Intelligent Design-Warning some Religion

[Vic]

ID does not contradict science. Anyone who thinks so has foolishly elevated science to the level of religion.

ID shouldn't be taught in schools though, just as the scientific religion that says evolution explains the initial origins of life or "it's all chance" or "there is no God" should not be taught in schools. Once you begin that discussion, you have left science and the study of facts and have entered the realm of religion and beliefs.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The underlying concept of Intelligent Design is appealing to people of faith, people with little or no scientific education as well as people who are highly educated (even scientists). However, it is ultimately a crutch, a cop-out and at its worse is a sham.

Nonsense. It?s evolution that?s a sham. Evolutionism is sheer conjecture - not science. There are no repeatable experiments in science/biology that show evolution of new structures and species. In fact it?s quite the opposite. Biologists have grown thousands of generations of fruit flies for genetic experiments and manipulated their genes, and we have no evidence whatsoever of any type of evolution mechanism that will produce new species or new structures. The fruit flies NEVER evolve into something else, they remain nothing other than another fruit fly.

The problem with evolution is that is largely couched in naturalistic philosophy -- ie that only natural explanations for all phenomena and things here on earth can be possible, because the material universe is all there is. So life must have arisen by some natural method. How exactly do these evolutionists know this? The simple fact is they don?t. And the premise is not scientific all. They have apriori ruled out any other possibilities whether science supports them or not. I like this quote by Chesterton ?

?In a word, the world does not explain itself. But anyhow, it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything. - G.K. Chesterton

The initial starting points of life (chemically and biologically) are not known. Yet we are suppose to take the evolutionist word for it that life just arose out of some sort of chemical soup? This again is philosophical speculation and not science at all because no science to date supports it. In fact science doesn?t support it when you look at the reasoning and logic behind ID.

ID is both science and philosophy. It basically says that the laws of chemistry, biochemistry and physics cannot and do not produce the intelligent designs (that need information) that we find in nature. And they don?t. Evolutionists say they will find them -- but in the meantime we can take their world for it on evolution. Ya right.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The underlying concept of Intelligent Design is appealing to people of faith, people with little or no scientific education as well as people who are highly educated (even scientists). However, it is ultimately a crutch, a cop-out and at its worse is a sham.

Nonsense. It?s evolution that?s a sham. Evolutionism is sheer conjecture - not science. There are no repeatable experiments in science/biology that show evolution of new structures and species. In fact it?s quite the opposite. Biologists have grown thousands of generations of fruit flies for genetic experiments and manipulated their genes, and we have no evidence whatsoever of any type of evolution mechanism that will produce new species or new structures. The fruit flies NEVER evolve into something else, they remain nothing other than another fruit fly.

The problem with evolution is that is largely couched in naturalistic philosophy -- ie that only natural explanations for all phenomena and things here on earth can be possible, because the material universe is all there is. So life must have arisen by some natural method. How exactly do these evolutionists know this? The simple fact is they don?t. And the premise is not scientific all. They have apriori ruled out any other possibilities whether science supports them or not. I like this quote by Chesterton ?

?In a word, the world does not explain itself. But anyhow, it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything. - G.K. Chesterton

The initial starting points of life (chemically and biologically) are not known. Yet we are suppose to take the evolutionist word for it that life just arose out of some sort of chemical soup? This again is philosophical speculation and not science all because no science to date supports it. In fact science doesn?t support it when you look at the reasoning and logic behind ID.

ID is both science and philosophy. It basically says that the laws of chemistry, biochemistry and physics cannot and do not produce the intelligent designs (that need information) that we find in nature. And they don?t. Evolutionists say they will find them -- but in the meantime we can take their world for it on evolution. Ya right.

I'm sure trying to talk sense here is the equivalent of pushing against a brick wall, but a few points regardless...

- You seem to be arguing that the odds of us just appearing here as we are are very low - and you're right. You then turn around and say that we indeed did just appear here (creationism). Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but then hypocrisy and religion have long gone hand in hand.

- The trouble with the 'watchmaker' theory is that watches don't reproduce. You can (and, I'm sure, will) argue until you're blue in the face about how the odds of putting the right combination of metals in a bag and shaking it producing a watch are very low, and you'd be right - but unfortunately you're comparing apples to oranges.

- Lab experiements have shown that conditions as they existed on our planet 3 or 4 billion years ago can indeed produce bits of proteins and DNA. This should be common knowledge, I'm guessing it isn't because of the RRR.

