Intelligent Creation (God) as opposed to Evolution

[foshizzle]

I have been told several times that religion and science are two different foundations of belief; that science leaves religion purposeless. I have come to the conviction that they actually coincide with one another. Science is not a means to disprove Theism, but rather, it is a foundation on which to find God. In the very clockwork and machinery of the universe we find evidence for a superior being.

To start, the new cosmology (Big Bang and it's accompanying theoretical underpinning in general relativity) points to a definite beginning of the universe. This is extremely antimaterialistic. You can invoke neither time nor space nor matter, energy or the laws of nature to explain the origin of the universe. General relativity points to the need for a cause that transcends those domains; namely, God.

Next, I’d say 'anthropic fine-tuning'. This means, basically, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and our universe have precise numerical values that could have been otherwise. That is, there's no fundamental reason for these values to be the way they are. Take universe expansion. Fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. This means, if it were changed by one part in either direction (slower or faster) we could not have a universe capable of sustaining life; so says Stephen Hawking. Fred Hoyle said, 'A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellilect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'

Perhaps it looks fine-tuned because it is?

Next, I would say the origin of life, and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence, is an argument for the sake of theism. Life at all points requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules in substantial amounts. Here, an idea for an Intelligent Creator isn't what is thought of as an 'argument from ignorance'. This infers design because all other theories fail at this point (natural evolution, etc.) and, the only possible creator of such substantial information at the point of origin for all known things is God.

Then, there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by natural selection. These integrative, complex systems in biological organisms (called 'irreducibly complex') include signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors and all kinds of biological/chemical circuitry. All of these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function, but how could it ever be built by a process of natural selection/evolution, acting on random variations? Evolution only preserves things that perform a function. In other words, they preserve things that help the organism to survive to the next generation.

The problem is, these micro-motors perform nothing unless all parts are present and working together in close coordination with each other. Evolution couldn't build a system like this, it can only preserve them, and it's virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap and create the entire system as a whole.

I personally would see these biological systems as evidence for Intelligent Creation, seeing as every time we see such an 'irreducibly complex' system now, an intelligent being is behind it.

More evidence biologically, the Cambrian Explosion is another example. This “biological big bang” happened during a trivial amount of time (geologically, anyway). Here, around 35 completely unique body plans (skeletal structures) came into existence. You have a huge jump in complexity; it's sudden, and there are no transitional intermediates, no fossils to explain this sudden gap. In normal experience, information is the result of conscious activity, and here we have the geologically sudden explosion of massive amounts of biological data (needed for these body plans), far beyond what evolution can produce.

Finally, I’d say human consciousness would definitely support theism. We're not a computer made of meat. We have the capacity for self-reflection, representational art, language, creativity...science can't account for this kind of consciousness coming merely from physical matter interacting in the brain. Where did it come from?

I find the only source to be an Intelligent Designer, and it doubles as the basis for my theistic beliefs.

[jwu]

ADDED: jwu, i bet you that the arch on the image will be in existence far longer then the marriage sitting on it Razz

I'm not going to bet against that...at least not 1:1

However...

The Avian Lung is irreducibly complex, and definately couldn't have evolved from the bidirectional reptile lung.

I'm going to call axeplayer on that one.
PS: Just noticed...exactly that topic already is going on in some other thread.

[CJO]

You claim not to be arguing from ignorance, but what you are doing is very similar. You are making an argument from personal incredulity: "I don't see how (X) could possibly have evolved: therefore (X) did not evolve."
Pretty unconvincing.

The biggest problem is that you don't offer an alternative.

See, people who argue for ID as an alternative scientific theory are either just ignorant about what science is and does, or, more often, they intentionally distort the facts about science in order to discredit evolution. And one of the key points conveniently ignored by the ID camp is that we do not just expect theories to explain a phenomenon entire. We expect them to generate research. Good theories engender good science. So, when anti-evolutionists rattle on and on about the supposedly "irreducible" complexity inherent in the biochemical underpinnings of metabolism and heredity, they are merely pointing to some open questions at the edge of a robust and successful science. Far from being a "crisis" in Darwinian thought, the open questions show the degree to which the theory continues to generate avenues for useful research.

ID, on the other hand, is utterly bankrupt in this regard. Its answers for these, admittedly tough, questions is simply "don't look over there. God did that." There is no research program, no avenues for refinement of the idea. It's just a blanket answer that meets none of the requirements for a scientific theory.

[foshizzle]

Starting from the beginning...

Because every bit of evidence suggest otherwise. You seem to be ignoring my reasoning behind my belief. Please, if you're going to post, have a purpose. I said earlier in my article that this is not an "argument from ignorance". This is a point of view based on the fact that all others fall short when all 6 points are brought up, with the exception of God.

Incorrect, Because God, is not an answer.

A belief in no God would mean you believe the entire universe started from nothing. Seeing as this goes against any materialistic views, and cannot be explained (and every law of physics goes against it), you would have to believe that everything erupted from nothingness, believe the impossibility of anrthopic tuning to be chance, and the rest of what i said.

Once again, incorrect. You claim what i believe. I said nothing about how/when the Universe was created, or even, if i believe it to have begun at all. Perhaps it is constant? I said nothing about this, yet, you make assumtions that i believe certain things, just because i am an atheist.

And i never said i had the evidence for convincing you. You make a wrong assumption that i care about you changing your mind . You won't, because you're set in your ways.I am not trying to change them, or your mind. I am simply finding all information i can find about the theories of evolution, and arguing them from alternative sides.

Not only do you make incorrect assumtion here, you also insult me.

You say you dont have any evidence, yet you start a topic about ID compared to Evolution. Whats the point of it then? You also claim you dont even care about changing my mind, why do you bother then?

The only thing you have done here, is to take the lack of fact that evolution obviously have, and given the answer as "God". And once again, im sorry to tell you, God is not an answer. You could say Santa Claus instead, it means nothing, as it does not explain anything.


With Regards

Actually...God /is/ and answer. I'm not sure what you were trying to point out by saying he's not. If God exists and Intelligent Design is correct, then every one of the earlier 6 points i brought up is true. Evolution cannot account for them.

Next, the Big Bang is a commonly accepted scientific theory as to 'how the universe was set in motion' (layman's terms). If you don't think the universe has an origin, it's constant, etc. i apologize. I assumed you sided with...well, I guess there really is no other explanation as to how the universe began. I'll give you that one; without Creationism, the universe's origin has no possibility of beginning.

I never insulted you, I simply made an observation. Seeing as there is no possible way to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) /either/ theory, there is no real reason for you to change your mind. I look at the facts of both, and have come unto the conviction that Intelligent Design is a much more plausible means of creation.

More on the point, I never said I had no evidence. I don't think I even implied it. Also, why would I care about changing your mind? If you truly think that any posts on this board have actually led someone to drop their beliefs and change their opinion evolution/creationism, I would call that wishful thinking.

And again, my argument doesn't come from ignorance. There is a lot of biological evidence in the world, and several theories as to how they came into existance. By applying these theories to each, and crossing them to cover more things (i.e. origins of the universe, anthropic tuning, human conciousness) evolution falls flat, but the theory of Intelligent Design chugs along.

I'll have to side with axeplayer on this one insofar as that irreducibly complex things do exist.

However, if being irreducible complex means that something is unevolvable is an entirely different question.

I must have missed this one. Has anyone (axe, you), given any examples of such ?

Well, if you'd like some, the human (as well as animal) eyes, rotary motors in the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting are some.

Well, this is just random events. Nothing special, give it lots of time.

Exactly that's the whole point! There is nothing special about irreducible complexity. It's just the result of the removal of previously existent supportive structures.

One person alone can build an archway, piece by piece, using supportive structures which later get removed again. Using these natural examples of archways merely prevents the "a man made it, that doesn't count" defense against them being used against the supposed unevolvability of biological IC structures.

Nice use of the arches. It doesn't quite explain away the previously mentioned irreducible organic machines. /If/ they were created from some other form, and actually lost the older pieces needed to work (which we have no evidence to support. I'd like you to point out an example of a biological entity that has no purpose, then remember we are constantly finding purpose for these previously pointless things.) then that is not evolution, but degeneration. Evolution cannot explain the original being, just as every bit of evidence we have no disproves the idea of useless organs.

You claim not to be arguing from ignorance, but what you are doing is very similar. You are making an argument from personal incredulity: "I don't see how (X) could possibly have evolved: therefore (X) did not evolve."
Pretty unconvincing.

The biggest problem is that you don't offer an alternative.

See, people who argue for ID as an alternative scientific theory are either just ignorant about what science is and does, or, more often, they intentionally distort the facts about science in order to discredit evolution. And one of the key points conveniently ignored by the ID camp is that we do not just expect theories to explain a phenomenon entire. We expect them to generate research. Good theories engender good science. So, when anti-evolutionists rattle on and on about the supposedly "irreducible" complexity inherent in the biochemical underpinnings of metabolism and heredity, they are merely pointing to some open questions at the edge of a robust and successful science. Far from being a "crisis" in Darwinian thought, the open questions show the degree to which the theory continues to generate avenues for useful research.

ID, on the other hand, is utterly bankrupt in this regard. Its answers for these, admittedly tough, questions is simply "don't look over there. God did that." There is no research program, no avenues for refinement of the idea. It's just a blanket answer that meets none of the requirements for a scientific theory.

Actually, the science you so readily support doesn't see how the theory of evolution, as it's foundations are constantly being destroyed.

My alternative has already been offered, several times.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... php?id=302
Contrary to the belief of most evolutionists (and apparently, you), it's not just the back-water religious fundamentalists and avid Christians that are skeptical of the ideas of Darwin. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me ignorant, just because you've chosen to believe a theory with no actual proof; a theory that falls apart when placed with the 6 points i mentioned in the first post on this page.

What requirements do you have in the scientific theory that are not met by ID, that /are/ met by evolution? And why on Earth would there be a seperate research program? Again, science is the foundation for religion.

[micatala]

Foshizzle has certainly given us a lot to chew on here. As a Christian and a believer in God, I am certainly not opposed to the idea of an 'ultimate creator.' I don't necessarily accept that God has a whole lot to do with the material world, although I am open to the possibility, but that is perhaps an idea to be left for the Philosophy forum.

Next, I would say the origin of life, and the origin of information necessary to bring life into existence, is an argument for the sake of theism. Life at all points requires information, which is stored in DNA and protein molecules in substantial amounts. Here, an idea for an Intelligent Creator isn't what is thought of as an 'argument from ignorance'. This infers design because all other theories fail at this point (natural evolution, etc.) and, the only possible creator of such substantial information at the point of origin for all known things is God.

I don't buy this. On the one hand you are saying this is not an argument from ignorance. On the other hand, you claim that all other theories fail at this point, and because of this there must be a designer. I don't see that the ID proponents have produced any compelling evidence to support this claim. It seems to me that you are saying that "since evolution cannot currently explain exactly how all of the complex structures we currently see could have evolved, therefore they must have been designed." Even if it is true that evolution has failed to this point to provide an adequate explanation, it does not mean it cannot or will not be able to in the future. How is this not an argument from ignorance?

Then, there's the evidence for design in molecular machines that defy explanation by natural selection.

Again, it may defy explanation now, but even if that is true, it does not mean that it will always defy explanation.

All of these biological machines need all of their various parts in order to function, but how could it ever be built by a process of natural selection/evolution, acting on random variations? Evolution only preserves things that perform a function.

In my view, this is an unjustified assumption. How do you know that evolution cannot create new 'parts' that might perform a function? How do you know that evolution cannot combine to mechanisms with existing functions into another with a new function?

