Creation can be tested, observed and measured?

[anchorman]

Creation shows more ability to be tested, observed and measured than any macro-evolution combined with abiogenesis theory presently has demonstrated.

Forgive me for sounding simplistic but sometimes commonsense can make a powerful point.

Creationism is observed everytime a car rolls off an assembly line, any time a drug is manufactured any time a new life is brought into existence anytime a bridge is constructed. My point is that these are things of complexity that where created by an intelligence. Life forms are created after "their own kind" .

We have several engineering and operational management techniques in place to test and measure our creations based on design principles. and often they are predicted with enough precision that you trust your family to drive over the bridge that was designed/created.

The point is that generally speaking ,complexity is a sign of intelligence, and life forms are more complex than anything man has ever created.

Evolution is necessary for explaining the natural variety withing species. However it falls apart when used as a tool for explaining "molecules to Man". Evolution simply cannot explain how evolutionary mechanisms have created massive amounts of genetic information that we see in even our simplist live forms.

Evolution triumphs when showing how diversity is present within species.

I remember a line from a movie starring jody Foster called "Contact". When a signal from outer space was observed and analyised it was noticed that after a signal had beeped about 4 prime numbers in a row had been found and that was enough information for Foster to say" there is no way this is a natural phenomenon" We now see genetic information that is enough to blow our mind within the simplest life forms and somehow we feel that they must be a natural phenomenon. Im not buying it.

Complexity is and always has been a sign of intelligence.

[ST88]

a digression in a given work are surely not an example of perfection of form.

It depends on your intention. Part of post-modernist theory holds that all writing is digression (or none of it is). "Perfection of form" is merely a construct of the observer. The designer need not follow the elements of deconstruction in order for his work to be deconstructed.

But beauty is not a reason. Do you really believe beauty to be an objective quality, as Christians believe right and wrong to be?

and

God is perfect, and God has a plan. I am certain he does not create useless things simply for the sake of having useless things to "enjoy", or create other things because he needs to rely on them for his own pleasure. I am certain he does not create pretty things for man either, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say - unless you believe in a metaphysical concept of aesthetics

Just because there is not a standard of beauty among all humans everywhere does not mean that beauty does not exist, or that there are some things in every individual's experience that he/she finds beautiful. Theoretically, we should be able to ask people what they find beautiful and have an answer come back at us. In this way, beauty is an objective quality -- not that every single object in the universe has or should have this quality, but that it can be measured for specific individual tastes.

This raises an interesting question. God would be the ultimate art critic, and it would be curious to see where he stands and which artist he prefers.

I doubt that there are entire portfolios that would pass the God test. Every Hitchcock has his "Marnie".

I will quote Mr. Wilde in saying, "all art is quite useless".

Mr. Wilde, however, is an artist, which means we can't trust him to interpret his own métier.

As for the butterflies; since the species may have evolved even with the presence of a creator, such speciation happens by his will, so it by no means lessens the perceived redundancy of their many species. Why do the butterflies evolve? To adapt. Why do they need to adapt? Because the world changes or their environment changes. Why does the world or environment change?

This is quite beside the point. That God may have set up the system by which the butterflies evolve, so the argument might go , only shows his aesthetic intentions. Why can't the great variety of lifeforms point to the wonder of God in the same way that a tropical sunset evokes feelings of wonder?

I am not entirely sure that God wants us to be obsessive compulsive, or pedantic scholars of his creation - a study normally undertaken only by a very small minority of the human race - and he is quite capable of inspiring marvel through other means than by altering the environment. Insead of creating something vast and remote to facilitate a psychological effect, he could simply change the psychology and leave an empty sky.

But H/he didn't, did he? I do not need to prove that I know the mind of God in this argument. Yet you need to prove that you know what the mind of God isn't, which is an untenable position. I can speculate that the great variety of forms that we see all have a purpose. What are the purposes? I don't know. Furthermore, the Bible tells me that I don't need to know, in fact I can't possibly know or fathom what the reasons are even if God were to tell me.

What you are essentially asking by bringing this up is why didn't God just put vitamin pills on trees, why bother with all of the undigestible material?

I think you miss the point. Why do we need 12 different essential vitamins in the first place? Why could we not just have one? Do you really believe that no redundancies whatsoever exist in the world, and that it is essentially perfect?

Of course not. But if it were perfect -- and I mean perfect in the sense that God thinks it's perfect -- would we recognize it? Would we even be able to comprehend its perfection? We can hardly contemplate string theory without getting headaches. Is it your contention, sir, that we can state with absolute certainty that the universe is not perfect? Before you say "of course that is my contention," consider what God would consider perfect. Do planets need to be perfect spheres? Does every caterpillar need to metamorphose into a butterfly? Does every cloud need to resemble Judy Holliday? I don't think you can say that the God standard is the same as the human standard of perfection.

But I see no evidence of an intelligently planned efficiency, and no reason for such an overly mechanistic or mechanical functionality of the universe, especially when the bible shows that in numerous times throughout history its laws have been broken or bent. Jesus, through supernatural means, was able to transubstantiate water into wine. I, limited to entirely natural means, am only able to transubstantiate water into.... well, you know, I think we're rather at a disadvantage.

A disadvantage compared to whom? The Son of God? I would expect that kind of "disadvantage". Why should/would I expect to have transubstantiation powers? (wine, I mean) I would also expect that when N/natural law was broken that it would be a remarkable enough event that it was set down in some kind of record. I would also expect that the efficiency of, say, a piston engine is not the same kind of term when applied to rabbit vs. wolf population metrics. "Efficiency", when applied to physical laws, is a pejorative term that makes us think that something, like friction or a statistical outlier, is necessarily undesirable. I submit that such things are not only not undesirable, they are expected and necessary in order for the system to function.

Tell me, do you think we need a new topic to discuss this?

Only if we get off-topic.

[Corvus]

Just because there is not a standard of beauty among all humans everywhere does not mean that beauty does not exist, or that there are some things in every individual's experience that he/she finds beautiful. Theoretically, we should be able to ask people what they find beautiful and have an answer come back at us. In this way, beauty is an objective quality -- not that every single object in the universe has or should have this quality, but that it can be measured for specific individual tastes.

There are some things that the great majority will all regard as beautiful, but this still does not mean this beauty is objective or can be regarded as a fixed quality, like whether something is dark or made of wood, or hard.

Of course not. But if it were perfect -- and I mean perfect in the sense that God thinks it's perfect -- would we recognize it? Would we even be able to comprehend its perfection? We can hardly contemplate string theory without getting headaches. Is it your contention, sir, that we can state with absolute certainty that the universe is not perfect? Before you say "of course that is my contention," consider what God would consider perfect. Do planets need to be perfect spheres? Does every caterpillar need to metamorphose into a butterfly? Does every cloud need to resemble Judy Holliday? I don't think you can say that the God standard is the same as the human standard of perfection.

It is my contention that for a thing to be recognised as a design its parts should be geared towards its purpose. It's all well and good for a watch to be decorated and embelished, but if I were to open it, I would find a contraption the size of my thumb's fingernail. We can quite easily point out that the elaborate systems we see in nature are geared towards some purpose far beyond our understanding, but we can only be baffled at why a designer did not give us hooves, why we have nails on our feet, hair on our bodies, more hair on our heads (I would be interested to know how evolution explains this too), why it must constantly grow and never stop, why men have nipples, why there is a cleft in our buttocks, as well as the questions previously asked, as to why there are wings on flightless birds, eyes on things that are blind, etc, etc. This page on Talkorigins.org provides more details of bad design, including: Outsized hind legs of some four-legged dinosaurs, Wisdom teeth, Original embryonic eye positions, Cetacean hipbones, Fetal teeth missing from adults, Crab tails, Extra toes of ungulates and bird teeth genes.

So my contention is that if the complexity of the universe points to a designer, and the complexity can be reduced without altering any of its laws, then the perfect intelligent designer argument fails.

disadvantage compared to whom? The Son of God? I would expect that kind of "disadvantage". Why should/would I expect to have transubstantiation powers? (wine, I mean) I would also expect that when N/natural law was broken that it would be a remarkable enough event that it was set down in some kind of record.

No, my point is that the natural law - with constantly smaller and smaller units of matter that make up reality that are only of interest to pedantic scientists - actually exists when a purely "supernatural" method of functioning, which does not respond to logic, could easily exist. This argument is entirely rhetorical, however, since the world does exist as it is - so I will judge it as it is and as it could be, not as it should be.

I would also expect that the efficiency of, say, a piston engine is not the same kind of term when applied to rabbit vs. wolf population metrics. "Efficiency", when applied to physical laws, is a pejorative term that makes us think that something, like friction or a statistical outlier, is necessarily undesirable. I submit that such things are not only not undesirable, they are expected and necessary in order for the system to function.

That is something I understand. But once these laws are created, and once systems (the body, ecosystems, etc) have been founded upon these laws, I do believe we are capable of evaluating the efficiency of these systems in regard to a design that should be able to create systems that function perfectly in tune with this system.

Only if we get off-topic.

