A simple case for intelligent design

[viole]

How about this method? It can be applied to the claims of the scriptures:

The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Right. And many predictions done by the theory have been successfully validated.

Looks like you shot yourself in the food. Which is common, when a subject is not entirely understood.
And I have been generous by using the word “entirely”.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Can you explain what the doctrinal problem is that it causes? I presume there is more to it than simple biblical literalism, as many creationists seem to have no difficulty with the age of the Earth and cosmology, even though these also contradict the literal words of Genesis.

IMHO, it is a doctrinal problem with biblical literalism. As long as one can literally interpret "first day" to mean first gazillion eons, then there is nothing that contradicts cosmology (except the BB).

What is the special objection to evolution, that does not apply to these other theories? I've long wanted to understand this, simply from the point of view of insight into different branches of Christianity.

Biblical literalists can rationalize a day to be eternity but it's a lot harder to rationalize Adam & Eve as worms. Also, if you take away A&E, you have no rationale to heap sin upon the flock. Besides, Biblical literalists have to think of themselves as more than just one small step above Apes. Dontcha know, God made them specul.

 

[Dell]

You seem to think the word "science" is synonymous with "evolution." It is not. Evolution is only a hypothesis, not even a theory, and requires so much faith it might as well be called a religion. My point was that whether it is someone or something everyone exalts something as a god believing it to have been self existent from the beginning and ruling all else. To exalt the "natural" to the status of god is still to believe in the supernatural.
But if the laws of science are placed in this position without someone to create them there are significant problems. If the universe created itself it would have to have done so within the laws of science and the laws of science would also have to have made themselves or have been self-existent with no beginning. This is impossible because the laws of science have strict limitations. Only a God without limitations could make them and also be self-existent. God is infinite all knowing and all powerful. He created the laws of science and is able to work through them or outside of them. They are part of His creation and they bow before Him. He does not submit to them.

Some things to think about:

If evidence of simple life is discovered on other objects in our solar system. Then ID has to claim life was created elsewhere and has spread here from other solar systems, which those odds go way down if no evidence of those systems exist in realistic proximities.

If a highly intelligent life form could find and get to earth then, now it should be detected elsewhere in the Galaxy by us. That means that life form should be populated all over the galaxy since it would have ability of interstellar travel and be able to preserve itself.

If life can be generated in the lab from nonlife in simulated early planet environments. Then all non evolution hypotheses will become as probable as Noah's ark..

 

[BilliardsBall]

Right. And many predictions done by the theory have been successfully validated.

Looks like you shot yourself in the food. Which is common, when a subject is not entirely understood.
And I have been generous by using the word “entirely”.

Ciao

- viole

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude Jesus is the Christ.

 

[viole]

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude Jesus is the Christ.

Yes, after it says that water existed before the first star, then i realized it has been written by people without a clue. And if that was inspired by a divinity, then the divinity did not have a clue of what He created. Making all that light did not help, apparently. I think that was in page one.

In logic, if a premise is false, then all conclusions based on that premise are not necessarily true.

To mention something scientifically equivalent: the moon is made of swiss cheese, ergo Jesus is the Christ.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude Jesus is the Christ.

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude anything using science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yo Dan

Trust all things are good in Smithville today.

As I've mentioned, my own view is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms with / accurately reflects, reality. It's a very usual approach, often called the 'correspondence' view.

Things are well in my world. Hope they are good fro you too.

That is the only practical way that I have to determine the truth of something. I see a lot of people talk about subjects taken on faith as truths, but I have seen no evidence to back those claims up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Opponents to the theory of evolution tend to use two different tactics. They either make obvious false claims about the theory, as we just saw, or they use a false dichotomy of evolution versus Christianity. In regards to the latter one should remember that the vast majority of early scientists that accepted the theory of evolution were Christians and remained so. And also that worldwide most Christians accept the theory as well.

That jibes well with what I have experienced and understand.

Hmm, I wonder how I would fare claiming that to be a True Christian one must accept the theory of evolution.

I think that might get a lot of hits.

 

[The Bible Alone]

If life can be generated in the lab from nonlife in simulated early planet environments. Then all non evolution hypotheses will become as probable as Noah's ark..

How does "creating" life in a lab disprove creation?

 

[The Bible Alone]

No, no, no. Evolution is a scientific theory with more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity. Only those with no science education at all would make the errors that you just made.

so let's forget about the rest of your post and start with a remedial education on the sciences. Are you willing to try to learn?

Really? We see evidence of gravity every day. No one has ever seen evolution take place. In fact the long timeline of evolutionists is just a feeble attempt to explain why no one has ever witnessed it. If it is still happening today we should see it.

 

[The Bible Alone]

You can perfectly well believe in God as creator and yet accept all of science, evolution included. Most mainstream churches in fact do so without any difficulty.

In fact the mystery to most of us is why it is so crucial, for people like you, that evolution should be wrong. Can you explain what the doctrinal problem is that it causes? I presume there is more to it than simple biblical literalism, as many creationists seem to have no difficulty with the age of the Earth and cosmology, even though these also contradict the literal words of Genesis.

What is the special objection to evolution, that does not apply to these other theories? I've long wanted to understand this, simply from the point of view of insight into different branches of Christianity.

