• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory...

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I will try to respond to your objections to ID.
1. You are assuming that our Designer created us to suffer and die. I believe the Bible explains how suffering and death started, and that we were created perfect, with the prospect of living forever. (Romans 5:12) If we see a wrecked car, we do not quickly assume the Designer of the car did a poor job. We assume (rightly) that something bad happened to the car after it's design and creation.
Spurious argument, and a bad analogy. A car accident is a car accident, and one does not all other cars suddenly suffer similar damage. To suppose that one human made an error necessarily entails all other humans suffering for it is inventive but nothing more.
2. One must be cautious in judging various organs as sub-optimal. On closer examination, critics of how various organs are designed and function have been proven wrong about their design assumptions. Again, we were not created to suffer the diseases and ills we experience, but this situation occurred due to events man is responsible for, IMO.
Certainly the human lower spine is sub-optimal, as is the arrangement of the eye. The spine clearly evolved for upright walking. And don’t forget dangerous childbirths, sore feet and wisdom teeth. We gained a lot when we evolved to walk upright and grew a big brain, but at a cost.

Walking upright freed up our hands for tool use, a key factor in human success, but this created tresses from gravity on the spine that frequently lead to unique back pains. According to anthropologist/anatomist Bruce Latimore at Case Western Reserve U. "we're the only mammals that spontaneously fracture vertebra." And the fact that the spine developed curves to keep balanced while upright really does cause it to become stressed at certain points, resulting in conditions such as lordosis (swayed backs), kyphosis (hunch) and scoliosis (sideways curve).

Also, our walking gait causes a twisting motion that, after millions of twists over time, the discs between the vertebrae begin to wear out and break down, resulting in herniated discs.

Our bigger brain meant a significant change in the architecture of the braincase, and that meant that we lost room for wisdom teeth – resulting in a lot of pain for a lot of people. With modern dentistry, that’s pretty easy to fix, but before that, it could be awful.

And upright walking and that large brain case has also made childbirth a lot riskier for humans than any other primate (apes don’t have midwives and obstetricians – humans almost always need them). A lot of women (and their babies) have died during childbirth.
3. I do not agree with your conclusions about the fossil record.
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
Yes, I'm fully aware of punctuated equilibrium or the other terms used to describe the fact that evolution seems to happen in spurts. A lot of that is because environment change happens in spurts, too. Volcanoes, tectonic shifts leading to earthquakes, rifts and mountains don't happen gradually. Therefore one wouldn't expect evolution to happen gradually in response to such changes, either.

But the clear fact remains that, whether gradually or jerkily, the fossil record does not yield up one species AND its ancestors in the very same stratum. This is always the case.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What if the whole world has been taken over by a powerful and evil entity and it is this one who has introduced suffering and death to humanity? What if we are genetically altered by the experience and so now we have to endure the consequences of that alteration? (birth defects, disease, mistaken actions that end in death etc...)
"What if" is never, ever, evidence of anything, nor does it explain anything. You can make up any "what if" fantasy stories that you like, but it won't make them true.

I should also point out, by the way, that if your "Creator" is omnipotent, then your "evil entity" cannot be merely "powerful" but must be likewise omnipotent to take over. There is absolutely no question in my mind that omnipotence must always -- and by definition -- beat out merely "powerful but not omnipotent."
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am merely pointing out that the word evidence, without conditional modifiers, is anything that convinces someone of something.
Such a definition has never occurred to me -- and English is my native language.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Depends on your definition of "Truth." I almost always mean "the state of being in accord with fact or reality," and sometimes to mean "fidelity to an original or standard." I almost never use the more modern context of referring to an idea of "truth to self." For the latter, I'm more likely to use the term "authentic" rather than "true."

In my world, there is either a Ming tea pot orbiting Saturn or there isn't (I don't know, but suspect, which). But in my world, there is no way -- and no "beholders" -- that they can both be true.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
No, truth is objective.
TRUTH is subjective, based on a person's perception.

FACT is objective and evidence-based.

They CAN BE the same when they both arrived at the same conclusion, and people frequently use them interchangeably, BUT they are not necessarily so.

But there are distinctions between the two. Fact, as I said, is evidence-based, truth, on the other hand, is not necessarily so.

So I preferred fact over truth.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Keep in mind that "ID according to Michael Behe" includes the common ancestry of all life on earth, including between humans and other primates. He just believes that God stepped in at certain points and did some things.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Keep in mind that "ID according to Michael Behe" includes the common ancestry of all life on earth, including between humans and other primates. He just believes that God stepped in at certain points and did some things.
Which is still an untestable, unconfirmable assertion.

Edit: sorry, should have included "unfalsifiable" to the list...
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Where, exactly, in this article does it state that they tested the assertion that
God stepped in at certain points and did some things
What the researchers in the article tested was the proposition that it is possible to construct a phyogenic tree of common ancestry, which is most certainly a proposition that can be tested and falsified.

How, exactly, would one test the proposition that "God stepped in at certain points and did things?"
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Religion.

There...that was easy!
It has nothing to do with the bible. So one could say its a make believe using the bible to justify itself.. But then I can flip that over into things that are pretty lame historically in science and claimed it was science and it was just fantasy as well and was completely not scientific. Would one day that lame fantasties called science is science? Or do we just say "lame fantasty that has zero do do with anything inside religion or science.." which is clearly what ID is.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Where, exactly, in this article does it state that they tested the assertion that

What the researchers in the article tested was the proposition that it is possible to construct a phyogenic tree of common ancestry, which is most certainly a proposition that can be tested and falsified.

How, exactly, would one test the proposition that "God stepped in at certain points and did things?"
Maybe they don't understand the topic?.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It has nothing to do with the bible. So one could say its a make believe using the bible to justify itself.. But then I can flip that over into things that are pretty lame historically in science and claimed it was science and it was just fantasy as well and was completely not scientific. Would one day that lame fantasties called science is science? Or do we just say "lame fantasty that has zero do do with anything inside religion or science.." which is clearly what ID is.
I'd respond, but I just had a snootful, & can't really follow that.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'd respond, but I just had a snootful, & can't really follow that.
You have made a false assumption. You have assumed ID supporters understand the topic god. How do you assume that? That's odd to me. There is zero emperical evidence they understAnd that topic at all..
.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You have made a false assumption. You have assumed ID supporters understand the topic god. How do you assume that? That's odd to me. There is zero emperical evidence they understAnd that topic at all..
.
I didn't assume that.
Only that ID is based upon a gussied up version of creationism, & therefore religion.
 
Top