Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Francisco Ayala — But does he really believe what he’s saying?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Francisco AyalaHere’s an excerpt (translation follows) from a remarkable interview with Francisco Ayala by one of the most prominent media outlets in Spain. One wonders how a Catholic priest, even a former Catholic priest, can actually believe all this. In his book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion he calls me (a mathematician by training) a “sociologist.” Given his remarks below, apparently anyone who is not the right sort of scientist is, in Ayala’s view, a sociologist. Great to see the Templeton Foundation supporting him.

Source:  http://www.abc.es/20100506/ciencia-/barbaridad-culpar-dios-disenado-20100506.html

Entrevista realizada al biólogo Francisco J. Ayala
Diario ABC, Madrid, 6 de Mayo de 2010
Entrevista: A. Grau, Nueva York

 -Usted ha recibido muchos premios y reconocimientos en EEUU por su lucha sin cuartel contra el llamado creacionismo. ¿De donde saca su fuerza este movimiento?

 -En realidad de poca gente. De los cinco o siete científicos a sueldo del Discovery Institute, sólo uno es bioquímico profesional, el resto vienen de las ciencias sociales. Ni siquiera es una cuestión de convicciones. Me consta que ellos no creen lo que dicen.

 -Pero otra gente sí.

 -Sí, hay gente que lo cree de buena fe, del mismo modo que toman la Biblia en un sentido literal, ingenuamente. El creacionismo es la mayor aberración que se puede concebir no ya para la ciencia sino para la fe. Es una barbaridad que trata de resolver el reto de la teodicea, es decir, de cómo conciliar la existencia del mal en el mundo con la de Dios, echándole a Dios la culpa de todo lo que va mal. Que no otra cosa es el diseño inteligente.

 -Porque el mundo está mal diseñado.

 -No puedo concebir nada más desastroso para la religión que el diseño inteligente. Según sus promotores Dios sería el responsable de los tsunamis, del terremoto de Haití, de las erupciones del Vesubio. Los defectos genéticos serían un castigo de Dios, así como la crueldad de la Naturaleza y de todo el mundo viviente. ¿Sabía usted que el 20 por ciento de los embarazos se malogran antes del tercer mes porque el canal de natalidad humano es muy imperfecto? ¿Y le parece a usted serio considerar que 20 millones de abortos al año pueden ser culpa de Dios?

……………………

 TRANSLATION:
 Interview with biologist Francisco J. Ayala
ABC Journal, Madrid, May 6, 2010
Interview: A. Grau, New York

 –You have received many awards and recognitions in the United States for your relentless fight against the so-called creationism. Where does this movement draw its strength from?

 -In reality, from very few people.  From the five or seven scientists in the Discovery Institute’s salary, only one is a professional biochemist, the rest are from the social sciences.  It is not even a matter of conviction. I am certain that they do not believe what they say.

 – But other people do.

 -Yes, there are people who believe in good faith, in the same way that they take the Bible in a literal sense, naively. Creationism is the biggest aberration which can be conceived—not to science—but to faith. It is an atrocity that it attempts to solve the challenge of theodicy; that is to say, on how to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with that of God, pouring on God the blame for everything that goes wrong. What no other thing is intelligent design.

 -Because the world is poorly designed.

 -I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to religion than intelligent design. According to its promoters, God would be responsible for tsunamis, the earthquake in Haiti, the eruption of Vesuvius. Genetic defects would be a punishment from God, as well as the cruelty of nature and the living world. Did you know that 20 per cent of pregnancies are hindered before the third month because the human birth canal is very imperfect? And do you think it seriously to consider that 20 million abortions a year may be God’s fault?

