Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[BEN RUACH]

Do not cast your pearls on swine

 

[Alceste]

I refer all to the book "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.
Lee was once an athiest who started out seeking to "debunk"
the idea of a creator or creationism. Thru his scientific research
he completely reversed his position and now believes in God,
in creationism and, of course, intelligent design.
The book is outstanding and compelling.

Interesting that you should say so. I read it myself, and the only way a person could conclude that it was "outstanding and compelling" would be someone who has never read the Bible, and knows nothing at all about its origins or the history of Christianity.

I gave it back to the guy who loaned it to me stuffed with sticky notes indicating, chapter and verse, exactly where the Bible contradicts the claims of the book (and itself), and provided dozens of other resources for debunking numerous other erroneous historical claims, and a lengthy and detailed conclusion based on very sound reasoning that his story about being a converted atheist was almost certainly false, and that the book was shameless propaganda for the religious right.

He never mentioned it to me again, but I heard later from a mutual friend that he "didn't think I read it".

Take it from me, RomCat, the Case for Christ is only compelling to those who already believe all the BS it contains and want to feel affirmed. It's about as "compelling" to me as The God Delusion is to you.

 

[Alceste]

Ha, I only just now noticed that "the case for christ" and "the case for a creator" are two different books. From the sounds of it, they are exactly the same format, full of exactly the same kind of bullcrap, using exactly the same tactics (from the descriptions above - nothing but softball questions to theologians, pretending to be "both sides" of the issue).

Surely he wrote one book before the other. So did he reconvert to atheism between the two, just so he could begin the second - once again - with the claim that he began the investigation as an atheist and was convinced by "evidence"? Or is he just lying? (I think I know...)

 

[Alceste]

A shining example from that bastion of nonsenseknowledge. Check out this fantastic work of comedicacademic genius from the first edition:

(snip)

Full intellectual trainwreckcommentary here.

I dare any scientifically literate person to read the thing and not collapse into hysterics. This is both comically tragic and deeply disturbing in equal measures.

Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect that "scientific" ID papers are intentionally designed to be almost incomprehensible? As much as I would like to give creationists the benefit of the doubt, and allow that they may be doing their level, honest best to communicate a persuasive argument for design (whether it's science or not), I look at this nonsense and simply can not believe the intent behind it is to actually communicate something. It appears to be designed simply to look academic to people who don't know a lot of big words.

How very disturbing to consider, especially alongside the other primary style of communicating ideas to American Christians, which generally involves writing very simply for about a fourth grade reading level, as in Stobel's books.

Very sad and troubling. Who are these people, really, and what do they want?

BTW, mad hair, your accent is to die for. * swoon *

 

[Father Heathen]

Do not cast your pearls on swine

Don't be so harsh on the creationists, as it is they who are in dire need of the pearls, and by "pearls" I mean education.

 

[idea]

Don't be so harsh on the creationists...

The whole thing started as a mistranslation problem - "create" is a mistranslation - the word create should not be in the Bible - for real - check this out:

Hebrew Word Studies
Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.


See the underlined - "the word create is a foriegn concept to the Hebrew". The Bible does not teach that God "creeated" anything!!!! It should have been translated "transform" not "create". There is no scripture that says "in the beginning there was nothing" - I have no idea where people came up with that notion???? We were in the begining with God - everything was. - everything is eternal - without beginning or end - changing from one form to another. No beginning (You don't get something from nothing) no end (you cannot make something out of nothing).

Anyone take thermo? Laws of thermo - conservation principles? Really - you don't get something from nothing - everything that is here now has always been and will always be - changing form - but eternal - that is a fact. Conservation of mass, of energy - nothing just evaporates into thin air - or comes out of thin air. There is no beginning. Chicken or the egg? it is a tie - they are both eternal entities that never had a beginning - there was never a time when neither the chicken or the egg did not exist.

The origins debate is pointless.

There is no origin. for any of it.


Creationism versus Darwinism: A Third Alternative. by Brig Klyce and Chandra Wickramasinghe

Here is a scripture from the Mormons:
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section93:29)

It is impossible to "ex Nihlo" create anything.

Christians talk so much about "free will" and how that is the origin of evil. Evil has no origin either - God did not make it, He is cleaning up a mess He did not make - what is still a mess, is the stuff that has not been cleaned up yet (and I suppose some things will refuse to be cleaned up - that's OK - their will).

their will... free will - ever stop to think that only a being with no beginning can have an independent will? It is true - if part of you is not independent, you don't have an independent will. The only way to be independent is to have no beginning... Our will is proof that we are eternal beings. We can think/act/be what we want because we are self-existent beings. God threw in a few more choices into the equations, but our will is our own.

Let me know if any of that is confusing to anyone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Don't be so harsh on the creationists, as it is they who are in dire need of the pearls, and by "pearls" I mean education.

Ha! I shall leave the education of fools to someone else.

I'm sure that many a board member of school districts in Kansas has beat their chest and exclaimed "Kansas public education worked for me!"

 

[idea]

Ha! I shall leave the education of fools to someone else.

I'm sure that many a board member of school districts in Kansas has beat their chest and exclaimed "Kansas public education worked for me!"

Gee Are you trying dish one out on poor Dole?

Bob Dole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early years
Dole was born in Russell, Kansas....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Anyone take thermo? Laws of thermo - conservation principles? Really - you don't get something from nothing - everything that is here now has always been and will always be - changing form - but eternal - that is a fact. Conservation of mass, of energy - nothing just evaporates into thin air - or comes out of thin air. There is no beginning. Chicken or the egg? it is a tie - they are both eternal entities that never had a beginning - there was never a time when neither the chicken or the egg did not exist.

"Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics."

