accomplished everything including the first formation of life. They may care less how it happened, just as long as some "God" didnt do it.

Reference for this assertion?

It differs greatly from my experience working professionally with evolutionary scientists.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Scientists will even agree that there is design complexity in their supposed first life cambrian explosion phase, just as long as that design complexity isnt intelligently directed from the sidelines.

Actually science can't make any claim on an intelligent designer either way.  It's not a question testable with the scientific methods.  Now scientist may have their personal opinions, but that's all they are.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

They cant prove irreducible complexity wrong. It bothers them tremendously.

No....

[Guest MormonGator]

@Jane_Doe-I'm just curious, do you have a science background? You seem very knowledgeable!