Comments
---"Tom Sawyer: Most people seem to be saying that it means that there is a design element, indicating an intelligence? If this is the case, does anyone define who this intelligence may be or is it just accepted without any need to identify something or someone?" One can use the technique of design detection to conclude that a ransacked house was caused by an intelligent agent [burglar] and not by natural causes [tornado]. At the same time, this approach cannot identify the burglar; it can only rule out the tornado and detect the presence of a burglar. Similarly, one can use the technique of design detection to conclude that the origin of life was likely caused by an intelligent agent [designer] and not by natural causes [random variation and natural selection]. As in the case of the burglar, the process cannot detect the identity of the agent. The ID paradigm can also detect intelligence as a cause of a sand castle, but it cannot track down the identity of the person who crafted it. Also, it can detect intelligence as a cause of an ancient hunter's spear, but it cannot discern the identity of the hunter. Creationism, as a belief system, begins with faith and moves forward; ID, as a SCIENCE, begins with observation and moves backwards. With reference to the latter, it makes no sense to ask, "if the process can detect the presence of a burglar, why can it not identify him?" Similarly, it makes no sense to ask, "who designed the sand castle or who constructed the spear?" On the other hand, ID as a traditional PHILOSOPHY, [St. Thomas Aquinas], can indeed, identify the designer as God. Note the famous five proofs for God's existence. Suffice it to say that ID paradigms are not philosophical formulations.StephenB
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Tom - I think most people in ID would agree with the following statements: * Design can be detected without knowledge of the designers (think about stonehenge) * In the case of *biological* design, most *think* that the designer is God * However, no one in ID has come up with a possible way to show this conclusively using science. Our tools that we have developed are limited to detecting design. I think most would heartily welcome a scientific tool that named the designer, but none has been forthcoing. Also, just to point out, I've been working on applications of ID that have *nothing at all* to do with origins. See, for instance: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/applied-intelligent-design-part-2-id-and-software-engineering/ Part 3 of that series is in my head, but I haven't had the time to write it.johnnyb
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Tom Sawyer: I like this challenge to evolutionists: The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532bornagain77
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Tom Sawyer; The design inference is straight forward in that we know for 100% certainty that Intelligence can generate functional information,,,, Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design - video Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 ,,,whereas we know of ZERO instances where material processes have ever created functional information: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf It is very interesting to note that many evolutionists are very, very, evasive if questioned by someone to precisely define functional information: The Evolution-Lobby’s Useless Definition of Biological Information - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: By wrongly implying that Shannon information is the only “sense used by information theorists,” the NCSE avoids answering more difficult questions like how the information in biological systems becomes functional, or in its own words, “useful.”,,,Since biology is based upon functional information, Darwin-skeptics are interested in the far more important question of, Does neo-Darwinism explain how new functional biological information arises? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/the_evolutionlobbys_useless_de.html Tom Sawyer you also asked: "does anyone define who this intelligence may be or is it just accepted without any need to identify something or someone?" I think a strong inference can be made for the Christian God, Jesus Christ, being the designer in that John 1:1 correctly postulates information i.e. "The Word", being "in the beginning. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The "surprising" thing about the material universe is that all material in this universe is ultimately reducible to transcendent information, even the foundational building block of the universe itself,,Energy: Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx Also of related interest is Dr. Werner Gitt's lecture on information: In The Beginning Was Information - Werner Gitt - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8854650626003871702 Also of note Tom Sawyer is this: the "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." Further reading can be done here: Let There Be Light http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
Ilion: your discussion is well worth the read, Food for thought indeed in light of Prov 1:7. Gkairosfocus
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Thank you to those of you who responded to my questions. I find it pretty clear that creationism is purely based on the bible. There seems to be less clarity in regard to Intelligent Design. It looks like there are differing viewpoints on this. Most people seem to be saying that it means that there is a design element, indicating an intelligence? If this is the case, does anyone define who this intelligence may be or is it just accepted without any need to identify something or someone?Tom Sawyer
May 10, 2010
May
05
May
10
10
2010
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
To those whinging about theological discussions -- All knowledge, including 'science,' *starts* with theology: The First QuestionIlion
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