You're explaining what, to your layman sensibilities, seems unexplainable with religion. I can't say it's not disappointing, but people have been doing it for many millenia, so I guess it's nothing new

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Gurck
- You seem to be arguing that the odds of us just appearing here as we are are very low - and you're right. You then turn around and say that we indeed did just appear here (creationism). Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but then hypocrisy and religion have long gone hand in hand.

No I?m not arguing the odds are low. I?m arguing the laws of chemistry, physics and chance don?t and can?t produce the information and structures we see in biology -period.

- Lab experiements have shown that conditions as they existed on our planet 3 or 4 billion years ago can indeed produce bits of proteins and DNA. This should be common knowledge, I'm guessing it isn't because of the RRR.

No they haven?t.

You're explaining what, to your layman sensibilities, seems unexplainable with religion. I can't say it's not disappointing, but people have been doing it for many millenia, so I guess it's nothing new

If you want to drag religion in here --fine. But I can assure you, there is nothing against logic or reason in the Catholic faith (NOT speaking for any other religion here).

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Blastman

- Lab experiements have shown that conditions as they existed on our planet 3 or 4 billion years ago can indeed produce bits of proteins and DNA. This should be common knowledge, I'm guessing it isn't because of the RRR.

No they haven?t.

This is what I meant by my opening comment; it's impossible to debate with someone in denial of reality. I'm sure the world you live in is comfortable, but if you want to converse with those outside it, you have to play by their rules.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Gurck
[
This is what I meant by my opening comment; it's impossible to debate with someone in denial of reality. I'm sure the world you live in is comfortable, but if you want to converse with those outside it, you have to play by their rules.

Man, give us a break with this rhetoric. This has nothing to do about denying reality. You are just spreading false science. You?re the one who needs to get the facts straight.

I suppose people like you must believe in magic too. As if the universe of matter popped into existence out of nothing for no reason at all. Does that somehow make logical and scientific sense?

 

[Gurck]

As if the universe of matter popped into existence out of nothing for no reason at all. Does that somehow make logical and scientific sense?

Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest research concerning antimatter... Easier to explain it away with god, yes?

 

[Blastman]

No -- more logical. A 100 years ago the steady-state universe was being espoused by the ?scientific? establishment. When scientists found evidence for and proposed the big-bang they were initially ridiculed. As their steady-state universe fell apart, the steady-staters came up with ridiculous explanations as to why the hydrogen in the universe hadn?t exhausted itself -- they said that hydrogen was ? ?popping into existence? ? everywhere to replenish the supply, despite no scientific evidence for this. Where is the steady state universe today?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: Mwilding
The underlying concept of Intelligent Design is appealing to people of faith, people with little or no scientific education as well as people who are highly educated (even scientists). However, it is ultimately a crutch, a cop-out and at its worse is a sham.

Nonsense. It?s evolution that?s a sham. Evolutionism is sheer conjecture - not science. There are no repeatable experiments in science/biology that show evolution of new structures and species.

You are misinformed.

Organisms evolving new structures is a readily repeatable experiment in human time spans, and we've observed new species arising multiple times. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for a reasily available reference on the web that will point you to the literature on speciation.

The initial starting points of life (chemically and biologically) are not known. Yet we are suppose to take the evolutionist word for it that life just arose out of some sort of chemical soup?

You're talking about abiogenesis here, not evolution. Biology does not yet have an accepted theory of abiogenesis, though we have some interesting hypotheses.

ID is both science and philosophy. It basically says that the laws of chemistry, biochemistry and physics cannot and do not produce the intelligent designs (that need information) that we find in nature. And they don?t. Evolutionists say they will find them -- but in the meantime we can take their world for it on evolution. Ya right.

But we don't see intelligent designs in nature.

Organisms don't develop the way that intelligences build structures, and they don't end up like intelligently designed structures as well. Instead, we find examples of adaptation of existing structures to new purposes, like the adaptation of the bat's arms to become wings. If organisms weren't produced by adaptation, we'd surely see a 6-limbed flying creature like the ones common in mythology instead of seeing creatures whose arms were adapted into wings. Similarly, whales have vestigial leg bones, showing evidence of adaptation instead of new design too. Life is filled with kludges like the examples above, not with examples of good engineering.