What is that tongue-poking-smiley for? You think I am relenting? No, never! :2gun: I just wasn't entirely sure if what we are discussing was in accord with the question stated in the subject heading, "Creation can be tested, observed and measured?" A question that the poster, for some reason, phrased as a statement.

[ST88]

It is my contention that for a thing to be recognised as a design its parts should be geared towards its purpose.

Aye, but there's the rub. Purpose is what, again? My contention is that the purpose cannot be gleaned from the information we have and/or have been given.

The question in this thread, "Creation can be tested, observed and measured?" can be answered with an emphatic NO. But not for the reasons you describe. Complexity does not point to a creator, it is true. But for exactly the same reasons, it also does not not point to a creator. Er... The metaphysical nature of the God model is inherently un-measurable because we don't have all the proper yardsticks.

We can quite easily point out that the elaborate systems we see in nature are geared towards some purpose far beyond our understanding, but we can only be baffled at why a designer did not give us hooves, why we have nails on our feet, hair on our bodies, more hair on our heads (I would be interested to know how evolution explains this too), why it must constantly grow and never stop, why men have nipples, why there is a cleft in our buttocks, as well as the questions previously asked, as to why there are wings on flightless birds, eyes on things that are blind, etc, etc. This page on Talkorigins.org provides more details of bad design, including: Outsized hind legs of some four-legged dinosaurs, Wisdom teeth, Original embryonic eye positions, Cetacean hipbones, Fetal teeth missing from adults, Crab tails, Extra toes of ungulates and bird teeth genes.

Again, "bad" design is in the eye of the beholder.

Eyes on fish that are blind
In the murky depths of the ocean, where darkness is the rule and light gets noticed like a Weinerschnitzel at a vegetarian cult farm, there are predators (like the anglerfish) that use glowing, lighted lures shaped like worms to lure smaller fish to their deaths. Blind fish would be immune to these lures and would therefore survive better. But even better than that, blind fish that have eyes would fool predators that might try and take advantage of a fish that behaves as if it didn't have eyes. That is, the predator would recognize that fish with no eyes would behave a certain way and would therefore alter its approach for these fish. Fish with eyes, however, completely disrupts the predatory behavior.

No hooves on humans
Hooves are only good for certain environments -- rocks, grasslands, desert. They don't do particularly well on marshland or in trees. Humans require the maxium amount of mobility in order to give their intellect more options for survival, such as running up trees when chased by yak, or collecting eels for pie in shallow water.

Nails on the feet
Why nails at all, anywhere? They mostly get in the way, they usually aren't strong enough for daily jobs like digging or cutting - in fact they get broken easily and cause potentially harmful situations when they are cut wrong. But this also means that the feet and hands must be used with great care. It forces us to think about where we are going and what we are doing with our feet and hands, and therefore forces us to be more careful.

Longer hair on the head
The fact that it is longer on humans than it is on other animals could have a number of purposes. Human hair only grows to a certain length, and then stops (the Rapunzel fairy tale notwithstanding). The length is different for different people. Why is this? In other species, the length of hair is fairly uniform if different at all.

One answer is for identification. The length of hair on people forces them to make choices about it. It gets in the way when we're trying to do something, it flies around and gets in the mouth, the eyes, the nose, impairing our concentration. So we do things with it. We cut it or we design it or we put seashell combs in it. Different people do different things. We no longer have the acute sense of smell of our ancestors (largely because we don't need it any longer), which is the primary mechanism animals use to distinguish each other, but we do have very strong associations with sight. So it would follow that the appearance of others is extremely important in how we distinguish them in a crowd. One interesting feature of autistic children is that they do not respond to faces of individuals the way "normal" children do. They do not recognize people by their faces, they recognize them by their mannerisms, their patterns of movement, and by their physical features, such as hair. My old Neuropsychology professor used to tell a story about how she worked with autistic children when she was a grad student. One day, she cut her waist-length hair very short, and to her amazement, the children she worked with for two years no longer recognized her. She had the same face, the same movements, but the hair change caused them to reject her as a stranger.

Another answer is for warmth. Now that we're upright, we would need the extra insulation on top rather than on the sides. Now, this explanation has its problems, one of which is genetic baldness. But there is another theory that puts the genetic basis for baldness as a fairly recent phenomenon.

Why men have nipples
1) Male humans can lactate in the presence of certain hormones, like estrogen. Is it possible that males produced and ingested more estrogen from sources like animal organs or possibly from the non-suppression of this activity due to the radical change of diet since way back when? Some male members of the animal kingdom can lactate normally, such as the the Dayak fruit bat.