More evidence biologically, the Cambrian Explosion is another example. This “biological big bang” happened during a trivial amount of time (geologically, anyway). Here, around 35 completely unique body plans (skeletal structures) came into existence. You have a huge jump in complexity; it's sudden, and there are no transitional intermediates, no fossils to explain this sudden gap. In normal experience, information is the result of conscious activity, and here we have the geologically sudden explosion of massive amounts of biological data (needed for these body plans), far beyond what evolution can produce.

Yes, the Cambrian explosion did occur in a relatively brief period of time, geologically speaking, but it does not follow that the time was not sufficient for evolution to have produced what occurred. The Cambrian Explosion still took millions of years.

In addition, the fact that we do not find a lot of percursors or transitional fossils from this time does not mean that they did not exist. Fossilization is a fairly rare process, and particular types of organisms are much more likely to fossilize than others. The fact that we have not found all of the evidence that we might like to find about this period does not mean that it never existed.

Nobody has complete, undoubtable evidence for there side. One can say they have absolute certainty, but it's impossible to have certain proof of either side.

Agreed.

The only /logical/ thing to do would be: Find all possible evidence (done), find all possible counter-evidence (in the process), and make an informed decision.

DONE!!???? Why do you conclude we have found all possible evidence? We are still finding new evidence all the time!! We will never stop finding evidence until the scientific enterprise is completely abandoned, which I don't think would happen unless we ceased to exist as a species.

i would tend to believe that Athiesm and a belief in evolution would actually take more faith than a Creationist point of view.

I know you are not saying directly that athiesm and evolution are the same thing or even directly linked, and am not sure if you are intending to imply that, but (because it is a pet peeve of mine ) I am going to most voiciferously reject that they necessarily have anything to do with each other. The fact that some (few? eg. Richard Dawkins) people use evolutionary ideas to support their athiesm does not mean that evoution is inherently athiestic.

It is also fallacious, in my view, to equate the type of faith that is 'faith (or lack of faith) in God' with whatever might be said to be 'faith in evolution'.

Evolution is not believed by millions of people out of faith, but out of an overwhelming mountatin of evidence that supports it. There may be a part whereby non-scientists accept evolution based on the faith they have in the general scientific enterprise. This latter faith is based on the generally very good track record that science has in providing useful, coherent, and consistent explanations of nature. It is not at all the same as a spiritual faith in God. It is a lot closer to the faith I have that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.

[CJO]

Actually, the science you so readily support doesn't see how the theory of evolution, as it's foundations are constantly being destroyed.

Not sure what you mean. The "foundation" of the theory of evolution by natural selection is an air-tight logical argument, which has not, to my knowledge, been refuted.

My alternative has already been offered, several times.

Yes, ad nauseum. But it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

Contrary to the belief of most evolutionists (and apparently, you), it's not just the back-water religious fundamentalists and avid Christians that are skeptical of the ideas of Darwin. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me ignorant, just because you've chosen to believe a theory with no actual proof; a theory that falls apart when placed with the 6 points i mentioned in the first post on this page.

I did not "call you ignorant". I stand by my statement:

"people who argue for ID as an alternative scientific theory are either just ignorant about what science is and does, or, more often, they intentionally distort the facts about science in order to discredit evolution."

By which, it is more likely that you are intentionally distorting facts of which you are perfectly aware.

What requirements do you have in the scientific theory that are not met by ID, that /are/ met by evolution?

Here are the basic steps of the scientific method:
1. Observe some natural phenomena
2. Devise a hypothesis that could account for said phenomena
3. Establish a program of empirical research into the phenomena that could falsify your hypothesis.
4. If your hypothesis is falsified by the research, return to steps 2. and 3.
5. If you have reached a hypothesis that has not been falsified by extensive, replicated empirical research, you have explained the phenomena, contingent on further observation and research, which may yet falsify your hypothesis.
ID does fine through step 2. But since there is no program of empirical research that could falsify it, the idea goes no further. The steps now look like this:
Steps 1. and 2., as above
3. It's true because I say so.

And why on Earth would there be a seperate research program?

Because that's what science is.

[jwu]

Nice use of the arches. It doesn't quite explain away the previously mentioned irreducible organic machines. /If/ they were created from some other form, and actually lost the older pieces needed to work (which we have no evidence to support.

As demonstrated before, IC =/= impossible to evolve. The burden of proof is on your side now, merely stating that they are IC systems proves nothing, since IC being unevolvable is falsified.
Of course, there will always be things of which it is yet unknown how they evolved, that's inevitable due to the variety of things which exist in nature. Just because we currently don't know how they could evolve doesn't mean that it is impossible to do so. Stating something to the contrary would be an "argumentum ad ignorantiam". You need to provide positive evidence that they couldn't possibly evolve, just asking others "how did X evolve?", "how did Y evolve?" and so on until they finally can't answer it anymore doesn't cut it.

All the flagellum, the blood clotting system and the eye all already are explained anyway. You can find tons of articles about that with a simple google or pubmed search.

However, Dembski, one of the main proponents of IC, even stated that a system only is an "true" IC one if there is no simpler system exhibiting the same basic function. With this, both the eye and the flagellum are out of the window instantly (there are simpler systems capable of sensing light than the eye, and simpler yet similar propellants than a rotating flagellum), i am not sure about the blood clotting system right now as i don't know it good enough.

I'd like you to point out an example of a biological entity that has no purpose, then remember we are constantly finding purpose for these previously pointless things.) then that is not evolution, but degeneration. Evolution cannot explain the original being, just as every bit of evidence we have no disproves the idea of useless organs.

Trying to set up a lose-lose situation here?
Convoluta roscoffensis (a species of flatworms) have mouths, but don't use them anymore - because they have evolved to live in symbiosis with some algae. So there is a biological entity without a use, which is not quite the result of degeneration but further evolution.
Now you're stuck with a problem yourself: Either the designer made a mistake and included superfluous parts (which would rule out God, thus defeating the purpose of ID), or quite some evolution did happen.

[LillSnopp]

Actually...God /is/ and answer. I'm not sure what you were trying to point out by saying he's not. If God exists and Intelligent Design is correct, then every one of the earlier 6 points i brought up is true. Evolution cannot account for them.

First off, i wish to quote a Christian whom does not agree with you, and state similar opinions as my own (micatala):

I don't buy this. On the one hand you are saying this is not an argument from ignorance. On the other hand, you claim that all other theories fail at this point, and because of this there must be a designer. I don't see that the ID proponents have produced any compelling evidence to support this claim. It seems to me that you are saying that "since evolution cannot currently explain exactly how all of the complex structures we currently see could have evolved, therefore they must have been designed." Even if it is true that evolution has failed to this point to provide an adequate explanation, it does not mean it cannot or will not be able to in the future. How is this not an argument from ignorance?

God is not an answer foshizzle, per definition it is ignorance, as you so vividly trying to deny.

You simply claim that because you do not know, it must be God, and because we cant give a satisfactory explanation, it must be God, yet, you give no explanation of this God. How did your God do this? What do you base that your God did this? You need to base this on something, what? Evolution is based on objective facts, what is your knowledge about ´God did it´ based on?

Looking forward to an answer.

Next, the Big Bang is a commonly accepted scientific theory as to 'how the universe was set in motion' (layman's terms). If you don't think the universe has an origin, it's constant, etc. i apologize. I assumed you sided with...well, I guess there really is no other explanation as to how the universe began. I'll give you that one; without Creationism, the universe's origin has no possibility of beginning.

Once again, you seem to claim an absolute. ´without Creationism, the universe's origin has no possibility of beginning´, what kind of comment is that? Extremely arrogant and ignorant comment, if i may say so myself.

Creationism gives no answer to the origin of the beginning, it states ´God did it´, which, as already stated by several people before, is not an answer. How did God do this? How do you know God did this? What do you base your knowledge of that God did this?

I do not agree with the Big Bang Theory, but as said, its a theory, we have several theories about ´the beginning´, personally, i have my doubts that we would be able to find out, as we humans are very limited in certain areas, and this might be a bit to much for us. But its impressive what our worlds scientists are managing.