O'Leary: "God says [in Job], basically, that he takes responsibility for the things people think are imperfect. He is not asking anyone to bail him out. ..." It's odd, isn't it? God is not afraid to take the ultimate blame for the fact of suffering in the world ... and these silly "theistic evolutionists" are always out there trying to tell him that he cannot. What? Is God a minor? Is God senile, that he must be protected from himself? It is in the very nature of the world -- it is in the logic of reality -- that there will be at least the potential for natural evil in the world. The world, the Creation, is not the Creator ... therefore, it *cannot" be perfect. If the world were perfect -- complete/finished/whole/unchanging -- there neither would, nor could, be any living entities in it.Ilion
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
re, post 40: a little more background: The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and brief descriptions: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNDdnc3E4bmhkZg&hl=enbornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Bornagain, thank you for posting the links to the Craig / Ayala debate (if one could call it that). I noticed Ayala never really engaged Craig in actual debate, but merely conducted a rather unconvincing lecture. Anyhooooo..... Upon further reflection on Ayala's comments, I think it's noteworthy that Ayala is not denying design. He just believes that design cannot (or should not) be scientifically determined. Why would a person of his character....and personal religious beliefs, believe that? Because ID threatens his own personal, religious views. After all, if ID is true, then science can determine that Ayala's god (the one who doesn't design stuff) is not true. Atheists don't want a universe with God. Ayala doesn't want a universe with any other god than his own. Both are not as interested in the truth as they are in clinging to their beliefs.Bantay
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
In further note to post 37,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/francisco-ayala-but-does-he-really-believe-what-hes-saying/#comment-354133 ,,, I would like to point out that there are a couple of interesting equations that Dr. Granville Sewell points out that relate to the space time of general relativity: General Relativity (Einstein's Equation) http://www.leaderu.com/images/article/real/ri9403/evidence/einstein7.jpg one of the "transcendent" equations relates to the "randomness" of the second law of thermodynamics, and I believe the equation can truthfully be said to operate solely within the parameters of the space time of general relativity,,, Statistical Mechanics (Boltzmann's Equations) http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/boltzmann.jpg Can Anything Happen In A Open System - Granville Sewell PhD. Math - video http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/thermo.htm Casey Luskin interviews Granville Sewell - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-02-17T13_17_00-08_00 Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? - Granville Sewell PhD. Math Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!). http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/appendixd.pdf Whereas the second equation relates to how quantum mechanics relates to the "material" universe of the space-time of General Relativity, in that this transcendent equation allows "interesting" chemical reactions to occur within our space time: Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger's Equations) http://www.leaderu.com/images/article/real/ri9403/evidence/Schr6.jpg Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012 Thus it seems readily apparent the materialist has a huge problem on his hands in trying to explain exactly where in the material world does the information for these transcendent, universal, equations come from that dictate exactly how the 3-D material reality, of the space-time of general relativity, will behave. Only theism is rational in its explanation for where the information comes/came from.bornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Tom Sawyer - There are several differences between ID and creationism. I am both, so I'm in a pretty good place to make distinctions. 1) ID is more about the nature of nature and less about origins (though it impacts ideas on origins) - see Thinking About ID as a Theory of Causation 2) ID is more about the design and less about mechanism it came about - see ID and Common Descent (there was another post by Dembski on this but I am having trouble finding it) 3) Many people hold ID positions but don't realize it because they focus on the caricature if ID not its reality. See Are Falk and Ayala ID Supporters? for one amusing and relevant example. So creationism focuses more on natural history, while ID focuses on the nature of nature and design,johnnyb
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
riddick- I think, John 3:3- Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 3:4- Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 3:5- Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. might help shed some light on John 9:3- Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.Phaedros
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
riddick does "true sight" reside within the spirit or within the body? Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599 coast to coast – Blind since birth – Vicki’s NDE http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=99EAF86E08E54010 Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported being able to see during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. In all, 15 of the 21 NDEers and 9 of the 10 OBEers could see during their experience while the remaining participants either claimed that they did not see or were not sure whether or not they had seen. (This "anomaly" applies to the deaf as well). If fact riddick, the entire space-time of general relativity (the entire "material" universe) can be linked to death and decay (thus blindness) by the second law: Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Yet quantum mechanics reveals the "miraculous": Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 What blows most people away, when they first encounter quantum mechanics, is the quantum foundation of our "material reality" blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. Most people consider defying time and space to be a "miraculous & supernatural" event. I know I certainly do! This "miraculous & supernatural" foundation for our physical reality can easily be illuminated by the famous "double slit" experiment. (It should be noted the double slit experiment was originally devised, in 1801, by a Christian named Thomas Young). I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe(double slit-delayed erasure), whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology - in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality. http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf Yet, this "unification" between what is in essence the "infinite world of Quantum Mechanics" and the "finite world of the space-time of General Relativity" seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/ The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustinebornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Barb #32: God does not cause birth defects. If pressed, I suppose Barb would say that birth defects are a result of the Fall. Perhaps this is so. Jesus was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion about the cause of a man's blindness when questioned in John 9:2. His answer in the following verse is challenging, to say the least.riddick
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Speaking of Job 38,,,, Excerpt:,,,As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following evidence for the "Dark Age" for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11 : For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the "Big Bang" shone forth at that time. This "light" is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation. This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close. Job 38:4-11 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!" History of The Universe Timeline- Graph Image http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/CMB_Timeline.jpg As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, "just so happen" to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies "the universe had us in mind all along". Even uranium the last naturally occurring element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth's crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature's Destiny). The Elements: Forged in Stars - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861 Michael Denton - We Are Stardust - Uncanny Balance Of The Elements - Fred Hoyle Atheist to Deist/Theist - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877 The Role of Elements in Life Processes http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.php Periodic Table - Interactive web page for each element http://www.mii.org/periodic/MIIperiodicChart.htmlbornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
It has been noted by several people and Phaedros in particular that there is a general tendency for some to play the bad design card. This was evident as well in the Craig vs hitchens debate, where hitchens rambled on and on aimlessly in his endless sea of ignorance. Few things annoy me, but this is one of them. What I want to know is, if the world we inhabit is so terrible how would *you* have made it otherwise? This argument is akin to "playing god" and I have little patience for it.above
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Citing Job 38: __________________ >> Job 38 The LORD Speaks 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [a] shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'? 12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. 15 The wicked are denied their light, and their upraised arm is broken. 16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ? 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this. 19 "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside? 20 Can you take them to their places? Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! . . . >> _____________________ So, it seems we should be humble enough to know our limits! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
"According to its promoters, God would be responsible for tsunamis, the earthquake in Haiti, the eruption of Vesuvius. Genetic defects would be a punishment from God, as well as the cruelty of nature and the living world. Did you know that 20 per cent of pregnancies are hindered before the third month because the human birth canal is very imperfect? And do you think it seriously to consider that 20 million abortions a year may be God’s fault?" If Ayala is truly a former Catholic priest, I would humnbly suggest that he open and Bible and actually read it. God does not cause tsunamis or earthquakes. God does not cause birth defects. And God most assuredly does not cause abortions; those are performed by doctors operating on people who willfully ignore the guidelines God gives for living. Most Christians will point to Romans 5:12 when explaining why things are so bad today. They might also point out Jesus' words at Matthew 24:3-14, and Paul's words at 1 Timothy 3:1-5.Barb
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
O'Leary @ 10 said:
Anyone who believes in God in the Judaeo-Christian tradition should begin any discussion of this type by reading the book in the Bible called Job. The part to which I would call attention is not the relatively boring argument between Job and his friends about whether he had committed a sin, but the part where God speaks to Job, I think starting at Chapter 38. http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....ersion=NIV God says, basically, that he takes responsibility for the things people think are imperfect. He is not asking anyone to bail him out. So the people who are bailing God out are wasting their time doing something God never asked them to do.
I couldn't agree more.Green
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Happy Mother's Day, O'Learytribune7
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
mikev6, another big difference between creationism and ID is that ID does not identify the designer. It merely states the object was designed. Do you think the methodology is useless if it can't identify the designer, or do agree that there is importance and utility in simply knowing something to be designed?tribune7
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: “I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to science than Darwinian evolution.” Good one!bFast