Organisms don't look like anything that intelligences have ever designed, but how they work and are put together resembles the odd types of adaptive hacks that we see in software and hardware that we produce using genetic algorithms. Often, these genetic adaptations are things no human would've ever thought to have done, but that doesn't mean they're the result of a something smarter than we are. Adrian Thompson's work on creating FPGAs using genetic algorithms at http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html is one application of this sort of technology, which shows designs considerably different from those of human engineers but much closer to the structure of living organisms. For a more popular look at his work, check
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/29/007258

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: Gurck
- You seem to be arguing that the odds of us just appearing here as we are are very low - and you're right. You then turn around and say that we indeed did just appear here (creationism). Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but then hypocrisy and religion have long gone hand in hand.

No I?m not arguing the odds are low. I?m arguing the laws of chemistry, physics and chance don?t and can?t produce the information and structures we see in biology -period.

No, you're not arguing, you're asserting without support; there's a substantial difference between those two actions.

- Lab experiements have shown that conditions as they existed on our planet 3 or 4 billion years ago can indeed produce bits of proteins and DNA. This should be common knowledge, I'm guessing it isn't because of the RRR.

No they haven?t.

Yes, they have. Even the Miller experiment in 1953 produced bits of proteins. Modern chemical evolution experiments have found that phospholipids naturally form lipid bilayers, the basic structure of cell membranes, and have shown RNA evolution, including the natural production of ribosymes. People like Jack Szostak at Harvard are working on this direction (http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/), while other scientists are working on a top-down approach, genetically engineering simpler and simpler microorganisms to see if they can arrive at the simplest life form from that direction.

You're explaining what, to your layman sensibilities, seems unexplainable with religion. I can't say it's not disappointing, but people have been doing it for many millenia, so I guess it's nothing new

If you want to drag religion in here --fine. But I can assure you, there is nothing against logic or reason in the Catholic faith (NOT speaking for any other religion here).

While that's not true, it's worth pointing out that the Catholic Church doesn't deny evolution.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: cquark
Organisms evolving new structures is a readily repeatable experiment in human time spans, and we've observed new species arising multiple times

No they haven?t. Cite one.

Organisms don't develop the way that intelligences build structures, and they don't end up like intelligently designed structures as well.

What are you talking about? All the structures in any biological unit assume a detailed and extensive knowledge of exactly how molecules and chemicals and the structures interact.

Instead, we find examples of adaptation of existing structures to new purposes, like the adaptation of the bat's arms to become wings.

It?s pure speculation that these structures arose from simply the forces of nature.

And don?t propose natural selection as a mechanism for evolution - it just doesn?t hold water. As an example take some moths. Suppose some moths are living in an environment and the climate gets colder. Because of the genetic variation (color) in the moths -- only black moths survive because they absorb more sunlight than the white ones and can stay warm enough not to freeze. This is not evolution -- far from it. It?s natures variable conditions acting on the genetic variation in the species. The black moths only survive because of the built in genetic variation in the first place. If this genetic variation didn?t exist and the moths were white only -- they would freeze and die, end of story. It?s as simple as that. There is no mechanism in the moth that would say -- ?gosh, we?re gonna freeze here, better look up some biochemistry and try to develop an antifreeze.?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Blastman
And don?t propose natural selection as a mechanism for evolution - it just doesn?t hold water. As an example take some moths. Suppose some moths are living in an environment and the climate gets colder. Because of the genetic variation (color) in the moths -- only black moths survive because they absorb more sunlight than the white ones and can stay warm enough not to freeze. This is not evolution -- far from it. It?s natures variable conditions acting on the genetic variation in the species. The black moths only survive because of the built in genetic variation in the first place. If this genetic variation didn?t exist and the moths were white only -- they would freeze and die, end of story. It?s as simple as that. There is no mechanism in the moth that would say -- ?gosh, we?re gonna freeze here, better look up some biochemistry and try to develop an antifreeze.?

Are you arguing for evolution or against it? This post displays lack of knowledge about the most basic concepts of evolution theory... And until (if) a time machine is invented, of course we can't know the origins of life; we can only formulate and test hypotheses. We can, however, safely assume that something 95+% of people have looked for for 10+ millenia and found not a shred of evidence for does not exist. Evolution and the chemical origins of life enjoy far more supporting evidence than your god/religion offer.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: cquark
Organisms evolving new structures is a readily repeatable experiment in human time spans, and we've observed new species arising multiple times

No they haven?t. Cite one.

I cited dozens. Follow the link that directly followed that quote in my post.

And don?t propose natural selection as a mechanism for evolution - it just doesn?t hold water. As an example take some moths. Suppose some moths are living in an environment and the climate gets colder. Because of the genetic variation (color) in the moths -- only black moths survive because they absorb more sunlight than the white ones and can stay warm enough not to freeze. This is not evolution -- far from it. It?s natures variable conditions acting on the genetic variation in the species.

That is the definition of evolution. Apparently, you do believe in it.

The black moths only survive because of the built in genetic variation in the first place. If this genetic variation didn?t exist and the moths were white only -- they would freeze and die, end of story. It?s as simple as that. There is no mechanism in the moth that would say -- ?gosh, we?re gonna freeze here, better look up some biochemistry and try to develop an antifreeze.?

That's an absurd creationist caricature of evolution that no scientist has ever stated.

Organisms don't develop the way that intelligences build structures, and they don't end up like intelligently designed structures as well.

What are you talking about?

The paragraphs that you snipped explained what I was talking about: that intelligent engineers and genetic processes produce completely different types of structures. Biological structures closely resemble the hardware and software we create using genetic algorithsm; they don't resemble hardware or software created by intelligent engineers though.

All the structures in any biological unit assume a detailed and extensive knowledge of exactly how molecules and chemicals and the structures interact.

No, those structures may be as effective as having such knowledge, but they don't assume, require, or encode such knowledge, any more than a piece of software designed by a genetic algorithm understands or assumes knowledge of sorting theory, data structures, tactics (for the RAF flight simulator AI), or any of the things that a human engineer would have to understand to build the same item.

 

[cquark]

Double post.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: cquark
I cited dozens. Follow the link that directly followed that quote in my post.

No you didn?t cite any examples. You simply linked to a pile of evolution garbage.

That is the definition of evolution. Apparently, you do believe in it.

No. It?s an example that nature can affect the genetic variation in species. Affecting the genetic variation in species is ? FAR ?from anything even close to producing new species and new structures -- which is what an evolution mechanism requires.

Originally posted by: Gurck Evolution and the chemical origins of life enjoy far more supporting evidence than your god/religion offer.

Ya, and the supporting evidence for the steady state theory of the universe enjoyed good support at one time too. And that as we know turned into a pile of garbage.

The point of ID is that the chemical + physical laws + chance don?t produce information and the associated structures that we see in the complex biological structures around us. Further than that. Molecules and chemicals don?t act with a purpose. Only designed and programmed structures do. How do we get complex biological structures acting with a purpose from a pile of molecules and rocks with no purpose a few billion years ago? The answer is you can?t. It?s a leap of logic and faith -- not science at all.

 

[Fritzo]

I believe in the middle of the road: The universe was created in a large explosion of particles, and the rules those particles follow was set by God. Essentially God is Physicis.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: cquark
I cited dozens. Follow the link that directly followed that quote in my post.

No you didn?t cite any examples. You simply linked to a pile of evolution garbage.

Right, we should trust a random Anandtech poster when he labels as garbage a list of examples in journal articles in major peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature...

That is the definition of evolution. Apparently, you do believe in it.

No. It?s an example that nature can affect the genetic variation in species. Affecting the genetic variation in species is ? FAR ?from anything even close to producing new species and new structures -- which is what an evolution mechanism requires.

The point of ID is that the chemical + physical laws + chance don?t produce information and the associated structures that we see in the complex biological structures around us.

No, you just keep asserting that: you never explain how you get from (A) physical laws to (B) evolution can't work.

Further than that. Molecules and chemicals don?t act with a purpose.

You're right. Biological or physical entities do not have a purpose. Purpose is only comes from the perception of intelligent entities such as ourselves, and we've overprogrammed to see it, assigning purpose to things like the genetic algorithm designed software and hardware mentioned above, when it has none in itself.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Blastman
The point of ID is that the chemical + physical laws + chance don?t produce information and the associated structures that we see in the complex biological structures around us.

As I've already stated, bits of proteins and DNA have been engineered in experiments designed to approximate Earth as it was 4 billion years ago. Of course it doesn't produce the complexity we see today; evolution is responsible for that. I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that this has been done. The world you live in (your very own!) must be strange indeed...

How do we get complex biological structures acting with a purpose from a pile of molecules and rocks with no purpose a few billion years ago? The answer is you can?t. It?s a leap of logic and faith -- not science at all.

You've already used the watchmaker theory and had it refuted; what makes you think restating it helps your argument?

 

[BigToque]

I like reading these threads because you can always find the people who know what they are talking about and not just re-itterating things they have heard/read.