2) I don't have any evidence for this, but it might have to do with child rearing. When a male holds a child and it tries to nurse it gets nothing. It therefore associates the female with food and the male with disappointment. Without the nipple, the infant does not have the opportunity for this kind of reaction. This might set up the kind of aggression seen in male-dominated heirarchical societies that have lost the use of scent-based signals necessary for alpha behaviors. This fits in nicely with the God plan, because the infant would naturally want to associate food with the mother and not get used to having the father around all the time.

I will stop here and let you take a breath. I suppose further discussion about these should be posted in Random Ramblings.

So my contention is that if the complexity of the universe points to a designer, and the complexity can be reduced without altering any of its laws, then the perfect intelligent designer argument fails.

I do not see the logic in this argument. If the complexity can be "reduced" to a number of laws, wouldn't that point to a designer? This is like agreeing with Paley's Pocket Watch argument. If we can propound laws that give explanations to the complexity around us, aren't we just describing the mechanisms of the watch?

No, my point is that the natural law - with constantly smaller and smaller units of matter that make up reality that are only of interest to pedantic scientists - actually exists when a purely "supernatural" method of functioning, which does not respond to logic, could easily exist. This argument is entirely rhetorical, however, since the world does exist as it is - so I will judge it as it is and as it could be, not as it should be.

But all arguments are rhetorical, especially these. You are correct that our could be's and should be's are essentially irrelevant because we are stuck with the way things are. But apparently we cannot even agree on that. So the could be's and the should be's enter into the discussion without remorse. My contention is that there is nothing we can prove that specifically points away from intelligent design nor nothing that specifically points towards it. As I have said many times before, science is useless when metaphysics are involved. Science can only debunk whacked-out theories of how something metaphysical can affect something physical. That is, the chaotic universe and all of its physical laws do not, in and of themselves disprove, nor will they ever be able to disprove, the hidden hand of a D/designer.

That is something I understand. But once these laws are created, and once systems (the body, ecosystems, etc) have been founded upon these laws, I do believe we are capable of evaluating the efficiency of these systems in regard to a design that should be able to create systems that function perfectly in tune with this system.

This assumes we can recognize the laws as they are, the design as it was created, and the attitude of perfection in which they swirl.

[Corvus]

It is my contention that for a thing to be recognised as a design its parts should be geared towards its purpose.

Aye, but there's the rub. Purpose is what, again? My contention is that the purpose cannot be gleaned from the information we have and/or have been given.

I would say it depends on what we are attempting to understand the purpose of. In the case of a heart, liver, lungs, we are fairly certain of what is expected of them.

Based on your last answer, however, I believe you are applying a "chaos theory" or "determinist" argument to my question - that if our livers were shaped like Elvis, the entire history and future of the world would be different. If so, then, without getting sidetracked by a debate on freewill, I will have to concede the debate.

I will stop here and let you take a breath. I suppose further discussion about these should be posted in Random Ramblings.

Yes, you have provided some excellent answers to those questions - and some that seemed a little bit of a stretch. However, that only shows the inadequacy of my examples and my failure to research or exercise more forethought.

They do not recognize people by their faces, they recognize them by their mannerisms, their patterns of movement, and by their physical features, such as hair. My old Neuropsychology professor used to tell a story about how she worked with autistic children when she was a grad student. One day, she cut her waist-length hair very short, and to her amazement, the children she worked with for two years no longer recognized her. She had the same face, the same movements, but the hair change caused them to reject her as a stranger.

Yes, that's quite interesting. I know experiments on horses that were believed to "count" with their hooves showed that they actually read the almost unnoticeable movements of the body in the people who were counting.

I also recently read in an entertaining column in the newspaper that sheep can recognise up to 50 different faces. I had always considered them rather stupid animals.

So my contention is that if the complexity of the universe points to a designer, and the complexity can be reduced without altering any of its laws, then the perfect intelligent designer argument fails.

I do not see the logic in this argument. If the complexity can be "reduced" to a number of laws, wouldn't that point to a designer? This is like agreeing with Paley's Pocket Watch argument. If we can propound laws that give explanations to the complexity around us, aren't we just describing the mechanisms of the watch?

I would not say so. It is hypothetically accepting a belief in order to follow its arguments to its logical conclusion and therefore disprove them. That the universe operates in a predictable and mechanical way is something both creation and evolution agree on, only one proposes a system that just is and has been, while the other, Intelligent Design, proposes a system that was made by someone that is and always has been. Intelligent design proponents believe in something called "irreducible complexity". If I can reduce the complexity without affecting the operation of the world, then I would assume, if we take the design argument as true, that points to an imperfect designer or creation. If Paley's Pocket Watch didn't work properly, or could have worked just as easily by removing a few parts in the mechanism that would not be missed, then the designer clearly lacked skill or had something to learn in his chosen craft.