The only reason to believe in evolution is to explain our existence without God. I have never heard a convincing reason for this belief in terms of science.

Theistic evolution is nothing more than a pointless attempt to agree with everyone simply to agree with everyone. As for churches, if Christian doctrine were just decided by a vote of churchgoers it would change daily. It is God who determines what Christian doctrine is, not man.

Psalms 119:160
[160]Thy word is true from the beginning...

 

[The Bible Alone]

I realize that by posting multiple questions I may have caused confusion. So I'll simplify things and ask only one question:
How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

Okay, if you don't like that one here is another.

Revelation 22:13
[13]I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

And another.

Revelation 1:8
[8]I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The list goes on.

Isaiah 44:6
[6]Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;

 

[The Bible Alone]

When did He do that?

Ciao

- viole

In the beginning.

 

[Jose Fly]

No one has ever seen evolution take place. In fact the long timeline of evolutionists is just a feeble attempt to explain why no one has ever witnessed it. If it is still happening today we should see it.

Why in the world do you creationists post such nonsense? We see populations evolve all the time, every day. We see them evolve new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. We see it in lab experiments and in the wild. We both exploit it (domestication) and fight against it (antibiotic resistance).

So what you think you gain by denying something that's as common as rain is a mystery. Unless of course you're simply trolling to make Christianity look ridiculous, in which case.....um, well done I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? We see evidence of gravity every day. No one has ever seen evolution take place. In fact the long timeline of evolutionists is just a feeble attempt to explain why no one has ever witnessed it. If it is still happening today we should see it.

And we see evidence of evolution every day. And you are quite wrong. Evolution has been directly observed on both the micro and macro levels. You simply do not know what to look for. Scientists do know what to look for so it is easy for them.

 

[Valjean]

Really? We see evidence of gravity every day. No one has ever seen evolution take place. In fact the long timeline of evolutionists is just a feeble attempt to explain why no one has ever witnessed it. If it is still happening today we should see it.

But we have.
We see evolution all the time. We've been selectively breeding new species of plants and animals for thousands of years, using the same methods Nature uses. We've seen wolves turn into dogs, moths turn black then turn white again.

We've seen drug resistance develop in bacteria, insects and plants. We've seen new species emerge, adapted to man-made environments that didn't exist before.
We've bred wild foxes into friendly tail waggers.
We've been genetically modifying organisms for years. Science uses its knowledge of evolution to create vaccines and drugs like insulin.

 

[Valjean]

The only reason to believe in evolution is to explain our existence without God. I have never heard a convincing reason for this belief in terms of science.

Apparently you know absolutely nothing about the subject. You're unaware of the mechanisms, the evidence, why science studies it, or why people believe it.
It has nothing to do with God. The idea of magic doesn't even enter the heads of scientists or technicians.

Do you believe all living things have always been exactly the way we see them today? Do you believe there has been no change over the years?

Theistic evolution is nothing more than a pointless attempt to agree with everyone simply to agree with everyone. As for churches, if Christian doctrine were just decided by a vote of churchgoers it would change daily. It is God who determines what Christian doctrine is, not man.

What's "theistic evolution?"

Religious doctrine resists change because questions or critical analysis is discouraged. No attempt to verify its tenets is made and if contrary evidence is presented it's ignored.

 

[exchemist]

The only reason to believe in evolution is to explain our existence without God. I have never heard a convincing reason for this belief in terms of science.

Theistic evolution is nothing more than a pointless attempt to agree with everyone simply to agree with everyone. As for churches, if Christian doctrine were just decided by a vote of churchgoers it would change daily. It is God who determines what Christian doctrine is, not man.

Psalms 119:160
[160]Thy word is true from the beginning...

No, I wasn't asking you why you think other people accept evolution.

I was asking you what is your doctrinal difficulty with evolution. I am really quite anxious to learn this because, speaking as someone with a Christian upbringing and who is a regular church attender, I have never understood why some Christians, mainly it seems in the USA, find evolution objectionable. Over here in the UK, this is simply not a live issue, you see, so I am at a loss to find the explanation.

On what religious grounds do you object to evolution and why is this so important to you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, after it says that water existed before the first star, then i realized it has been written by people without a clue. And if that was inspired by a divinity, then the divinity did not have a clue of what He created. Making all that light did not help, apparently. I think that was in page one.

In logic, if a premise is false, then all conclusions based on that premise are not necessarily true.

To mention something scientifically equivalent: the moon is made of swiss cheese, ergo Jesus is the Christ.

Ciao

- viole

You are partially correct. There are many attacks on Genesis 1 for this reason. Did you know, some people interested in cosmology said if great waters surrounded the universe, it would create a time dilation/relative effect where we could have a young Earth in an old universe? Interesting, the more so since no telescopes or measurements of any kind have found a known "edge" to the universe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude anything using science.

How would you know such a thing? I specifically used a hypothesis method. For example, I challenge atheists to pray, and they say, "Since God does not exist, I refuse to pray regarding God or salvation," and I respond, "The hypothesis method would suggest a prayer like, 'God, if you exist, being invisible, please provide to me evidence you exist that is verifiable/testable/provable and I will respond, and if not, I'm talking to myself, YOU have the burden of proof here,'" and when the atheist still refuses to pray, I've demonstrated they are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest...