Intelligent Design, but is God Smart Enough?

[QuestioningMind]

Theists don't say, DNA is complicated, therefore GOD did it! We say, it shows the possibility a Being of Higher Intelligence may be responsible. Leading Atheists and Evolutionist Richard Dawkins agrees and thought it might have been Aliens who, themselves had evolved through a process of natural selection, then saw fit to seed life here on Earth.

Candidates responsible for code written in DNA:

GOD
Aliens
Unknown process.

We have revelation from a being called GOD, who claims responsibility for Creation.
We have no evidence showing Aliens are responsible.
Scientist have been, and continue to attempt to explain the 'unknown' process through a purely naturalistic mechanism. They have so far put forward a few theories, but no observable/testable evidence.

"Candidates responsible for code written in DNA:

GOD
Aliens
Unknown process."

The ONLY possible choice from the scientific perspective is UNKNOWN PROCESS. Until there is actually some verifiable evidence for either aliens or Gods we may as well claim that magical unicorns are responsible. And there is actual evidence that things DO occur by random chance, thus giving random chance a far greater likelihood of being accurate than any claims about unverified Gods or aliens.

"We have revelation from a being called GOD, who claims responsibility for Creation."

The truth is we have supposed revelations from 1000's of various Gods claiming to be responsible for creation. They can't ALL be true. It seems FAR more plausible that these are nothing more than the claims of mortal human beings. After all, a genuine creator God would have a much better means of communicating His Word than through some book written in a long dead language.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....that you continue to condone lies and deception does your faith no favours whatsoever.

I "condone lies"? Don't say it, words are cheap for some nowadays...Prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I "condone lies"? Don't say it, words are cheap for some nowadays...Prove it.

No problem. Link a source that you thinks supports your claims about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Candidates responsible for code written in DNA:

GOD
Aliens
Unknown process."

The ONLY possible choice from the scientific perspective is UNKNOWN PROCESS. Until there is actually some verifiable evidence for either aliens or Gods we may as well claim that magical unicorns are responsible. And there is actual evidence that things DO occur by random chance, thus giving random chance a far greater likelihood of being accurate than any claims about unverified Gods or aliens.

"We have revelation from a being called GOD, who claims responsibility for Creation."

The truth is we have supposed revelations from 1000's of various Gods claiming to be responsible for creation. They can't ALL be true. It seems FAR more plausible that these are nothing more than the claims of mortal human beings. After all, a genuine creator God would have a much better means of communicating His Word than through some book written in a long dead language.

Actually the correct answer would be "not fully understood" process'. We know how "new information" is added to the genome and scientists are well on the way to understanding abiogenesis.

 

[ChristineM]

I "condone lies"? Don't say it, words are cheap for some nowadays...Prove it.

You have repeatedly condoned "expelled", the scientist interviewed in that film were conned into appearing in the film by lies and deception.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The ONLY possible choice from the scientific perspective is UNKNOWN PROCESS. Until there is actually some verifiable evidence for either aliens or Gods we may as well claim that magical unicorns are responsible.

So fine, you don't know as you are awaiting for a Scientist to provide testable, verifiable data. Whereas theists are content with the knowledge GOD is responsible and tells us so. You have your way, and we have ours.

And there is actual evidence that things DO occur by random chance, thus giving random chance a far greater likelihood of being accurate than any claims about unverified Gods or aliens.

Winning the lottery happens by random chance, is that the sort of thing you mean?

The truth is we have supposed revelations from 1000's of various Gods claiming to be responsible for creation. They can't ALL be true. It seems FAR more plausible that these are nothing more than the claims of mortal human beings. After all, a genuine creator God would have a much better means of communicating His Word than through some book written in a long dead language.

Never mind 1000's of gods claiming to be responsible, please just provide 10 examples of what you imagine to be different Gods claiming to be responsible for creation, and then I'll respond.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So fine, you don't know as you are awaiting for a Scientist to provide testable, verifiable data. Whereas theists are content with the knowledge GOD is responsible and tells us so. You have your way, and we have ours.

