Creationism Intelligent Design

Vid: Jonathan McLatchie on intelligent design vs creationism

Spread the love

One minute apologist: What is the difference between ID and creationism?

Bobby Conway interviews Jonathan McLatchie on the difference between ID and Creationism.

Thoughts? Would it make a difference to design detection if there were no religious texts as at all? What if they had all disappeared in a barbarian onslaught (as much classical literature did during the Dark Ages)?

Would we ask the same questions?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

15 Replies to “Vid: Jonathan McLatchie on intelligent design vs creationism

  1. 1
    Virgil Cain says:

    Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:

    “The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.”

  2. 2
    bornagain says:


    Eric Davidson (1937-2015) on Gene Regulatory Networks – Casey Luskin – October 18, 2015
    Excerpt: Davidson observed that mutations affecting the dGRNs that regulate body-plan development lead to “catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether.”1 He explained:
    “There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way.”
    He further wrote:
    “Interference with expression of any [multiply linked dGRNs] by mutation or experimental manipulation has severe effects on the phase of development that they initiate. This accentuates the selective conservation of the whole subcircuit, on pain of developmental catastrophe…”2
    But perhaps most strikingly, Davidson, in discussing hypothetical “flexible” dGRNs, acknowledged that we are speculating “where no modern dGRN provides a model” since they “must have differed in fundamental respects from those now being unraveled in our laboratories.”1
    “Neo-Darwinian evolution … assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein- coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body- plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the neo-Darwinian synthesis from which these ideas stem was a premolecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and . . . natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan.”1
    – Eric Davidson
    The bottom line is that experimental research on dGRNs in modern animals shows that they do NOT appear flexible. Experts acknowledge this. They even acknowledge that it poses a challenge to neo-Darwinism. Those who claim otherwise are simply mistaken.

  3. 3
    bornagain says:

    as to:

    Would it make a difference to design detection if there were no religious texts as at all? What if they had all disappeared in a barbarian onslaught (as much classical literature did during the Dark Ages)?

    Although the fingerprints of Intelligent Design are self-evident all throughout nature, it is, none-the-less, highly doubtful we would even have ‘modern’ science, or even have all the marvels enabled by modern science, if the Bible did not exist.

    The Origin of Science
    Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity.

    In The Happy Atheist, PZ Myers Offers One Lousy Bargain – Casey Luskin – October 21, 2013
    Excerpt: what PZ is really saying comes down to this (again, my characterization): “I won’t make the crazy claim that Christianity is compatible with serial killing, if you won’t make the reasonable and justified claim that Christianity is compatible with science since, after all, it (Christianity) pretty much gave birth to science.” That seems like a pretty lousy bargain.

    Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011
    Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature.

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.

    Sure, some may argue that modern science would have sooner or later have blossomed all by itself without the correct metaphysical view that Christianity provides in order to properly ‘do science’ in the first place, but the fact of the matter is that that argument would be arguing for a hypothetical situation that never actually occurred.
    The reality of the situation is that modern science was born only once, and that birth was uniquely within a culture permeated by the Christian worldview that postulated a rational universe that could dare be understood by humans.

    A Heavyweight Look at the Negative Impact of Modern and Postmodern Philosophies – Casey Luskin April 22, 2014
    Excerpt: “Not only divine Scripture, but also sound reason teaches us that we must look with amazement on the machine of the universe produced and created by the hand of the infinite Artist. … Neither art, nor genius, can even imitate a single fibre of the endless tissues that make up each body. The smallest filament, in fact, shows the Finger of God and the Artist’s signature.” (p. 120)
    Carl Linneaus, inventor of our modern system of biological classification
    (Paul Gosselin, Flight from the Absolute: Cynical Observations on the Postmodern West)
    Gosselin observes that “we have discovered further levels of complexity that Linneaus, or even Darwin, could not have imagined.” (p. 121) He concludes: “Before the twentieth-century, this symbiotic relationship between science and Christianity was the norm, but since then the Enlightenment and modern propaganda have ‘buried’ it, keeping such facts out of view.” (p. 122) According to Gosselin, this is just another way that modernist philosophy has engaged in a form of intellectual fracking, trying to destroy the theological, philosophical, and other intellectual foundations that built the West.

  4. 4
    bornagain says:


    Science and Creation – Dr Michael Strauss – video
    Dr. Michael Strauss (Professor of Physics at Oklahoma) gives a lecture and Q&A about Science and Creation at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (March 2015).

  5. 5
    bornagain says:

    OT: InspiringPhilosophy has a new video up:

    The Case for the Soul (Near-Death Experiences) – video

  6. 6
    bornagain says:


    Genetic Mutations and the Theory of Evolution – Maciej Giertych, PhD – video

    “Impact of Research on Race Formation and Mutations on the Theory of Evolution.” Biologist Maciej Giertych (who was interviewed in Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed) speaks on the various scientific problems with Darwinian evolution.

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED

  7. 7
    Starbuck says:

    Give me a break, its painfully obvious that you are all biblical literalists who deny evolution

  8. 8
    bornagain says:


    “Give me a break, its painfully obvious that you are all biblical literalists who deny evolution”

    Actually, despite how much you may personally hate Christianity for whatever severely misguided reason, it is the scientific evidence itself that denies macro-evolution:

    “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
    Lewin, R. (1980) “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire”
    Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

    “While it may be an adequate scenario for the refinement of some already-existing characters — the beaks of finches, color intensity of moths — the “microevolutionary” process envisioned by Darwin and his successors does not account in any plausible way for “macroevolutionary” patterns such as the differences between oysters and grasshoppers, fish and birds. ”
    ~ Stuart Newman, “Where do complex organisms come from.”

    “Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.”
    (Richard O. Prum and Alan H. Brush, “Which came first, the feather or the bird?,”Scientific American (March, 2003):84-93.)

    Indeed, the main unanswered question that Darwinists have completely failed to address in any meaningful, forthright, and ‘scientific’ way is a very ‘religion neutral’ question in its basic inquiry. Namely, “Where did the information come from?”:

    Information Enigma (Where did the information come from?) – 21 minute video
    Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

  9. 9
    groovamos says:

    Starbuck: Give me a break, its painfully obvious that you are all biblical literalists who deny evolution

    Give me a break. Or do you include yours truly in that blanket statement? I’m a financial supporter of this website and I post here frequently. And btw sorry for your pain – I was in a lot of pain at certain stages too so I know what you are going through.

  10. 10
    Robert Byers says:

    Creationism is not just havig a witness. Its figuring out how nature supports evidence for god and nature doesn’t support the opposite or any false clain about origins.

  11. 11
    bornagain says:

    OT: Duru flew up to five metres above a lake for a distance of 275.9 metres aboard his homemade, propeller-powered hoverboard in a trip that lasted more than 1½ minutes.

    Now, the 31-year-old Duru and his company, Omni Hoverboards, are working on a secret, next-generation version of the device.
    article and video

  12. 12
    bornagain says:


    Physicists experimentally realize a quantum Hilbert hotel – October 21, 2015
    Excerpt: In Hilbert’s thought experiment, he explained that additional rooms could be created in a hotel that already has an infinite number of rooms because the hotel manager could simply “shift” all of the current guests to a new room according to some rule, such as moving everyone up one room (to leave the first room empty) or moving everyone up to twice their current room number (to create an infinite number of empty rooms by leaving the odd-numbered rooms empty).
    In their paper, the physicists proposed two ways to model this phenomena—one theoretical and one experimental—both of which use the infinite number of quantum states of a quantum system to represent the infinite number of hotel rooms in a hotel. The theoretical proposal uses the infinite number of energy levels of a particle in a potential well, and the experimental demonstration uses the infinite number of orbital angular momentum states of light.
    The scientists showed that, even though there is initially an infinite number of these states (rooms), the states’ amplitudes (room numbers) can be remapped to twice their original values, producing an infinite number of additional states. On one hand, the phenomena is counterintuitive: by doubling an infinite number of things, you get infinitely many more of them. And yet, as the physicists explain, it still makes sense because the total sum of the values of an infinite number of things can actually be finite.

  13. 13
    bornagain says:


    Einstein wouldn’t like it: New test proves universe is “spooky” – Oct 21, 2015
    Excerpt: Eighty years after the physicist (Einstein) dismissed as “spooky” the idea that simply observing one particle could instantly change another far-away object, Dutch scientists said on Wednesday they had proved decisively that the effect was real.
    Writing in the journal Nature, researchers detailed an experiment showing how two electrons at separate locations 1.3 km (0.8 mile) apart on the Delft University of Technology campus demonstrated a clear, invisible and instantaneous connection.
    Importantly, the new study closed loopholes in earlier tests that had left some doubt as to whether the eerie connection predicted by quantum theory was real or not.
    Einstein famously insisted in a 1935 scientific paper that what he called “spooky action at a distance” had to be wrong and there must be undiscovered properties of particles to explain such counter-intuitive behavior.
    The idea certainly confounds our day-to-day experience of the world, where change only appears to occur through local interactions. But in recent decades scientific evidence has been building that particles can indeed become “entangled”, so that no matter how far apart they are, they will always be connected.
    The Delft experiment is conclusive because, for the first time, scientists have closed two potential loopholes at once.
    The first suggests that particles could somehow synchronize behavior ahead of time, while the second implies that testing might detect only a subset of prepared entangled pairs.
    To prove their case, the team led by Delft professor Ronald Hanson used two diamonds containing tiny traps for electrons with a magnetic property called spin and measured all entangled pairs across 1.3 km separating two laboratories.
    The experiment effectively closes a chapter in an 80-year scientific debate,

  14. 14
    bornagain says:

    Bell Test Apples – Oct. 2015 – video (from Delft)

    Historic Delft Experiments tests Einstein’s ‘God does not play dice’ using quantum ‘dice’ – October 21, 2015
    Excerpt: When measured, the Delft electrons did indeed appear individually random while agreeing very well. So well, in fact, that they cannot have had pre-existing orientations, as realism claims. This behaviour is only possible if the electrons communicate with each other, something that is very surprising for electrons trapped in different crystals. But here’s the amazing part: in the Delft experiment, the diamonds were in different buildings, 1.3 km away from each other. Moreover, the measurements were made so quickly that there wasn’t time for the electrons to communicate, not even with signals traveling at the speed of light. This puts “local realism” in a very tight spot: if the electron orientations are real, the electrons must have communicated. But if they communicated, they must have done so faster than the speed of light. There’s no way out, and local realism is disproven.,,,

  15. 15
    bornagain says:

    OT: ‘Men without Chests’ by C.S. Lewis Doodle (Chapter 1 of ‘The Abolition of Man’) – video

    We Have Cause to be Uneasy by C.S. Lewis (BBC Talk 4, Chapter 5) – CS Lewis Doodle – video

Leave a Reply