Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

Comments
Darwinist1: What's this? Darwinist2: Some new Creationism called ID. Supposed to be different. Darwinist1: You try it? Darwinist2: I'm not gonna try it; you try it. Darwinist1: Hey. Let's get Richie (Dawkins)! Darwinist2: He won't try it. He hates everything. Darwinist1 (watching Dawkins): He's running away! Hey Richie! Seriously though. If Darwinists truly did not fear ID they wouldn't need to re-label it as "Creationism." They re-label it because they are comfortable with it that way. It's no longer a threat as long as they can view it as something benign - something the courts have already dealt with - something they've already refuted - something with a tarnished history - something that only crazy people believe. This is why we must continue to insist that ID is not Creationism; that they must deal with it. It doesn't have a history that they can simply dismiss. It hasn't been dealt with in the courts (Dover was a joke), and it continues to gain ground. And above all, they've done nothing so far to refute it.CannuckianYankee
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
warehuff, the problem with your 'can't everybody just get along scenario' is that Theistic evolutionists will not admit that the design found in life is detectable, and end up being in bed with the neo-Darwinists, whereas IDists are clear about the fact that the design found in life is detectable, can be separated from the material processes of the universe. As far as you saying geology killed off Adam and Eve,,, I'm afraid genetics has fully resurrected them: Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic & Fossil Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Gil, gpuccio and the group: I see theistic evolution working something like this: God decides that he wants someone to talk to, so he either goes back a few million years and starts life going or just lets life start by itself. Evolution proceeds undirected to the point where God looks down and sees some semi-intelligent creatures like the great apes walking the earth. God notes that these apes are almost human. Their bodies have every single organ that a human has and just need some tuning to be acceptably human - lose the hair, make the brain bigger, flatten the face, etc. They're already very intelligent, comparable to a three or four year old human in most respects and much smarter in many others. (Release a group of four year old chimps into one jungle and four year old humans into another and see which group is still alive in one year.) God glances at the ape DNA and notes that it differs from human DNA by only a percent or two and most of the differences are "noise", which has no discernible effect and can be ignored. So God changes a few hundred or a few thousand key DNA base-pairs over a few thousand generations and voila, God has used Intelligent Design to transform some apes into humans. This is what most theistic evolutionists mean by theistic evolution: Darwinian evolution does the dirty work, creating the vast assortment of living creatures we see today while God just "tweaks" some DNA here and there to "fine tune" a species to make it exactly the way he wants it. I really don't understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It's an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits. The scientists are happy because evolution works as advertised, Christians are generally happy because God made us after all, ID theorists should be happy because Theistic Evolution means that we are Intelligently Designed - the only ones I can see who should be disappointed are Biblical Literalists because there's no Adam and Eve or Garden of Eden, but geology killed those off long before Darwin published "Origin of Species".warehuff
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 25 I sincerely thank you. All I've wanted for a long time is a precise definition like that. Now we're getting somewhere. Can you also tell me how to quantify it, or provide examples of cases in which it's already been quantified?jurassicmac
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Cabal, this is funny, you write this functional information, 'I presume you can provide some evidence for how and by what alternative mechanism functional information is generated? That’s all it takes to get rid of ‘Darwinism’ forever.' since that short paragraph of yours actually exceeds the amount of functional information that anyone has ever seen generated by purely evolutionary, or material, processes, I will thus I submit your very own post as a shining example for a 'alternative mechanism for functional information being generated; Namely Intelligence!bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
neo-Darwinian evolution has not generated any functional information, and you will not be able to produce any evidence for it doing so.