As a once professed athiest, I know all the arguements for science, evolution, etc... and I believe very strongly about how life arose from abiotic conditions and how the universe works. I believe everything we see in this world is the result of the natural laws.

I am no longer an athiest. I am agnostic. The reason is that my girlfriend is a very religious Catholic. While she is quite religious, she is also one of the smartest individuals I have ever known. She has a double major in Biology and Biochemistry so she knows and believes in science. She is a person of reason and logic. I think one of the greatest things I have learned from her is how to be open minded.

God and the universe as we know it do not have to be mutually exclusive. Nobody will ever prove that God does/does not exist.

I think the biggest problem is that many people are only exposed to one side of the picture. They know science, but may never be exposed to religion and also vice versa.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: cquark

Right, we should trust a random Anandtech poster when he labels as garbage a list of examples in journal articles in major peer-reviewed journals like Science and Nature...

I?ll repeat. There are no experimental examples pointing to a mechanism whereby new and complex biological structures arise out of an organism -- showing an evolution mechanism. If there were - it would plastered all over the news as the second coming of Christ. If you want to cite an experiment that shows this feel free to try. But just linking to some evolution pro sites doesn?t hold water. I can post links to a bunch of sites refuting evolution too -- and suggest you see for yourself, that evolution is bunk.

Originally posted by: Gurck

As I've already stated, bits of proteins and DNA have been engineered in experiments designed to approximate Earth as it was 4 billion years ago. Of course it doesn't produce the complexity we see today; evolution is responsible for that. I'm sorry you refuse to accept the fact that this has been done. The world you live in (your very own!) must be strange indeed...

So. What do simple amino acids and bits of DNA in a petri dish have to do with the complex life we see on the planet now? Nothing. The chemicals and conditions on a planet of rocks is extremely limited compared to the processes, chemicals, conditions, reacting agents in a lab. And they still can?t even produce even the simplest of life in a lab. And then even if you could produce simple life forms in a lab -- so what. This doesn?t explain (or give) a mechanism for the new varied and complex structures we find all over the planet in animals and plants that act with specific design purposes in mind.

You've already used the watchmaker theory and had it refuted; what makes you think restating it helps your argument?

I haven?t cited any watchmaker theory yet. But show me natural mechanisms that can produce information and the complex designs we see in biology.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Stefan
I am no longer an athiest. I am agnostic. The reason is that my girlfriend is a very religious Catholic. While she is quite religious, she is also one of the smartest individuals I have ever known. She has a double major in Biology and Biochemistry so she knows and believes in science. She is a person of reason and logic. I think one of the greatest things I have learned from her is how to be open minded.

Nobody is saying religion isn't capable of good as well as bad. Just as there are people who misinterpret it as an excuse to do societally destructive things, there are those for whom it clicks as well. A very close friend of mine sounds a lot like your g/f; he's a devout catholic, incredibly intelligent and personable, did a double major in 4 years CS/economics, etc. It's all in the interpretation and what the person does; religion is basically a guidebook for being a 'good' person - someone who contributes to society, which in turn benefits others. It doesn't make it automatic, or even easy - and it's not a prerequisite to being a good person either.

That's a bit off the topic however.

Originally posted by: Blastman
What do simple amino acids and bits of DNA in a petri dish have to do with the complex life we see on the planet now? Nothing.

Everything; this is where evolution takes place. Your insistence on the layman's 'watchmaker' theory and utter denial of anything which hurts your argument is really highlighting your lack of education; I'd suggest posting less and reading more.

ps - you've made the watchmaker argument about 3-4 times already without knowing it, paraphrasing it each time. Anyone debating evolution should be familiar with it... Formally, it's the argument that if you come across a working watch, not knowing what it is, do you assume it has an intelligent designer or that it just happened to form that way naturally? - but in essence it comes down to the same thing; the layman assuming he knows everything and that anything too complex for him must also be too complex for others, therefore explaining what he doesn't understand with god. It's really an ego sustenance mechanism fueled by the inability to admit that others may be more informed / educated. Btw it's flawed because watches don't reproduce and adapt to their environment.

You can see evidence of evolution in the current downturn of our society; fueled in large part by phlegMTV, it has become cool to be stupid and surly. Humans with those traits are more likely to be considered ideal mates and reproduce, thus spread those traits. Since their inception in the mid 1900s, the average SAT score had dropped by around 50 points, prompting the designers to retool it to raise the average score back up to 1,000, where it had originally been. This occurred in 1995, iirc. It's an excellent example of the influence culture has on the gene pool, and helps to explain how our species has come so far in such a relatively short timespan. Its time has passed, however; we no longer need to believe in a parental figure watching our every move to contribute to society; being a part of society has tangible benefits, things no one can ignore.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Everything; this is where evolution takes place.

Your insistence on the layman's 'watchmaker' theory and utter denial of anything which hurts your argument is really highlighting your lack of education; I'd suggest posting less and reading more.

No. Evolution does not take place in a petri dish. I?d say not being able to show the experiments showing the evolution mechanism is killing your arguments.

? ps - you've made the watchmaker argument about 3-4 times already without knowing it, paraphrasing it each time. Anyone debating evolution should be familiar with it... Formally, it's the argument that if you come across a working watch, not knowing what it is, do you assume it has an intelligent designer or that it just happened to form that way naturally? - but in essence it comes down to the same thing; the layman assuming he knows everything and that anything too complex for him must also be too complex for others, therefore explaining what he doesn't understand with god. ?

You?re taking the position that natural science/biology will eventually fill in the gaps -- we just may not know enough now, but take my word for it -- evolution is correct and we will fill the gaps. No, you won?t fill the gaps I pointed out in this discussion. And I?m not assuming anything and using the God-to fill in the gaps theory. I?m saying that chemistry + physics + chance don?t support the making of the complex structures and information required to produce complex life we see here on earth -- period. Random processes and chance don?t produce information -- and that?s required. On another score the material universe can?t and doesn?t explain it?s existence. At some point you have to go metaphysical because material processes won?t do. Nothing you?ve posted on these pages refutes that in the least. Nature can?t do it by itself.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Blastman
Evolution does not take place in a petri dish. I?d say not being able to show the experiments showing the evolution mechanism is killing your arguments

Without a time machine, all we can do is theorize and seek evidence to support or disprove various theories. Evolution is all but fact; it has mountains of supporting evidence. Creationism has none.

I?m saying that chemistry + physics + chance don?t support the making of the complex structures and information required to produce complex life we see here on earth -- period. Random processes and chance don?t produce information -- and that?s required.

I understand what you're saying, and this is the problem. You're stating conjecture as fact. Laughable conjecture at that.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Without a time machine, all we can do is theorize and seek evidence to support or disprove various theories. Evolution is all but fact; it has mountains of supporting evidence.

No evolution not fact. It?s a pile of circumstantial evidence subject to interpretation. The naturalist philosophers who have assumed the material world is all there is read their interpretations into this evidence. The logic of ID shows these materialistic interpretations don?t hold water. In fact it?s evolution that?s laughable when you see the overall picture.

Creationism has none.

Wrong. All the evidence in cosmology and science these days strongly points to a definite starting point for the universe (ie. Bing Bang).

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: Stefan

God and the universe as we know it do not have to be mutually exclusive. Nobody will ever prove that God does/does not exist.

Actually, several philosophers have tried their hand at writing proofs for the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas wrote 5 proofs for the existence of God in the thirteenth century. I?m somewhat familiar with first proof on motion and I find it as compelling an argument in natural theology as you will get for the existence of God. Contrary to Gruck?s insistence that we shouldn?t appeal to anything outside of nature to explain things in nature -- on some points you have to go metaphysical/supernatural because nature has no logical way of explaining it.

Basically, Aquinas?s first proof goes something like this ?

??in the universe we observe motion, now whatever is moved is moved by another, and that which is moved must be moved by another, and so on and so on. But this cannot go on to infinity because there would be no first mover and motion. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other, and this everyone understands to be god ??

Lets look at Newtons 1st law of motion and how Aquinas?s proof relates to it ?

Newtons 1st law

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

My analysis:

There are a couple of important implications here. First, no object can move or accelerate itself -- it has to be moved by another object. Since this is true of all material objects in the universe, how did motion come into existence in the universe in the first place? If we examine all the objects in the universe none of them are capable of starting motion, they all have to be moved by another object -- yet we observe the existence of motion. Not only that, science points to a definite starting point for the universe.

Second, even if you posit a infinite number of objects bumping into each other-- there would still be no explanation in that infinite series why motion exists in the first place. So even in an theoretical infinite universe there would be nothing that accounts for the existence of motion. Based on the laws of motion there can be no explanation in the material world for the existence of motion. Therefore, you have to go outside the physical universe and posit a God - a creator that has the power to create motion. The physical universe can?t provide an explanation for the existence of motion.