Winning the lottery happens by random chance, is that the sort of thing you mean?

Never mind 1000's of gods claiming to be responsible, please just provide 10 examples of what you imagine to be different Gods claiming to be responsible for creation, and then I'll respond.

"So fine, you don't know as you are awaiting for a Scientist to provide testable, verifiable data. Whereas theists are content with the knowledge GOD is responsible and tells us so. You have your way, and we have ours."

I'm relying on what has by far been the most reliable method human beings have ever devised for determining the reality of how the universe works, the scientific method. Theists on the other hand rely on faith. And since people can have faith in virtually anything, even diametrically opposed ideas, faith is OBVIOUSLY not a reliable path to obtaining the truth. So for anyone genuinely interested in discovering the TRUTH, the scientific method is the only logical method to use.

"Winning the lottery happens by random chance, is that the sort of thing you mean?"

Yes, winning the lottery would be one such example.

"Never mind 1000's of gods claiming to be responsible, please just provide 10 examples of what you imagine to be different Gods claiming to be responsible for creation, and then I'll respond."

According to Wikipedia all of the below listed God are claimed to have created the universe.

A

• Abira
• Abzu
• Adroa
• Ahone
• Ahura Mazda
• Aiomun-Kondi
• Akongo
• Alatangana
• Amotken
• Anansi
• Anguta
• Anulap
• Aramazd
• Atua Fafine
• Atua I Raropuka
• Atum
• Awonawilona

B

• Bagadjimbiri
• Baiame
• Batara Kala
• Bathala
• Brahma
• Bunjil

C

• Cagn
• Cghene
• Chaotroquin
• Chiminigagua
• Chirakan-Ixmucane
• Cocijo
• Coyote (mythology)

D

• Daksha
• Damballa
• Degei
• Dohkwibuhch

E

• Earth-maker myth
• El (deity)
• Elohim
• Enki
• Eskeri

F

• Father Time
• Fijian mythology
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Fon creation myth

G

• Gitche Manitou
• God
• God the Father
• Patriology

H

• Heryshaf
• Hœnir
• Holy Spirit in Christianity
• Huracan

I

• I'itoi
• Imra
• Inyan
• Itherther
• Ixpiyacoc
• Izanagi

J

• Jah
• Jesus

K

• Karora
• Kayra
• Kengue
• Khnum
• Khonvoum
• Krishna
• Kukulkan
• Kuterastan
• Kutkh

L

• Lóðurr

M

• Makemake (deity)
• Mandé creation myth
• Mangar-kunjer-kunja
• Mbombo
• Melek Taus
• Mukuru
• Muluku
• Mwari

N

• Nanabozho
• Ngai
• Ngenechen
• Nogomain
• Noncomala
• Num (god)
• Numakulla

O

• Obatala
• Olelbis
• Olodumare
• Omai (deity)

P

• Pacha Kamaq
• Pangu
• Pariacaca (god)
• Prajapati
• Prometheus
• Ptah
• Pūluga
• Pundjel

Q

• Q'uq'umatz
• Qat (deity)
• Quetzalcoatl

R

• User:R65f7tyuibh/sandbox
• Rainbow Serpent
• Rangi and Papa
• Raven Tales
• Rod (Slavic religion)

S

• Serer creation myth
• Shiva

T

• Ta'aroa
• Tabaldak
• Tagaloa
• Taryenyawagon
• Tengri
• Tezcatlipoca
• Tloquenahuaque
• Tonacatecuhtli
• Tupã (mythology)
• Tzacol

U

• Ülgen
• Unkulunkulu
• Unumbotte
• Uoke

V

• Vili and Vé
• Viracocha
• Vishvakarman

X

• Xamaba

Y

• Yahweh
• Yuanshi Tianzun

Z

• Zamba (god)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

provide 10 examples of what you imagine to be different Gods claiming to be responsible for creation, and then I'll respond.