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
While I am here anyway: Re what I said earlier at 18, "placenta abrupta" means that the infant's placenta is detached from the maternal system. Not at all common, but could be fatal for both. Far more likely for the infant. In a modern obstetric facility, the problem could be quickly resolved by emergency anaesthetic and a scalpel. One interesting design feature - which doubtless contributes to population fanatics freaking out about population - is that, close to birth, the uterus hangs very low, close to the skin. So, if anyone, with knowledge of anatomy, just inserts a very clean, sharp knife in the right place, and then stitches the wound and sees that it is kept clean ... . That happened to a number of my now aged female relatives, who helped to disastrously populate the world, if you listen to population cranks. On the other hand if you want a pension plan ... And people knew this in ancient times. That is WHY it is called a Caesarian section. It is at least 2 millennia old. Maybe older. I suspect so. Just some thoughts for Mother's Day, and thanks for all good wishes.O'Leary
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
mikev6: You wrote: "I’ve noticed a greater willingness lately for ID proponents to say the designer is the Christian God – can we expect an official pronouncement on this? Then perhaps we can relax and get back to the evidence (or lack of it)" Where and how did you notice that? ID is a commmunity of people who sense that there is a design to life. We are not all Christians, and some of us are not even theists. Some are not even deists. There is no organized body that could make an official pronouncement. So it would not matter if some group makes an official pronouncement. We are the pajamaheddin of your nightmares. You have tax funding. We have knowledge. You are free to choose what matters.O'Leary
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
tribune7:
Tom, a creationist would cite the Bible as authority as to why life is designed. An IDist would cite observations of nature. One can be either/or or both.
However, you've failed to actually answer Tom's question - who is the designer? I've noticed a greater willingness lately for ID proponents to say the designer is the Christian God - can we expect an official pronouncement on this? Then perhaps we can relax and get back to the evidence (or lack of it).mikev6
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Tom Sawyer -- My observation is that creationists cite God, whilst ID advocates cite a ‘designer’. Who would this ‘designer’ be? Tom, a creationist would cite the Bible as authority as to why life is designed. An IDist would cite observations of nature. One can be either/or or both. Taking the creationist view is a matter of faith - and there is nothing wrong with it albeit it obviously can't be falsified. Taking the IDist view is science and it can be falsified.tribune7
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
According to its promoters, God would be responsible for tsunamis, the earthquake in Haiti, the eruption of Vesuvius. If Ayala believes in God does he reject the existence of tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes? If not, how exactly does he resolve the existence of a loving God with that of tsunamis etc. Western civilization is based on the axioms that God exists; He is good -- which is established by the 10 Commandments and the sacrifice on Calvary; and that death and suffering are realities. How to make the axioms balance is of course open to debate. The existence of the axioms is not. With regard to those concerned about bringing theology into the ID debate, the ID opponents are the ones doing so. All ID says is that objective markers for design are inherent in biology. And yes, this can be falsified.tribune7
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Of course seversky if you do decide to address the scientific evidence you can falsify Dr. Behe's "Edge Of Evolution" "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") Nature Paper,, Finds Darwinian Processes Lacking - Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: Now, thanks to the work of Bridgham et al (2009), even such apparently minor switches in structure and function (of a protein to its supposed ancestral form) are shown to be quite problematic. It seems Darwinian processes cant manage to do even as much as I had thought. (which was 1 in 10^40 for just 2 binding sites) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/nature_paper_finally_reaches_t.htm l The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134 and/or falsify Abel's null hypothesis for functional information generation by purely material processes: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community"s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on wish-fulfillment, we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag and/or pass the "fitness test" by 140 functional bits formally, though I would be entertained if you could produce any gain in functional information past 3 coordinated point mutations of a single "beneficial" adaptation: Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - "The Fitness Test" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwWpRSYgOE Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.aspbornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Seversky states: "And while Intelligent Design itself makes no claim about the nature or identity of the designer, it is quite clear that most of its leading proponents believe it to be God." So Seversky do you now admit the obviousness of the fact that design is found throughout reality by science, and you want to argue a theological argument against the God of the Bible? Or has this particular theological objection of yours, "Theodicy", been your main objection to the scientific evidence for design all along? i.e. Have you always had a "distaste" for the "Christian" God since it makes you deal with personal issues you would rather not deal with? Clearly Seversky you have left the realm of science and entered squarely into the realm of Theology. Please see the Dr. Craig video listed earlier.bornagain77
May 9, 2010
May
05
May
9
09
2010
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply