Different Opinions....Who is right?

[metis]

If you're arguing that there must be an intelligence behind the processes of nature, I'm all for exploring that idea. But if you're arguing for spontaneous creation as opposed to evolution, you're ignoring a great deal of very clear science.

And that's really important to emphasize because in my experience of teaching anthropology for 30 years, so many of my students came in believing that if one accepts evolution that they cannot accept the Bible. As you well know, that is categorically false. So, then what I had to do was to give my students a short theology lesson for them to explain why they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Father Heathen]

1.) Science isn't a matter of opinion.

2.) Evolution isn't a "random accident".

3.) Evolution and the concept of god aren't mutually exclusive, nor is literal interpretations of creation myths a prerequisite for belief in god.

4.) Evolution has been explained innumerable times here. So you're either being willfully ignorant or are deliberately misrepresenting evolution. Both are forms of dishonesty, which is sin.

I'll pray for your soul.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if not by fluke....and I don't believe it is

then by craft

That's what is called a "false dichotomy".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

adaptation is evident everywhere, species adapt and change somewhat given the environmental conditions, which is obvious to any that look.

That's evolution.

the idea of evolution though implies a change in kind

No, it isn't.

In evolution, species never outgrow their ancestry.
Cats produce more cats and eventually might speciate in subspecies of cats. Cats won't evolve into dogs.

, where random amino acids would be compelled by some unknown "natural" program to morph from one lower kind into a higher kind, for purposes unknown....for no apparent reason.

False.
If you are going to argue against evolution, at least learn what it actually says first.

 

[Windwalker]

And that's really important to emphasize because in my experience of teaching anthropology for 30 years, so many of my students came in believing that if one accepts evolution that they cannot accept the Bible. As you well know, that is categorically false. So, then what I had to do was to give my students a short theology lesson for them to explain why they're not mutually exclusive.

I'd be curious what you told them that allowed them to consider other views. Typically, that's a really hard nut to crack.

 

[BSM1]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

If there were anything resembling an "intelligetn creation" thingy, why would the bug have to hide in the first place?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

They are beautiful. Does not need to be a science god dichotomy? I'm always in awe of nature. I'm just about to jog now. One can have the same experience and observation without needed attribution to those experiences, right?

 

[Windwalker]

Evolutionary theory does not make very good predictions. It is better at correlating new observations and then explaining how these also connect to the theory. This is not the same thing as prediction.

Evolution cannot identify, the next example of evolution, before it appears, That would be a prediction. Saying we will see a new virus strain next year, is like saying it will rain next year. This is not very accurate or useful. This is different from showing the chemical makeup of a new virus, before it appears. That would give evolution more credibility as a predictor. In the current science climate, env with evolutionary theory, when a new virus appears there is an after the fact scramble, as though a mystery has begun.

But this outbreak is not a mystery or a surprise. It was predicted to come. I could point you to some Ted Talks ten years ago that predicted this will come. It was a matter of when, not if.

But the particular forms it takes, the different mutation strains that it undergoes and what that will look like, is beyond our science at this point. That doesn't make science lose credibility. We know a crud load more about these things than ever in the past. But these are parts of highly complex systems, and predictability becomes nigh impossible. Hence, why the complexity sciences, like chaos theory step up to examine that. This does not mean we don't know anything at all.

Intelligent Design, in theory, assumes that consciousness can lead genetics. This conscious that is leading is attributed to the consciousness of God. There no reason to believe that God could not make use of the DNA, to trigger and then safety store the needed change. If this schema was extrapolated to the creation itself, then insect consciousness, being aware of is surroundings, and its needs for survival, could help trigger a genetic change in its own facade, for defense in a unique environment.

If you look at the study of Epigenetics, it demonstrates how one's environment can change what goes on with the DNA and how it is affected. I would easily suggest that that environment also includes one's mental and emotional states as well, as everything is interrelated, and not separate and isolated. That said, it appears this dynamic is inherent in evolution. It's not being controlled by any external forces, but internally in response to the environment.

Big Question: Can your environment change your DNA? | Duke

'

Humming birds, for example, can change their colors to suit the occasion. This overall affect requires both genes in the DNA and complex wiring to their brains. Their feathers are hollow, and will refract light; rainbow affect, based on the chosen diameter of the hollow, which is subject to their will power. They can alter color or shut the color off. This cascade of connected events shows a connection between the facade and the DNA, mediated by conscious in real time.

It is possible, an insect brain, even without the hollow feathers like the hummingbird, could try to make a change in real time. Some critters will stop moving to appear invisible. Physical changes cannot happen, in this case, since that insect lacks the output mechanism. However, the very attempt to change, will have an impact earlier in the potential camouflage train to the DNA. The hummingbird had to start somewhere.

Human females make changes to the facade in other ways, based on visualization in the mirror. The creative female will imagine a new look to fit the occasion.. Or the child may imagine themselves as invisible. They do not have the output mechanism, but they do have the impulse to try. This may translate to body language that places then under the radar of the adults.