From Wiki, these are all creation myths. You can read the names of several of these alleged creator gods in the list (Jamshid, Kumulipo, Mande, Pangu. etc..)


Creation from chaos

• Cheonjiwang Bonpuri (a Korean creation myth)
• Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth)
• Greek cosmogonical myth
• Jamshid
• Kumulipo
• Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)
• Mandé creation myth
• Pangu
• Raven in Creation
• Serer creation myth
• Sumerian creation myth
• Tungusic creation myth
• Unkulunkulu
• Väinämöinen
• Viracocha
• Genesis creation myth (Christianity, Islam and Judaism)

Earth diver

• Ainu creation myth
• Cherokee creation myth
• Väinämöinen
• Yoruba creation myth

Emergence

• Hopi creation myth
• Maya creation of the world myth
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
• Zuni creation myth

Ex nihilo (out of nothing)

• Debate between sheep and grain
• Barton cylinder
• Ancient Egyptian creation myths
• Kabezya-Mpungu
• Māori myths
• Mbombo
• Ngai
• Popol Vuh

World Parent

• Coatlicue
• Enûma Eliš
• Greek cosmogonical myth
• Heliopolis creation myth
• Hiranyagarbha creation myth
• Kumulipo
• Rangi and Papa
• Völuspá

One brother killed by the other

• Proto-Indo-European creation story
• Romulus and Remus

Regional
Africa

• Ancient Egyptian creation myths
• Fon creation myth
• Kaang creation story (Bushmen)
• Kintu myth (Bugandan)
• Mandé creation myth
• Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)
• Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )
• Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)
• Unkulunkulu (Zulu)
• Yoruba creation

Americas
Mesoamerica

• Coatlicue (Aztec)
• Maya creation of the world myth
• Popol Vuh (Quiché Mayan)

Mid North America

• Anishinaabeg creation stories
• Cherokee creation myth
• Choctaw creation myth
• Creek creation myth
• Hopi creation myth
• Kuterastan (Plains Apache)
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
• Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)
• Zuni creation myth

South America

• Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu (Chilean)
• Viracocha (Incan)
• Xolas (Chilean)

Asia
Central Asia

• Mongolian creation myth
• Tungusic creation myth

East Asia

• Ainu creation myth (Japan)
• Au Co (Vietnamese)
• Chinese creation myth
• Cheonjiwang Bonpuli (Korean)
• Dangun creation myth (Korean)
• Japanese creation myth
• Nüwa (Chinese)
• Pangu (Chinese)
• Samseonghyeol legend (Korean)

Indian subcontinent

• Ajativada
• Buddhist cosmology
• Folk Hindu creation myth
• Hiranyagarbha creation (India)
• Jainism and non-creationism (India)
• Mimamsa eternalism (India)
• Nyaya-Vaisheshika atomic theory (India)
• Samkhya-yoga theory (India)

Europe

• Greek cosmogonical myth
• Pelasgian creation myth (Greek)
• Väinämöinen (Finnish)
• Völuspá (Norse)
• Raelian creation myth (French)

Middle East

• Debate between sheep and grain
• Enûma Eliš (Babylonian)
• Genesis creation myth (Hebrew)
• Islamic creation myth (Arabic)
• Mashya and Mashyana (Persian)
• Sumerian creation myth
• Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)

Pacific Islands/Oceanic

• Kumulipo (Hawaiian)
• Māori myths
• Rangi and Papa (Māori)
• Sureq Galigo (Buginese)

 

[Ingledsva]

Amazing that one of the smartest men who ever lived, Isaac Newton, 'studied the Bible daily' and never reached that conclusion! Are you privy to evidence he didn't have? I'm pretty sure the words he read regarding God's actions, are the same that you've read.

Maybe you're smarter than he was?

Newton had no evidence for any God, let alone the Abrahamic God.

Thinking the Universe is grand, - does not prove a God.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Newton had no evidence for any God, let alone the Abrahamic God.

Thinking the Universe is grand, - does not prove a God.

*

That's moving the goalposts....

the discussion was about the details and description the Bible reveals about God. You say it portrays him as hateful and bloodthirsty, yet Newton, Boyle and numerous others came to the opposite conclusion. And the words haven't changed: the text he read from is the same that you read from, that I read from.

I wonder who's assessment is wrong?

Luke 10:21 has a bearing on this. Even the majority of Christendom ignores this....it's all "Jesus" with most of them. And Jesus is important, but they basically overlook the One who sent Jesus....his Father and the one true God, Yahweh / Jehovah.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's moving the goalposts....

the discussion was about the details and description the Bible reveals about God. You say it portrays him as hateful and bloodthirsty, yet Newton, Boyle and numerous others came to the opposite conclusion. And the words haven't changed: the text he read from is the same that you read from, that I read from.

And how exactly is it moving the goalposts? - Your fragment in red proves otherwise. I have obviously read the Bible, and it's "details and description"; and I find the being it describes as God - to be evil, and as such - not God, but instead just the writings of men, and the EVIL things they want to do.

I wonder who's assessment is wrong?

Luke 10:21 has a bearing on this. Even the majority of Christendom ignores this....it's all "Jesus" with most of them. And Jesus is important, but they basically overlook the One who sent Jesus....his Father and the one true God, Yahweh / Jehovah.

HOW is this pertinent?

Luk 10:19 Behold I give authority to you to tread on snakes and scorpions and all the power of the enemy, and nothing will harm you.

Luk 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the demons submit to you. But rather rejoice that your names are written in Heaven.

Luk 10:21 In the same hour Yahshua rejoiced in the Spirit, and said, I praise You, Father, Master of Heaven and of earth, that You hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to children; yes, Father, because so it was pleasing before You.

These are the writings of MEN. And even if you believe them; - which are the "wise," and which are the "children"? You don't know.

These are supposed to be Jesus' words, yet we can see lies in 19 and 20.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

" “Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”"

The above is from the cited article. It certainly doesn't sound as if anyone other than you thinks that it implies too much design or that it couldn't have originated by chance.

Of course scientists give credit to a mindless, materialistic explanation! Even though experience dictates that complex functional information always originates from intelligent sources.

Besides, you are reading conclusions that aren't even there! It says nature "exploited", not originated!

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. That's how misinformation is spread.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

These are supposed to be Jesus' words, yet we can see lies in 19 and 20

I wonder why Newton et.al. never came to that interpretation? Huh?

Maybe Newton and others recognized that God is allowed protect His people from those trying to kill them, eh?
And, there's the promise for these people to live again. I think I've read something about a Resurrection. -- Acts of the Apostles 24:15, "resurrection of....the unrighteous".

 

[QuestioningMind]

Of course scientists give credit to a mindless, materialistic explanation! Even though experience dictates that complex functional information always originates from intelligent sources.

Besides, you are reading conclusions that aren't even there! It says nature "exploited", not originated!

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. That's how misinformation is spread.

Yeah I know, don't you hate it when those 'stupid' scientists who figured out how to tame electrons so we can interact on this forum and created vaccines that allows people to live decades longer act like they know what they're talking about? The way they act it's as if they think that the silly scientific method actually works! Good thing we're too smart to let them fool us, huh?

(shaking my head in dismay that anyone could be so willfully ignorant)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yeah I know, don't you hate it when those 'stupid' scientists who figured out how to tame electrons so we can interact on this forum and created vaccines that allows people to live decades longer act like they know what they're talking about? The way they act it's as if they think that the silly scientific method actually works! Good thing we're too smart to let them fool us, huh?

(shaking my head in dismay that anyone could be so willfully ignorant)

So, you come up with a straw-man to gloss over your mistake?

Show me where they said "nature originated" this dual language of DNA.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You have repeatedly condoned "expelled", the scientist interviewed in that film were conned into appearing in the film by lies and deception.