[ST88]

So my contention is that if the complexity of the universe points to a designer, and the complexity can be reduced without altering any of its laws, then the perfect intelligent designer argument fails.

I do not see the logic in this argument. If the complexity can be "reduced" to a number of laws, wouldn't that point to a designer? This is like agreeing with Paley's Pocket Watch argument. If we can propound laws that give explanations to the complexity around us, aren't we just describing the mechanisms of the watch?

I would not say so. It is hypothetically accepting a belief in order to follow its arguments to its logical conclusion and therefore disprove them. That the universe operates in a predictable and mechanical way is something both creation and evolution agree on, only one proposes a system that just is and has been, while the other, Intelligent Design, proposes a system that was made by someone that is and always has been. Intelligent design proponents believe in something called "irreducible complexity". If I can reduce the complexity without affecting the operation of the world, then I would assume, if we take the design argument as true, that points to an imperfect designer or creation. If Paley's Pocket Watch didn't work properly, or could have worked just as easily by removing a few parts in the mechanism that would not be missed, then the designer clearly lacked skill or had something to learn in his chosen craft.

I see what kind of breaking down you're getting at. I suppose I could further argue that the universe is so perfectly perfect that even if some components were to be removed or added or altered by us, there would still be perfection, but I am too tired.

For the record, I did not say that I favored the "Design" argument, I just question whether such reduction necessarily points away from it.

[Xanadu Moo]

I'll throw some spirituality into this debate. As ST88 said, the answer to the original question in the post is no. The explanations are a lot more cumbersome when approached from only a scientific point of view.

So the question by unbelievers seems to be "Why isn't God predictable?" Are you expecting Him to be uniform and conventional?

Or a variation to that is "Why didn't God make everything obvious?"

To those two questions, apply those to artists, musicians, and writers. The better question is "Why should they be expected to?"

This Earth and our universe is not God's most perfect creation. We are promised greater creations to be revealed after this life is over. I don't think very many believers have an expectation of the Earth being without flaw. Heck, even evil itself is allowed to exist here. God isn't exactly happy with the overall state of world history. But there are imperfections here by design.

There are many valid explanations in general...
--Not everything on earth needs to have a purpose. It's OK for many things to be arbitrarily placed. That doesn't detract from anything.
--To give us a giant playground with discoveries at every turn. Who's to say we won't explore the depths of the ocean someday?
--To confound scientists who think they can somehow outsmart an omniscient being.
--Some things are placed as trials/burdens to see how we respond to them, or if we can overcome them.

Corvus, your poetry analogy assumes that the world is complex and therefore not like a poem. Maybe to God, the world is very very simple. It's all relative. We have no other existence to compare it with. The fact that we deem it complex shows how little advanced we are in our analytical ability.

True, there is room for more simplicity, but why should it be desirable to make the simplest ecosystem? As humans, we're in the mindset of time conservation and resource conservation, but God doesn't need to be concerned with efficiency, because He has no limits on time or resources.

The thousands of different species of birds, frogs, snakes, lizards, etc, etc... Tobago alone has 400 different species of birds. This seems like a terrible redundancy.
Compared to what? Is it a competition for best in show? The world you seem to be proposing might be a little drab. Diversity is a wonderful thing.

Birds that have feathers and wings yet cannot fly.
Are there requirements here? Who are we to define them?

The existence of creatures in the depths of the sea that have absolutely no effect on our existence and will never come into contact with us in our lifetimes.
Animals themselves may have their own purpose and utility.

The existence of icy wastes and deserts, which cannot support much life, and some of which cannot support human life at all, making them useless.
I doubt if the archaelogical world would give up on those notions.

The inefficiencies of the human body, eg, a small toe that has little use, when we could have just as easily possessed hooves.
If we'd had hooves, you might be saying we could have just as easily possessed feet. By the way, if you live in Minnesota, you could just as easily live in Wisconsin, so why don't you? Some things just occur by default, assuming there are many similar adequate choices.

The constant need of expelling waste products from our bodies.
Psychological refreshment, just like a good belch. Besides, a lot of the greatest thoughts come while repairing to the bathroom.

The fact that we need to grow for 18 years before we are fully developed.
Seems like a very wise design to me. There's a lot to develop mentally and emotionally (I know -- that's relative too), and I think it's very fortuitous that 7-year olds aren't the size of adults. I look at it as a gift to have my children with me in their state of childhood for close to 20 years.

Where do these ideals of a predictable world come from? Why should anyone want the world to be devoid of inconsistencies? Variety is the spice of life.