I have no problem seeing evolution as the way in which God or Spirit, creates form. But that is inherent in the system, and not managed and controlled by some external entity with thoughts and ideas, and plans for a specific outcome which resulted in you. That is just an idea humans impose upon God, starting with themselves as the center of the universe, and the apple of God's eye. In other words, it's a human mythology about the Divine.

 

[cataway]

if God is involved as some are tiring to infer ,how could be evolution ?

 

[metis]

I'd be curious what you told them that allowed them to consider other views. Typically, that's a really hard nut to crack.

Basically what I told them that if they still felt that the two couldn't be meshed to consider going with religion as that would have a more lasting effect.

At the end of my course, I had them fill out a confidential survey, and in 30 years of teaching the subject only one student said (s)he still didn't accept the ToE. So, either I'm the world's greatest salesman who the evidence speaks for itself, and let me tell ya it ain't the former.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

A very clear demonstration of how evolution enables species to adapt effective camouflage depending upon their environment. It's something nature has been doing quite successfully for quite some time and there's absolutely no need to insert some unverifiable 'creator being' into the equation.

Thanks for the example.

 

[metis]

A very clear demonstration of how evolution enables species to adapt effective camouflage depending upon their environment.

And sometimes it's used an a attraction for mating purposes.

 

[Valjean]

if not by fluke....and I don't believe it is

then by craft

Define "craft."
It seems to imply intentional design.

 

[Valjean]

A very clear demonstration of how evolution enables species to adapt effective camouflage depending upon their environment. It's something nature has been doing quite successfully for quite some time and there's absolutely no need to insert some unverifiable 'creator being' into the equation.

Thanks for the example.

Exactly -- just a fancy peppered moth, if you ask me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

"...exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own..."

What I find fascinating here is the question of why you stopped? Why did this "intelligent Creator" wish to create a world in which some of its creation was designed to prey, and others designed to be prey? Even looking at beautiful mantids, the fact is that some of them will be prey themselves anyway...the females so often enjoying a tasty meal of the males after bumping their uglies.

It's very easy to set up scenarios that seem to validate our opinions -- so long as we make our scenarios wildly incomplete. You would do better to acknowledge, first and foremost, that EVERYTHING THAT LIVES is ultimately prey to something else, and almost everything that lives preys on something else, as well.

So do us all a favour -- complete your thesis by including that last fact, and then try answering your own question again: "Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?"

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree.
Life though, doesn't have any such characteristics.



Not exactly.
We can know something is designed / created, if it bears marks of artificial manipulation and/or manufacturing.

Take the pyramids. Pyramid builders are no longer around. And in fact for a very long time, we had no clue how they managed to create them.
But we know they were created. How? Because it bears all the hallmarks of manufacturing. We even found the quarries where they carved out the blocks of rock they used. The stones themselves show signs of carving (as opposed to erosion) etc.

See, this is the thing...
How do we recognise eroded rock? Simple. We know what erosion is and thus we understand what type of evidence that process leaves behind.
We also understand what carving is and we understand what type of evidence carving leaves behind.

This is how we can differentiate between a rock formation that is the result of erosion and a formation that is the result of carving.


Life, does not bear any such hallmarks of manufacturing.

I completely disagree -except that what you say is true of very crude and simple creativity/manufacturing.
No marks are left on molecules, for example, if one were to create a molecule which nature would not produce.
(A molecule would be simple -so any purpose would not be necessarily as readily apparent as something more complex and obviously purposeful, however)

Will try to get back to why life does have such characteristics later -but both life and its environment should be considered.

 

[Valjean]

This is all premised on the erroneous belief that there is not already a clear, demonstrable, unintentioned explanation for the diversity and complexity of nature.

 

[Milton Platt]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

interesting to me that God created all the beautiful creatures....but nobody gives him credit for intestinal parasites and birth defects.

 

[Valjean]

interesting to me that God created all the beautiful creatures....but nobody gives him credit for intestinal parasites and birth defects.

Would a honeybee consider a flower mantis one of God's beautiful creatures -- or a horrific monster?

 

[Deeje]

interesting to me that God created all the beautiful creatures....but nobody gives him credit for intestinal parasites and birth defects.

That's easy....this world is not the one God created.....this world is ruled by God's adversary. (Romans 5:12) The Bible says he is powerful, and controls what goes on down here.....you think he can't manipulate nature like he can manipulate humans? More people than ever are waking up to the fact that the current situation is simply not natural.....with one devastating disaster after another, in country after country, they are beginning to wonder about what evil force is creating all these disasters.....in global and epidemic proportions...this cannot be the work of mere humans.

In this current pandemic crisis, (with SARS and MERS already unleashed) a little research will reveal that scientists in China have been working on bat corona viruses that could be transmitted to humans. It dates back to 2004.

Birth defects are a product of gene mutations which can produce all manner of abnormalities. These gene mutations generally mean detrimental defects and the affected creatures are not good specimens for reproduction. This is what makes evolution a fairy story to me.....when are mutations ever beneficial? Its extremely rare. God did not create defective things.....his creation was originally perfect.

These sad examples demonstrate why God is not ruling this world.....

Top 10 Rare Mutations That Defy Our Definition Of Human - Listverse