I never insulted you, I simply made an observation. Seeing as there is no possible way to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) /either/ theory, there is no real reason for you to change your mind. I look at the facts of both, and have come unto the conviction that Intelligent Design is a much more plausible means of creation.

And you cant possible prove that there is no flying pink rhinoceros. Its not about being able to ´prove´ that something does not exist. Its about being able to prove that something does exist. Else we would have billions of ´theories´, we dont, because science do not work like that, science does not start with a ´truth´, and then try to form reality around it, like Creationism does.

More on the point, I never said I had no evidence. I don't think I even implied it. Also, why would I care about changing your mind? If you truly think that any posts on this board have actually led someone to drop their beliefs and change their opinion evolution/creationism, I would call that wishful thinking.

Now you simply admit that you are narrowminded, and refuse to change. Whiles i, would change if you put up logical objective truth (reality), that gives basis for your beliefs. Yet, i never seen any Creationist even come close to any sort of ´proof´. Spouting rhetoric like a teen spouting pimples more like it. I am open to evolve, why arent you?

And again, my argument doesn't come from ignorance. There is a lot of biological evidence in the world, and several theories as to how they came into existance. By applying these theories to each, and crossing them to cover more things (i.e. origins of the universe, anthropic tuning, human conciousness) evolution falls flat, but the theory of Intelligent Design chugs along.

In what way? That no one can prove that your God does not exist? Like i said, nor can you prove flying rhinoceros does not exist. ITs not about that, its about proving what does exist. Else its not even on todays agenda.

Evolution is about finding out what is the Truth, not confirming anything. Evolution is about learning, and trying to find anything that is wrong about what we think is right. Evolution is about evolving as human beings, and extend our current knowledge. Evolutionist do not assume anything to be true, they have theories about what might be true.

Evolution(ism) constantly Question Itself, Why dont Creationism?

So far, Evolution has managed pretty well, taking the fact that Homo Sapiens arisen from Apes. This i see as facts, both using my own mind, and eyes, and also from all the science i read about it, and studied. I do not dispute that the Tellus is a Sphere, nor do i dispute that Human Beings arose from apes.

[micatala]

Evolution is about finding out what is the Truth, not confirming anything. Evolution is about learning, and trying to find anything that is wrong about what we think is right. Evolution is about evolving as human beings, and extend our current knowledge. Evolutionist do not assume anything to be true, they have theories about what might be true.

Evolution(ism) constantly Question Itself, Why dont Creationism?

Some of what you are saying here seems to be contradictory. On the one hand, evolution is about finding the Truth, but on the other hand is about questioning itself and is only a theory about what might be true.

There is certainly room for a number of philosophies on this issue, but I think most scientists would agree that a scientific theory does not establish Truth with a capital T. Rather, it provides the best explanation possible which takes into account all of the data we have, and allows us to make testable predictions or hypotheses (as noted by CJO above).

Whether ID counts as a scientific theory is a legitimate question. It might be fair to say that at least some of the ID proponents have tried to make it into a theory, but as CJO has pointed out, it fails the 'falsifiability test', just as YEC did before it. To my knowledge, the ID proponents have not even come up with clear cut, non-subjective criterion by which a person could test whether something is irreducibly complex or not, designed or not. If we could be provided with some, and I emphasize

non-subjective, criteria

, this would go a long way towards moving the discussion forward.

[foshizzle]

(A response might take a day or so...I want to look into several things before I post, and I need to go to work).

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. It's nice to talk to people with reasoned out responses, as opposed to most forums.

[Chem]

I'm pretty sure we already had this argument in another thread nyril, and I'm pretty sure me and hyperlitegirl proved to you that a giraffe heart (among other things) is irreducibly complex. The Avian Lung is irreducibly complex, and definately couldn't have evolved from the bidirectional reptile lung.

I think the "irreducable complexity" of the giraffe heart etc was already explained in evolutionary terms. I am still amazed at how YECs can twist debates in their own favor!