How pointless is debate?

[Darias]

Over the course of the past few months, I have noticed several of my Christian brethren say things like this:

. . . there's no point in debating theology with unbelievers.

[...]

[If] you found the Bible to be true and accurate, then we would have a foundation on which to begin. If you do not, then any theological debate we might have would be a fruitless dialogue that would result in absolutely nothing in the end but two people's opinion who aren't any closer to agreeing with each other then when they first began.

[...]

As for the offer to debate, I'll pass. We cannot debate theology if you do not consider the Bible to be true. . . . I don't see the point.
_____

• ( "How do we know a sinner when we see one?" Page 29, Post 282 )

. . . I have about 15 hours into a reply to your post above, but I have decided to scrap it. I hate doing this, because I feel that in it I very strongly and adequately demonstrated that my position is Biblically consistent. However, I have said before that I do not debate theology with people who do not believe the Bible. . . .

[...]

I see no point in giving you any more of my time, at least regarding Biblical matters. . . . debating anything Biblical with you is certainly pointless.
_____

• ( "Once saved, always saved?" Page 20, Post 199 )

I refuse to debate the Bible and theology with unsaved people. It's pointless.
_____

• ( "Prayer is a waste." Page 3, Post 28 )

-----

This attitude concerns me. Two of these posts were addressed to me, a believer -- and while I take no offense at the responses in general, it does make me wonder.

If Christians are unwilling to debate other Christians on important matters of belief, how do they expect to convince non-believers to believe in their world-view?

And second, if Christians are unwilling to discuss the Bible, doctrine, or theology with non-believers, how do they expect anyone to join the faith? Are Christians just hoping people will accept Christ for fear of hell, or out of ignorance of the teachings of the faith?

Third, is this seemingly collective pessimism towards debate the result of the inability to actually support a strong argument, or is it the result of an unwillingness to exchange ideas and admit the possibility of being wrong? Or is it cased by something else?

I'd really like to know. If no one is willing to give an answer, than may I ask, "Why are you here?" After all, this is a forum called Debating Christianity and Religion.

[otseng]

The PHPBB forum software indicates any moderator with green. One of these days I'll get around to fixing that.

OK, I think I've fixed this now.

[theopoesis]

Dare I return to the OP?

My fifty cents worth (not factoring inflation or any relevant taxes):

The early church developed a particular mode of doing theology that entailed the use of philosophy and the rudiments of what would become psychology, literary theory, science, and sociology. This approach was the result of the widespread proliferation of non-canonical gospels and pseudepigraphal texts during the mid second century and onward. If you read the debates about the Trinity or Christology or Pneumatology, you see extensive use of the Scriptures, but that alone was insufficient. Therefore, theology was augmented with these other disciplines.

Fast forward to the 500s and 600s, once there have been a few ecumenical councils, a codified canon, a solidified hierarchy, the rise of the papacy, the increasing Orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire and Caeseropapism, and you find yourself in a culture where the Bible was accepted, where other texts did not exist, and where theology became largely Biblical theology. It was not so much that the Bible was used more than in previous eras of theology; rather, the Scriptures could now stand alone, so the use of philosophy often dwindled (a few eras of scholasticism aside). By the time of the reformation, the Reformers developed the doctrine of sola scriptura, and rightly so in many ways. Even the Catholic Church through the counter reformation came to understand that there were areas where philosophy had built up non-Biblical ideas such as indulgences. This led to a push away from any philosophy.

Fast forward again... 1700s. Secularism begins to emerge in the political writings of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Atheism is respectable with noted advocates like Voltaire, Hume, and the Marquis de Sade. Increasing commerce and colonialism brings Christians into contact with Holy Texts from other religions... Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and so forth. The Scientific Revolution is underway. We're suddenly back to a point where the Bible is not universally accepted, other holy texts are available to society. It's back to a situation similar to the early church period.

Interestingly, during this time two trends seem to emerge. The first trend moves with the times (at least to a significant degree) and adopts many tenets of secularism. If you read Paul Tillich or Adolf von Harnack or others, you often find that the Bible just isn't very central anymore. Philosophy has re-emerged in theology, but to the detriment of the Bible. On the other hand, you have the conservative swing with J. Gresham Machem, J.I. Paker, or B.B. Warfield. If you read these guys, you often uncover a depth of exegesis beyond the early church's caliber. Still, there is a conspicuous lack of philosophy (or any other field) which might differentiate the Christian theologian as more accurate among the buzz of ideas available in the modern world. To be sure, there are some in the middle ground (take Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Karl Barth, or a personal favorite, Cornelius Van Til). Despite this, in a large sense, there is not a theology that adopts the approach of the early church in terms of the syncretism with other fields of thought required by pluralism without simultaneously moving away from the Bible.

Let's also pause for a vignette on apologetics. On the one hand, many of you might point out that philosophy has, in fact, been incorporated into apologetics throughout the past century. On the other hand, a close look reveals that much of the philosophy is in fact old philosophy under a new Title. The cosmological argument has made a resurgence among William Lane Craig, and others, but this is medieval or earlier. Intelligent Design (and others) have certainly made good use of science, but science cannot speak directly concerning theology, per se. The early church was able, in many respects, to develop its own philosophical system which was distinct from both platonism (hence the rejection of Origen) and aristotelianism (hence the rejection of pagan philosophy in the Greek Orthodox Synodikon). Men like Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine of Hippo and (particularly) Maximus the Confessor were able to develop their own distinctively Christian philsophical systems while maintaining fidelity to the Biblical text (at least in a general sense, even if you disagree with particulars). These are just a few names among many. Today, we have the rudiments of a new Christian philosophy emerging amid thinkers like Plantinga, Millbank, or Frame, but these men are only newly on the scene.

Why do I bring all this up?

Theology is utilized in different ways in different contexts. To be sure, we must have a strong Biblical basis for our theology, and to this end we cannot move in a direction that replaces the text with anything else. However, we must recognize that the church has only made it this far through the strategic use of philosophy and other fields of thought. God, in His wisdom, deemed it prudent to send us men capable of dialogue with pagans on their own terms. Celsus was as formidable an opponent to Augustine as Dawkins is to us (likely much more so). Why, then, would we refuse to develop our theology in a way that we might silence Dawkins? I'm not just picking on a single man, but Dawkins represents the entire secular edifice. We lack a hierarchy capable of unifying the body theologically; the free church polity structure has seen to that. Yet, "the divided house cannot stand" (Mark 3:25). If we cannot even discuss theology with someone who claims Christianity and yet who does not hold to some principles that we think are vital, how can we expect to discuss with those who do not believe?

I fear the apologetic that is reduced to making claims as to the existence of a God, yet which trembles at the thought of defending the God, who made the Covenants with Moses, appeared in bodily form as Jesus of Nazareth, ascended again into heaven from whence he has sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth. Without theology, we cannot speak of this God, and yet we will not discuss theology with someone who does not already believe it??

Arius believed in a God, as did Donatus, Origen, Nestorius, Appolinaris, Marcion, Valentinus, and Paul of Samosata. These men believed mistaken things, and if the church fathers had been unwilling to explain why and how these men miss-stepped, we would potentially all be gnostic today. We certainly would not have seen a thousand years where Christianity was the dominant religion, philosophy, and way of life in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, even into Asia. Is Darias a Christian? Far be it from me to deny it. God knows his heart, but I know God's sovereignty, and it just may be that he was sent here to encourage this small community to learn to articulate theological opinions to one who disagrees with us on some issues. The future of the Church depends on it, and any charity resembling the love of Christ compels it. Christ dialogued with Nicodemus, did he not? And who knows; at the end of the day Darias may just be right on a thing or two. Or we may turn him from the error of his ways for his own benefit. But if we remain silent, how can the Spirit give us words to say? If we are silent, we might even risk silence from our Lord Christ on the day of judgment. For "he who knows the good he ought to do and does not do it sins," (James 4:17) and "whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death" (James 5:20). If you think someone is incorrect and you will not speak, where does that leave us?

[fewwillfindit]

...

Profound and convicting...gulp.

Praying now. Digesting later. Most likely returning with a change of heart.

[AmazingJesusIs]

Okay, I've read the five-hundred posts since mine, and I think my views have been changed. Here is my new statement:

I am sorry that I called you out to be false, I was way out of line, and take it back. I'm sorry for calling you a false Christian for not believing in Biblical inerrancy, I didn't realize what I was doing at the time, as I do not believe that.

However, you used a quote you got from me, and it was me explaining why God is not omnibenevolent, and you so misquoted me. You excluded that part that returned that love to the LORD. I was saying your definition of omnibenevolence is false, and He doesn't love EVERYONE the same. He loves His elect children the most, as those are the ones He is saving, and He shows His love to the rest by giving them breath and letting them have .001 second - 100 years (modern life spans, not in the time of Abraham) to themselves before hell consumes them, and before Judgment Day. He certainly does love everyone, and shows them grace (which grace is an unmerited gift) by, again, giving them breath.
Okay, done, because now I'm preaching.


I'm new to this forum and debate in general, but I don't use that as an excuse.
Again, sorry for being out of line and not calling you saved, and I guess I can't judge you off of a short debate and your expression of disbelief in the Bible (at least some sections). I would like to have a civil DISCUSSION with you about what exactly you believe.

But here is why I will not debate THEOLOGY with you:

You do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. Theology is based ENTIRELY off of Scripture. If my theology is supported by a Paul-written passage, then you automatically deem it false.

That is why I won't debate THEOLOGY with you.

[WinePusher]

This will be my lst post in this thread, and it will be short cause I've already addressed these points in other posts.

1.) We somewhat agree on in that you invoke ID and a supernatural repairman to explain gaps or "irreducibly complex" things, some of which have been explained already. But you still believe things evolved and that the earth is old correct?

Do you believe in any aspect of creation?

Yea, I believe in descent with modification, I believe life began by divine intervention and I believe that the process of evolution was guided by a supernatural being as convergence seems to indicate. I reject catastrophism and other explanations like a Global Flood for the state the fossil record is in and the the current geological aspects of the Earth.

I also buy alot of the Creationist talking points. Yes, I agree largely with Behe's peer reviewed research on Irreducible complexity when it relates to structures such as the locomotive flagella but reject the creationist point that the eye is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. Other creationist points I wholeheartedly accept are:

Distinctions between Microevolution and Macroevolution
A lack of numerous transitional fossils in relation to the entirety of the record
The failure of Evolutionary Gradualism has an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion
The creation of the universe from an omnipotent and supernatural first cause
The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life from a rational and omniscient designer
The improbability of there being enough beneficial mutations to a genome. Refer to Haldane, Specified Complexity and No Free Lunches
The failure to produce a consistent model of Evolutionary rates

[Darias]

Okay, I've read the five-hundred posts since mine, and I think my views have been changed. Here is my new statement:

I am sorry that I called you out to be false, I was way out of line, and take it back. I'm sorry for calling you a false Christian for not believing in Biblical inerrancy, I didn't realize what I was doing at the time, as I do not believe that.

However, you used a quote you got from me, and it was me explaining why God is not omnibenevolent, and you so misquoted me. You excluded that part that returned that love to the LORD. I was saying your definition of omnibenevolence is false, and He doesn't love EVERYONE the same. He loves His elect children the most, as those are the ones He is saving, and He shows His love to the rest by giving them breath and letting them have .001 second - 100 years (modern life spans, not in the time of Abraham) to themselves before hell consumes them, and before Judgment Day. He certainly does love everyone, and shows them grace (which grace is an unmerited gift) by, again, giving them breath.
Okay, done, because now I'm preaching.


I'm new to this forum and debate in general, but I don't use that as an excuse.
Again, sorry for being out of line and not calling you saved, and I guess I can't judge you off of a short debate and your expression of disbelief in the Bible (at least some sections). I would like to have a civil DISCUSSION with you about what exactly you believe.

But here is why I will not debate THEOLOGY with you:

You do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. Theology is based ENTIRELY off of Scripture. If my theology is supported by a Paul-written passage, then you automatically deem it false.

That is why I won't debate THEOLOGY with you.

Fair enough.

[otseng]

I am sorry that I called you out to be false, I was way out of line, and take it back. I'm sorry for calling you a false Christian for not believing in Biblical inerrancy, I didn't realize what I was doing at the time, as I do not believe that.

Very good. I've added you back to the Brother's Keeper usergroup.

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

This will be my lst post in this thread, and it will be short cause I've already addressed these points in other posts.

1.) We somewhat agree on in that you invoke ID and a supernatural repairman to explain gaps or "irreducibly complex" things, some of which have been explained already. But you still believe things evolved and that the earth is old correct?

Do you believe in any aspect of creation?

I do not believe in Creationism, no. I also do not accept ID. Essentially, I believe in Theistic Evolution, with exception to one issue -- I do not know if God literally created the multiverse. I accept the scientific explanation that our universe was caused by pre-existing laws, like gravity. But as to whether God caused the multiverse or not -- I simply do not know, and cannot know. It could have arose naturally, just like our universe did; however that doesn't mean God would no longer be God. Nor does it mean that He is somehow not the author of everything, if one assumes that He is omniscient and that such a quality leads to causation.

However, all of the above is completely irrelevant when it comes to life on this planet. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Astronomy or Quantum Physics. When it comes to Darwinian Evolution, I accept this as biological fact. And I am not the only Christian who does. I arrived at this viewpoint at the same time when I rejected ID as 'bad science.' -- if you could even call it science at all -- let's just say its a bad idea. Francis Collins, led the Human Genome Project. He is also a Protestant fundamentalist (and by fundamentalist he believes in literal miracles of Jesus and in the cosmological argument) He wrote a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief. I read it and he shows how ID is not a science, but rather a 'Gap hypothesis.' He makes a good argument as to why ID essentially interjects "Goddidit" wherever there are gaps in the scientific record -- gaps which will ultimately be answered by naturalism.

Some have already been answered. Behe's poster child of "irreducible complexity" was totally demolished as a farce. You can watch Kenneth Miller's evidence (He is a Theist and a Roman Catholic) in the third video of my post here which shows how Behe's claims of irreducible complexity are falsified with evidence.

Collins, in his book rejects ID -- and there are many Christians who do, opting instead to accept Theistic Evolution. Billy Graham being one such individual. Now if anyone here can claim he isn't a Christian, go right ahead.

So in conclusion, one does not have to accept a literal Young earth Creationism to be saved, neither do they have to settle for Old earth Creationism -- Nor do they have to settle for the ID proposal (a proposal because it has no models and it presents no evidence, other than claiming that gaps in the scientific record = Goddidit).

Christians can accept Darwinian Evolution and still be Christians. I don't think having to choose between facts and salvation is much of a choice at all.



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

Yea, I believe in descent with modification,

Me too! In that I accept that life, over millenia, adapted and changed via the process of natural selection.


[font=Impact]3.[/font]

I believe life began by divine intervention and I believe that the process of evolution was guided by a supernatural being as convergence seems to indicate.

Oh I wholeheartedly disagree here. Abiogenesis is a sufficient naturalistic explanation for how life arose from non-life on this earth; I see no need to interject any divine magic on God's part here. But again, Abiogenesis is technically not Evolution and we are discussing the Evolution of life.

I don't believe that Evolution was guided along by any supernatural force. Natural selection works fine by itself. In my opinion ID makes God look like a cosmic repairman, constantly fixing stuff. It makes no sense to me.

1. ID is bad science.
2. (IMO) ID makes God look bad.

Now if you care interjecting ID because there are some gaps in the fossil record, well those gaps are being filled everyday. Some creationists claim that every "missing link" that is discovered is it's own animal (which God created at Eden) and not evidence of Evolution. Well the fact is that every "missing link" fossil that is discovered isn't supposed to be a half bear, half duck Frankenstein -- it is supposed to be its own animal, but the qualities of such a creature in relation to other known creatures, often point to some sort of common ancestral link.



[font=Impact]4.[/font]

I reject catastrophism and other explanations like a Global Flood for the state the fossil record is in and the the current geological aspects of the Earth.

I reject the belief in a global flood because such large amounts of water have never been on the earth, and wind does not dissolve water.

However I believe that the flood myths found in ancient Sumerian, Greek, and Hebrew cultures probably originate from a literal, regional flood -- perhaps the flooding of the Mediterranean valley, or the Persian Gulf, after the last Ice Age. I don't think the flood story is based upon nothing, especially when so many cultures espouse some sort of major flood myth -- even ones who've lived in regions that are in no danger of flooding.



[font=Impact]5.[/font]

I also buy alot of the Creationist talking points.

Well a lot of IDers do...



[font=Impact]6.[/font]

IYes, I agree largely with Behe's peer reviewed research on Irreducible complexity when it relates to structures such as the locomotive flagella

The video I mentioned above, as well as the NOVA documentary show why the locomotive flagella, once the poster child of irreducible complexity, is now a very bad example of Behe's hypothesis -- based on the fact that if you take parts away from the flagella, they still have a function.



[font=Impact]7.[/font]

but reject the creationist point that the eye is irreducibly complex and could not have evolved.

Great, we are in agreement then. I concur that the eye is a very highly adapted and evolved organ -- despite being imperfect, due to the fact that parts of it are "backwards". Yes the eye could have evolved on its own without divine intervention.



[font=Impact]8.[/font]

Other creationist points I wholeheartedly accept are:

Distinctions between Microevolution and Macroevolution

In science, there is no real distinction between the two. The terms have been wrongly understood by Creationists who don't like the idea of accepting the fact that one species can evolve into another.



[font=Impact]9.[/font]

A lack of numerous transitional fossils in relation to the entirety of the record

There will always be a lack or a gap, we can minimize gaps with new discoveries, but such evidence will never satisfy some people. Today's gap is tomorrow's bridge. There's no reason to hinge God's existence on the fact that we haven't discovered a seamless assemblage of fossils from the bottom up.



[font=Impact]10.[/font]

The failure of Evolutionary Gradualism has an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion

Natural explanations are all we have for the Cambrian Explosion; you offer no other model aside from we're not completely sure, ergo "Goddidit".



[font=Impact]11.[/font]

The creation of the universe from an omnipotent and supernatural first cause

Our universe was created because of gravity, and gravity and time was pre-existing because of the existence of the Multiverse.

I'm not a scientist, so anyone who knows more about astronomy can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



[font=Impact]12.[/font]

The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life from a rational and omniscient designer

ID doesn't present the case for a good designer, but rather a repairman who fixes stuff that wasn't so great to begin with. We have vestigial organs and imperfect eyes and stuff one would expect if evolution is indeed a blind phenomenon of natural selection. Saying that creation isn't perfect because "sindidit" is a wild claim given the simple alternative -- scientific naturalism.



[font=Impact]13.[/font]

The improbability of there being enough beneficial mutations to a genome. Refer to Haldane, Specified Complexity and No Free Lunches

Time of course is on our side; mutations that were to a species advantage AND which were passed on, helped the species survive -- whilst the species which did not have those mutations became less frequent in the population.

Some mutations are both good and bad, Sickle Cell trait for example. The disease can be lethal, but if you have the traits, it protects you from Malaria.

[center][/center]

There are of course other mutations that had no real "purpose" -- the mutation responsible for turning off part of the gene responsible for melanin -- it created blue eyes, brown and blond hair, and also albinism.



[font=Impact]14.[/font]

The failure to produce a consistent model of Evolutionary rates

Well rates would vary, species evolve and adapt to their habitat, some species may experience less change over time than others.

Speaking of inability to produce models -- what models does ID present? None whatsoever -- another reason not to call it "science."

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory� was so broad it would also include astrology.
_____
SOURCE

[WinePusher]

Do you believe in any aspect of creation?

I do not believe in Creationism, no. I also do not accept ID. Essentially, I believe in Theistic Evolution, with exception to one issue -- I do not know if God literally created the multiverse. I accept the scientific explanation that our universe was caused by pre-existing laws, like gravity. But as to whether God caused the multiverse or not -- I simply do not know, and cannot know. It could have arose naturally, just like our universe did; however that doesn't mean God would no longer be God. Nor does it mean that He is somehow not the author of everything, if one assumes that He is omniscient and that such a quality leads to causation.

Then there's a problem. If you believe God played no active part in creation, and our origins can be explained in terms of naturalism then what role did God play? Were we not an intended, special creation as the Bible says? You also talk about "good" and "bad" science and how Intelligent Design is bad science. Can ou really say that and turn around and say that the theories you're advancing like the "multiverse" or "universe from nothing" constitute "good science." I see a clear double standard in this type of rational.

I arrived at this viewpoint at the same time when I rejected ID as 'bad science.' -- if you could even call it science at all -- let's just say its a bad idea. Francis Collins, led the Human Genome Project. He is also a Protestant fundamentalist (and by fundamentalist he believes in literal miracles of Jesus and in the cosmological argument) He wrote a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief. I read it and he shows how ID is not a science, but rather a 'Gap hypothesis.' He makes a good argument as to why ID essentially interjects "Goddidit" wherever there are gaps in the scientific record -- gaps which will ultimately be answered by naturalism.

What's Intelligent Design, in its most basic form? It's not a rejection of evolution like YEC, it's a proposition that there was a designer of supreme intelligence that was behind the working of the universe and life. Do you reject that? It also is not a "Gap Hypothesis" it's an educated inference based off observations, it's how genuine inquiry works, in science it's called a hypothesis.

I don't believe that Evolution was guided along by any supernatural force. Natural selection works fine by itself.

You said that you support theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution, and now you're saying you don't believe it was guided by a supernatural force.

Other creationist points I wholeheartedly accept are:
Distinctions between Microevolution and Macroevolution

In science, there is no real distinction between the two. The terms have been wrongly understood by Creationists who don't like the idea of accepting the fact that one species can evolve into another.

Sorry, but does a mutation to a genome necessarily lead to an alteration to the phenotype?

A lack of numerous transitional fossils in relation to the entirety of the record

There will always be a lack or a gap, we can minimize gaps with new discoveries, but such evidence will never satisfy some people. Today's gap is tomorrow's bridge. There's no reason to hinge God's existence on the fact that we haven't discovered a seamless assemblage of fossils from the bottom up.

What is an indicator of evolution? The fact that when you look at different layers of strata, you see organisms becoming more and more dissimilar as time progresses as shown by their fossilized remains. An intermediary fossil would indicate the transition between A and C, yet we have quite a few numbers of A and C fossils but lack B, the one that links them together. It's a fact that the record is drastically lacking in this area.

The failure of Evolutionary Gradualism has an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion

Natural explanations are all we have for the Cambrian Explosion; you offer no other model aside from we're not completely sure, ergo "Goddidit".

You're missing the point. What does gradualism predict? What happened in the Cambrian Explosion? Are we ignoring the scientific principle of falsifiability?

The creation of the universe from an omnipotent and supernatural first cause

Our universe was created because of gravity, and gravity and time was pre-existing because of the existence of the Multiverse.

I'm not a scientist, so anyone who knows more about astronomy can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, what makes Hawking more authoritative that you take his word at face value over a creationist physicist? Let's be clear, Hawkings has deviated into the realm of conjecture and guesswork with no empirical data to accompany him. What makes his conjecture superior to that of a creationist physicist who asserts the opposite.

The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life from a rational and omniscient designer

ID doesn't present the case for a good designer, but rather a repairman who fixes stuff that wasn't so great to begin with. We have vestigial organs and imperfect eyes and stuff one would expect if evolution is indeed a blind phenomenon of natural selection. Saying that creation isn't perfect because "sindidit" is a wild claim given the simple alternative -- scientific naturalism.

I wasn't clear. In referring to the cosmos, there is something called the Antrophic principles that describes our current situation:

Fact A: The range of life permitting values that exist are drastically smaller than the range of life prohibiting values that exist.
Fact B: The fact of the existence of carbon based life indicates that we live in a universe where life is permitted.
Inference: These infinitesmially small values are likely to have been fine tuned by a designer.

The improbability of there being enough beneficial mutations to a genome. Refer to Haldane, Specified Complexity and No Free Lunches

Time of course is on our side; mutations that were to a species advantage AND which were passed on, helped the species survive -- whilst the species which did not have those mutations became less frequent in the population.

Some mutations are both good and bad, Sickle Cell trait for example. The disease can be lethal, but if you have the traits, it protects you from Malaria.

[center][/center]

There are of course other mutations that had no real "purpose" -- the mutation responsible for turning off part of the gene responsible for melanin -- it created blue eyes, brown and blond hair, and also albinism.

Again, I think you missed my point. How does a genetic mutation come about? The four ways are inversion, translocation, deletion and substitution, and the codon sequence becomes altered. How are physical characteristics determined? By the particular frequency of a specific allele. When calculating the probability of a particular frequency, Dembski applies the "No Free Lunches" postulates and demonstrates the improbability of this situation.

The failure to produce a consistent model of Evolutionary rates

Well rates would vary, species evolve and adapt to their habitat, some species may experience less change over time than others.

If it's "good science" then the model or theory should be comprehensive and consistent. The question "how do species evolve" is probably more important than the question "do specifies evolve" and we haven't gotten a consistent answer.

Speaking of inability to produce models -- what models does ID present? None whatsoever -- another reason not to call it "science."

Refer to otseng's post:

- God created the first man and woman (tens of thousands of years ago).
- God created the first humans distinct from the animals.
- All humans arose from the first couple.
- A global flood occurred. Noah and his sons and all their wives were the only humans (total of 8) to survive. They repopulated the Earth near the Middle East.

Predictions:
- All humanity traces lineage to one man and one woman.
- There is no gradual transition from animals (specifically primates) to humans.
- Humanity traces origins to around the Middle East area.
- Origin of man traces to tens of thousands of years ago.
- Greater genetic diversity of females than males during the Flood. Males were direct descendants of Noah. Their wives were not direct descendants of Noah's wife.
- Human culture should appear quickly in history.

Falsified by:
- A gradual transition is found from animals to humans in the fossil record.
- Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.

[Darias]

[font=Impact]1.[/font]

I do not believe in Creationism, no. I also do not accept ID. Essentially, I believe in Theistic Evolution, with exception to one issue -- I do not know if God literally created the multiverse. I accept the scientific explanation that our universe was caused by pre-existing laws, like gravity. But as to whether God caused the multiverse or not -- I simply do not know, and cannot know. It could have arose naturally, just like our universe did; however that doesn't mean God would no longer be God. Nor does it mean that He is somehow not the author of everything, if one assumes that He is omniscient and that such a quality leads to causation.

Then there's a problem. If you believe God played no active part in creation, and our origins can be explained in terms of naturalism then what role did God play? Were we not an intended, special creation as the Bible says? You also talk about "good" and "bad" science and how Intelligent Design is bad science. Can ou really say that and turn around and say that the theories you're advancing like the "multiverse" or "universe from nothing" constitute "good science." I see a clear double standard in this type of rational.

1.) The problem is when you equate ID with the Big Bang, M-Theory, and the Multiverse Hypothesis. Mathematics support M-Theory, as well as the possibility of a multi-verse, and this theory will be tested in 2014 with satellite pictures. Direct evidence of dark matter has already been discovered by NASA.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

You can also watch this NOVA documentary on String Theory/M-Theory.


2.) Now, theoretical physics and biological evolution are two different animals, so let's make that distinction right there. There are many who accept Evolution, as it is, who are also skeptical of M-Theory, etc.

However, ID has no models, no data, and it is unfalsifiable. The only things it had were examples of "Irreducible Complexity" -- the most iconic of which was shown, with evidence, that it could have evolved by itself because it is indeed reducible, and its individual parts have functions of their own. (as you will see in my discussion below).

[center][/center]



[font=Impact]2.[/font]

I arrived at this viewpoint at the same time when I rejected ID as 'bad science.' -- if you could even call it science at all -- let's just say its a bad idea. Francis Collins, led the Human Genome Project. He is also a Protestant fundamentalist (and by fundamentalist he believes in literal miracles of Jesus and in the cosmological argument) He wrote a book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief. I read it and he shows how ID is not a science, but rather a 'Gap hypothesis.' He makes a good argument as to why ID essentially interjects "Goddidit" wherever there are gaps in the scientific record -- gaps which will ultimately be answered by naturalism.

What's Intelligent Design, in its most basic form? It's not a rejection of evolution like YEC, it's a proposition that there was a designer of supreme intelligence that was behind the working of the universe and life.

1.) And this is exactly why Intelligent Design is not science, by your own definition.

• a. To propose that there is a metaphysical God is belief -- aka theism. This is an assumption which is indistinguishable from beliefs of religion. This is a belief which is neither proven nor falsified with evidence -- as there can be no physical evidence of a non-physical God.
  
  b. ID assumes (a.), but takes it a step further. ID proponents claim that this God is an active creator who frequently intervened in many natural processes, specifically evolution -- which He miraculously altered (guided), etc.

Such a profound claim is impossible to falsify.

Furthermore, the claim is made with no evidence whatsoever -- the claim is made without any models to show how God would create, alter, change life -- or even why...

The only basis for the claim is the existence of what proponents believe to be "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution's models, evidence, etc.

Behe's Poster Child of irreducible complexity, the Bacterial Flagellum, was something that was claimed to be not only strong evidence for God, but also a God which miraculously (magically) and spontaneously creates whole cellular systems -- which would not function if even 1 part was removed from their systems.

This claim is an argument from ignorance -- "Look a mystery! Is there a natural explanation? Bah, why bother? If we want to prove God's existence, it is better left alone as a 'Holy Mystery.' But that term is too religious sounding. I know! Let's call it 'Irreducible Complexity' !"

And, in the end, there was after all a natural explanation -- a Darwinian Evolutionary explanation for how the Bacterial Flagellum formed. If you remove parts from the Bacterial Flagellum, you will find that it has a perfectly good function. Watch this video if you haven't already. It's a six minutes long excerpt of a lecture by Kenneth Miller. The evidence clearly shows that what was once Irreducible Complexity's best example, the one which was referred two countless times as solid evidence for ID, that great example of something un- evolvable -- evolved on its own after all. No magic necessary. Watch.

[center][youtube]
[/youtube][/center]


ID asks questions but provides no answer but "God-did-it." It doesn't try to explain the workings of the natural world -- it assumes Divine magic based on "We don't know exactly, but far be it from us to try and understand how."

Real scientists try to find explanations which can be proven with data -- and thanks to real science, we now know that a Bacterial Flagellum could have evolved without any magic whatsoever.

And this is something which could have been taught in our schools! It would have made kids dumb. But even worse! Such ignorance would be tied to Theism! Thank God that Theism can survive without depending on such ignorant non-sense.

[center][/center]

[center][/center]



[font=Impact]3.[/font]

I don't believe that Evolution was guided along by any supernatural force. Natural selection works fine by itself.

You said that you support theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution, and now you're saying you don't believe it was guided by a supernatural force.

Well, theistic evolution isn't science, it is a philosophical idea that God exists and that Evolution is a natural process, which did not need magical intervention from God.

It is one thing to believe that the natural processes of this earth are tied to God's will, planned from the beginning.

It is another thing to believe that God tinkers and plays with his creation by divinely and magically altering / spontaneously creating things.


However, Science, on the other-hand, is thus:
[center][/center]

It is everything we understand about life in the natural world.

Belief doesn't drive science, and shouldn't. In science, you don't start with a conclusion and look for proof to back it up -- you start with the facts and look for a natural explanation of those facts.

[center][/center]


I liken ID to the following illustration:

A hurricane is evidence for a designer. The odds that trillions of molecules of gas would arrange themselves to look like a beautiful spiral are astronomical. And look how it moves across the ocean! Can it not be said that this hurricane is moved by the hand of God Himself? And that the victims of such a storm are being punished for their sins?

Of course one may have personal beliefs about God, as to why He would allow such a hurricane to take place, or whatever -- people can speculate on God's will.

But the hurricane itself shouldn't be a divine mystery. There is nothing magical about the weather phenomenon. It wasn't helped along by divine intervention; it formed by itself. Nature is blind. Hurricanes are completely natural and they are predictable.

Our natural world, life, and the universe, should be viewed in the same light. To make God out to be a repairman/ genetic intercessor / magical Zeus doesn't necessarily make God look good -- plus it makes kids ignorant of science and how our natural world works. ID is a deterrent to finding answers -- once people think "Goddidit magically," scientific inquiry becomes pointless -- why pursue the matter further if you believe there is no explanation apart from "it's a miracle" ? If ID was established on the earth, it would be the end of science as we know it.

Understand this, Darwinian Evolution does not = Atheism. Scientific naturalism does not = Atheism. Our universe/world is what it is, and our universe can be explained rationally and naturally. And that fact doesn't make God irrelevant. Nor does it disprove God. Faith in God, a faith which is firmly rooted in my being, should not be "proven" with pseudo-voodoo masquerading as science. My faith is in no way contingent on whether or not ID is valid -- again, thank God.