Question 2: Natural Selection

[Simon]

According to Richard Dawkins, the "evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." Yet he also states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." How does Dawkins know that living things only appear to be designed but are not actually designed?

[potwalloper.]

Naturally, we would not know exactly why God did this to us, but for those who believe, they would also believe that this has a purpose, and their lack of ability to articulate what that purpose might be is not evidence that the poor-design argument has credibility.

In other words - we don't know but I bet he did it anyway.

[otseng]

Now it is easy to invent functions for an organ that is patently useless - perhaps it was put there to test our faith, just like fossils?

Perhaps not to test our faith, but to test our reasoning.

Just because something is currently seemingly useless does not mean that it is conclusively useless.

Take tonsils. Does it have a purpose? Years ago, it was considered no. And its only purpose was to be inflamed and removed. Now, we have a better understanding of its purposes. The same could be for the appendix.

Humans were not created with a genetic predisposition for disease. Please support your case for this.

perhaps this will do to start: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... ection.216:

I am not stating that people do not have genetic diseases. I am stating how do you know that humans were created with a genetic predisposition for diseases. The key word being "created".

I believe that Adam and Eve were created perfect, even genetically. They had no genetic predisposition for disease. It is implied in the Bible that they could've lived forever. Only when they sinned did the curse fall on the world. Then they became victims to a sin-cursed world, this includes the ability to get genetic diseases. After the flood, things got much worse and the environment was even more hostile to humans.

Now, I agree that humans now are vulnerable to genetic diseases, but it was not the case when God created humans. It was only after man sinned that man had a predisposition to diseases.

However the discussion concerned "intelligent" - if something is not intelligent then what is it?

How about "not intelligent"?

What happens with an appendix, or a tail, that is no longer able to perform its earlier function because other changes have occurred? It depends on what mutations happen to occur. If a mutation occurs that blocks its development altogether, then it disappears. If no such mutations occur, then it is still there. If its original form is actually a disadvantage, then any mutations that happen to make the structure smaller are likely to be selected for, if they occur. This seems to be the case with our appendix and our tail/coccyx.

Actually, I could accept that the appendix has evolved as an option. Perhaps it was originally created with a purpose but has evolved to its current state as having little purpose. Wisdom teeth would be another example.

My point here is not to show that natural selection isn't true, only that this part of the argument, the poor-design argument doesn't necessarily go anywhere. I would suggest that the arguments for this fall victim to the lack-of-imagination fallacy. Naturally, we would not know exactly why God did this to us, but for those who believe, they would also believe that this has a purpose, and their lack of ability to articulate what that purpose might be is not evidence that the poor-design argument has credibility.

I would also add that the sloppy design argument is not very convincing. However, I believe that a thread has not been created for this yet, so if anybody wants to start that, feel free to do so.

[Jose]

Humans were not created with a genetic predisposition for disease. Please support your case for this.

<various posts in between>

I am not stating that people do not have genetic diseases. I am stating how do you know that humans were created with a genetic predisposition for diseases. The key word being "created".

I believe that Adam and Eve were created perfect, even genetically. They had no genetic predisposition for disease. It is implied in the Bible that they could've lived forever. Only when they sinned did the curse fall on the world. Then they became victims to a sin-cursed world, this includes the ability to get genetic diseases. After the flood, things got much worse and the environment was even more hostile to humans.

Hmmm...in citing the pre-flood condition, you may well be right. Before the flood, everything was supernatural, and the rules were different. Unfortunately, this cannot be tested scientifically, so it is impossible to support a case either way. The notion that Adam and Eve were created perfectly (or at all, for that matter) is strictly biblical. I think that the only way we can get at this is to go back to the "Flood as Science" thread, and see if we can determine whether the evidence supports a pre-flood/post-flood world. If not, we may be forced to conclude that humans were created in a different manner, which may well have been in a world in which diseases and imperfection were the norm.

[otseng]

Before the flood, everything was supernatural, and the rules were different. Unfortunately, this cannot be tested scientifically, so it is impossible to support a case either way. The notion that Adam and Eve were created perfectly (or at all, for that matter) is strictly biblical. I think that the only way we can get at this is to go back to the "Flood as Science" thread, and see if we can determine whether the evidence supports a pre-flood/post-flood world.

I wouldn't say that everything prior to the flood was supernatural, but I would agree that the environment was much different than today. I also wouldn't necessarily say the rules were different, but simply that the conditions were different.

As to the Flood as Science thread, now that I'm starting to get back into debate scene, I will make that thread a priority for me.

[Jose]

As to the Flood as Science thread, now that I'm starting to get back into debate scene, I will make that thread a priority for me.

I don't want to sound like I'm pushing you, personally. I'm also trying to invite any other members to offer their thoughts in that thread, too. I'd be interested, for instance, to hear what Simon has to offer. It is true, of course, that it was a discussion between the two of us that got the Flood as Science concept going, but I would hope that others would join in and help answer the questions.

I started that thread in an effort to treat the creationist viewpoint seriously, as the creationists ask that we do. I invite creationists to help us examine this viewpoint seriously.