The Talk.Origins Archive: Other Web Sites
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

Sorry, it is a common mistake to attempt to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics when discussing evolutionary theory. Any qualified physicist will tell you that it is a non-applicable theory in relation to ToE.

 

[idea]

"Thermodynamics does not deal with situations (of) human thought

Yes, human thought is perplexing - no equations to predict or determine what a human will do next are there? Human thought is outside the realm of equations and science. You cannot predict or calculate or quantify the human mind.

Our mind / our will is perhaps the best proof we have of our non-origin, of our eternal existence.

As I said before:

Christians talk so much about "free will" ...their will... free will - ever stop to think that only a being with no beginning can have an independent will? It is true - if part of you is not independent, you don't have an independent will. The only way to be independent is to have no beginning... Our will is proof that we are eternal beings. We can think/act/be what we want because we are self-existent beings. God threw in a few more choices into the equations, but our will is our own.

Only things in the "cause and effect" chain are subject to being predictable - we see the cause, mathematically calculate the effect. You cannot do this with humans though. Cause: concentration camp... effect: variable, unpredictable, bringing out the worst in some, and the best in others....

"We have come to know man as he really is. after all, man is that being who incented the gas chambers of Auschwitzl however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips." - Kushner

You cannot always predict human behaviors as you can for inanimate objects. (yes, some things are predictable, and this is because some people have no will power, do not use their will) That is the miracle of life is it not? free will?


When it comes down to it, the universe is made out of only two basic building blocks. These two blocks are:
1.) things that act.
2.) things that are acted upon.

some forms of life lie in realm #1.
Science can calcualte/predict/fully understand only what lies in realm #2.

14 ....things to act and things to be acted upon.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi2:14)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't know if it's been discussed (it's a lengthy thread), but there was a book by biochemist Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box that attempted to challenge Darwinian evolution.

Obviously, it wasn't taken very seriously in the scientific community (but so what?), and a number of holes have been blown into his argument, but it was an attempt nonetheless to link scientific findings to intelligent design.

Wiki details some of the arguments against Behe: Darwin's Black Box - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

 

[painted wolf]

This was perhaps as close to science as ID has ever gotten... still all hypothesis, and no experimentation was ever done to back it up, but oh well.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know if it's been discussed (it's a lengthy thread), but there was a book by biochemist Michael Behe called Darwin's Black Box that attempted to challenge Darwinian evolution.

That is exactly what it was, an attempt to challenge Darwinian evolution. But within that book no attempt was even made to provide scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. And the same can be said for Behe’s second book “The Edge of Evolution”. Behe seems to believe that it is sufficient to build his theory on a false dichotomy and the argument from ignorance. Even if Behe’s arguments against evolution were valid, and even if valid examples of irreducible complexity could be demonstrated (neither of these are in fact the case) then there would still be no scientific evidence in favour of Intelligent Design.

 

[painted wolf]

I forgot the other sad part about ID.... it's all the same arguments as used by creationism for the past 150 years.
They just gave them a new name...

wa:do

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That is exactly what it was, an attempt to challenge Darwinian evolution. But within that book no attempt was even made to provide scientific evidence for Intelligent Design.

Actually, that was one of the conclusions he reached from the scientific evidence he presented in the book:

As we reach the end of this book, we are left with no substantive defense against what feels like a strange conclusion: that life was designed by an intelligent agent. (Behe, 252)

And the same can be said for Behe’s second book “The Edge of Evolution”. Behe seems to believe that it is sufficient to build his theory on a false dichotomy and the argument from ignorance. Even if Behe’s arguments against evolution were valid, and even if valid examples of irreducible complexity could be demonstrated (neither of these are in fact the case) then there would still be no scientific evidence in favour of Intelligent Design.

Right. It's not a conclusion that complexity of design is a result of intelligence, since we can demonstrate how that complexity can be arrived at without one. However, I can't blame creationists for thinking this; it's just not a scientific conclusion, it's a philosophical one.

 

[Jose Fly]

While Darwin's Black Box was a very long, detailed argument from ignorance, it at least garnered some attention and scholarly rebuttal. The Edge of Evolution OTOH, was so rife with errors and fundamental gaffes in logic, I don't think hardly anyone took it seriously. The overall reaction was one of, "Is Behe serious with this? Is he even trying anymore? This is just embarrassing."

 

[themadhair]

Don't you see the limitless skepticism you have yourself though? If "I am an Atheist" or anyone else you knew to be a "devout" atheist suddenly became a person of faith... you'd say he was never a real Atheist.

No so. I know people who considered themselves atheist who became theist. They can articulate what atheism actually is. When people like Strobel use their alleged atheism as a basis for argument, without being able to articulate what atheism even is, then I reserve the right to remain sceptical. Given the myriad of misunderstanding Strobel has regarding atheism I think the logical explanation it that he never was one. One more of the Strobel lies methinks.

And btw, in The Edge of Evolution Behe admits common descent. A lot of creations who talk about the book seem to miss that fact. Perhaps they never read it?

 

[Alceste]

And btw, in The Edge of Evolution Behe admits common descent. A lot of creations who talk about the book seem to miss that fact. Perhaps they never read it?

I strongly suspect a lot of creationists are just happy that there is a book. I also suspect the writers of these books and the organisations that promote them know it, so they don't try very hard. This crap sells like hotcakes, whether anyone reads it or not.

 

[Jose Fly]

The odd thing is, Behe may admit common descent but he also says evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of generating any sort of "complexity". He never really nails down what he thinks is the mechanism behind common descent.

 

[painted wolf]

I suspect his idea of "common descent" is the 'within kinds' sort of common descent. Though with larger "kinds"...

Either that or he is being totally bogus in his claims of design.

wa:do