ChristineM, I've gone through this documentary, and for the life of me, I can't fathom how these scientists would've replied any differently than they did. If a false introduction was given, how would that have changed their answers?

Wikipedia has an article on "Expelled", and in discussing the 2004 events surrounding the attack against Richard Sternberg's integrity, they don't even mention that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect Federal employees from reprisals, intervened, and the investigator James McVay reached the decision that he was a target of defamation emanating from his Smithsonian colleagues.

Here's some of the story:

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

Like I said, lies have been told on both sides.

In that article, Sternberg was quoted as saying,
"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."

I agree.

 

[ChristineM]

ChristineM, I've gone through this documentary, and for the life of me, I can't fathom how these scientists would've replied any differently than they did. If a false introduction was given, how would that have changed their answers?

Wikipedia has an article on "Expelled", and in discussing the 2004 events surrounding the attack against Richard Sternberg's integrity, they don't even mention that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect Federal employees from reprisals, intervened, and the investigator James McVay reached the decision that he was a target of defamation emanating from his Smithsonian colleagues.

Here's some of the story:

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

Like I said, lies have been told on both sides.

In that article, Sternberg was quoted as saying,
"I loathe careerism and the herd mentality," he said. "I really think that objective truth can be discovered and that popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal."

I agree.

Dawkins for example was not given a choice in answer, the question was specific and could only have two answers, one god magic, two aliens. Given the "purported" plot of the film the the answer was in keeping with that plot. Imagine you banker offering you an interest free loan, you accepting the loan then the banker charging you 10,000% interest. I.e. he change the terms AFTER he agreement. This is precisely what has happened in this case.

As for the James McVay fiasco, pretty much red herring to the topic under discussion.

Like i said, two wrongs make a creationist right.

Of course you agree, "popular opinion and consensus thinking does more to obscure than to reveal" massages your sensibilities while ignoring the fact that your view is popular opinion among creationists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, you come up with a straw-man to gloss over your mistake?

Show me where they said "nature originated" this dual language of DNA.

"Of course scientists give credit to a mindless, materialistic explanation! "

That quote is YOURS. YOU are the one who indicated that science is giving credit to a 'mindless materialistic explanation'. Your willful ignorance knows no bounds, does it?

 

[Ingledsva]

I wonder why Newton et.al. never came to that interpretation? Huh?

And why should he? Just as other scientists can believe it absolutely false, he can believe what he wants.

Maybe Newton and others recognized that God is allowed protect His people from those trying to kill them, eh?

Murder of the innocent would not be legitimately "protecting your people." As stated, it is just plain murder.

Nor, obviously, are the stories of such atrocities limited to war stories with Israel.

For instance we have a story of the straight out murder of an infant for the crimes of his father, = King David's baby.

Or the story of the flood. Obviously all of the babies and children would be innocent, as would all of the animals destroyed.

Or the RAPE of a man's wives for the crime of the MAN.

These are all just patriarchal fantasy, and the things THEY - MEN want to do.

You think this below is from the laws of a God?

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and seize her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled (defiled, ravished, raped) her, he may not put her away all his days.

Those are MEN'S words. Who cares about the raped "property," just pay her father for HIS damaged property, and force the rape victim to spend the rest of her life under the hateful actions of a now very angry rapist. I'm sure she is going to have a wonderful life.

And, there's the promise for these people to live again. I think I've read something about a Resurrection. -- Acts of the Apostles 24:15, "resurrection of....the unrighteous".

No proof of a God existing, or Jesus resurrecting; let alone Christians resurrecting.

*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As for the James McVay fiasco, pretty much red herring to the topic under discussion.

No, James McVay was the government-aassigned special investigator. It was Richard Sternberg who was persecuted and "expelled" from his post.

What do you think the title, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", means?! The establishment is forcing scientists to sustain a commitment to materialism, and quash anyone supporting an opposing viewpoint. (Or at least, just keep silent.) That is a "herd-mentality."