I presume you can provide some evidence for how and by what alternative mechanism functional information is generated? That's all it takes to get rid of 'Darwinism' forever.Cabal
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
---jarrasicmac: "Gil, I agree with you that it doesn’t make any sense to say that ‘God guided darwinian evolution.’ But that certainly doesn’t rule out the idea that God intended the results of darwinian evolution." If God intended it, then it cannot, by definition, be Darwinian. ---"There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn’t set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started." Such an evolution would produce a result in conformity with the intentions of the omnipotent being. Unlike Darwinianism, which doesn't know where it is going or what results it will produce, guided or programmed evolution would unfold according to a plan. In other words, planned evolution is teleological; unplanned evolution is non-teleological. Darwinistic evolution is non-teleological, which means that it was unguided, unplanned, or unprogrammed. Put yet another way, Darwinistic evolution "emerges" with a surprise outcome, producing new effects that were not present in the cause; planned evolution "unfolds" into an intended outcome, producing effects that were already inherent in the cause. Theistic evolutionsts, to the extent that they can even think at all, hold that evolution is both teleological and non-teleological, that is was both planned and unplanned, that the outcome was both indended and was also a surprise, and that the effects were inherent in the cause and yet were not inherent in the cause. It is a totally schizophrenic and irrational world view.StephenB
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
jurassicmac - aha! the old "Well what IS information, exactly?" gambit. I'll make this easy on you. You give me a definition and we'll go from there.tgpeeler
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
warehuff: just out of curiosity: what is the difference between "directed" and "guided"? And between "undirected" and "unguided". I probably miss some subtle connotation... In your example, the gardener, IMO, "directs" the growth of the tree, which cannot be any more defined "undirected". It is undirected only before the gardener acts. After, it is designed.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
jurassicmac: for your convenience (and I suppose, to really deserve BA's comments about my patience :) ) here is a very concise definition of dFSCI: 1) Any string of digital information 2) which conveys the information for an explicitly defined function 3) which is in a non compressible or scarcely compressible form 4) whose complexity (ratio of the functional space to the search space) expressed in bits (like in Shannon's information) is higher than a certain threshold, appropriately chosen for each specific context (I have suggested 150 bits for a generic biological context on our planet) 5) is dFSCI. Is that clear and concise enough?gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
jurassicmac you asked for a concise definition of functional information. I gave you a direct link to a paper that does exactly that for any functional sequence (gene or protein, or even the letters you are writing on this post). gpuccio, graciously, will walk you through it in excruciating detail, as he has done many times before for other Darwinists, and I am amazed at his patience in the face of such sheer unreasonableness on the Darwinists part. ,,, Yet why in blue blazes are you ignoring the fact that is so crystal clear???,,, neo-Darwinian evolution has not generated any functional information, and you will not be able to produce any evidence for it doing so. But more to the point jurassicmac, neo-Darwinian evolution has NEVER demonstrated the production of even one molecular machine, of which the cell is chuck full of them. So please tell me exactly why I should believe that evolution produced all the life we see around us when it can't even manage to pass this most trivial test on the molecular level??? And please tell me exactly what is the payoff for you, and other Darwinists, to so adamantly (or is that vehemently) defend something that is of absolutely use to you. Seriously I have seen a level of blind faith from Darwinists that would make suicide bombers blush!!! But at least the bombers think they are going to heaven, but Darwinists they don't even think that!,,, The payoff for Darwinists blind faith is,,,, NOTHINGNESS!!!! ,,,I just don't get it,,, I don't know jurassicmac you can throw you life away on a lie if you want, this is America,, but I certainly think you should consider the truth of Christianity before you do throw your life away any further on that lie... for the payoff for Christianity,, which I hold, unlike neo-Darwinism. to be verifiably true,,, is certainly a lot better nothingness. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
jurassicmac: Frankly, I don't think O have any more letters to add. Is dFSCI too much for you?gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
jurassicmac: I'll be the one! :) "Sure, everyone knows natural things can produce information, but only {blah blah blah} can produce digital, functional, specified, complex information" Where, obviously, {blah blah blah} is {conscious intelligent beings}.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
jurassicmac:
I asked for 2 things: 1. A definition of FCSI that is precise and concise 2. A way to objectively quantify FCSI.
I have given the definition of dFSCI hundreds of times, I think (maybe even to you). Look, just as an example, here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-the-demarcation-problem/#comment-362111 For quantification of functional information in protein families, just look at the Durston paper: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-4-47.pdf You get 35 different measures, from: ankyrin: 46 Fits to ACR Tran 1650 Fits.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
tgpeeler said in 8:
“Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information.”
I replied in 11:
“What makes you think that?”
To which Upright BiPed responded to in 13:
Peeler can answer for himself, but I’ll bet it’s because its unequivocally true.
Upright BiPed, In the words of Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means. Unequivocally means 'without doubt.' Many, many, things that can be described by physics and chemistry produce information. I mean, I at least expected someone to catch me out at the wording with "Sure, everyone knows natural things can produce information, but only {blah blah blah} can produce digital, functional, specified, complex information!"
Since when is a clock a natural process? And if a clock in not a natural process, then what is it doing in your sentence other than creating a category error?
A clock works according to natural precesses. No miracles are needed to explain how a clock works. A well made clock continues to work without intervention, or continual intelligent direction of any sort.
Moreover, a clock produces no information, it simply has a mechanism for moving a needle around a marked dial with regularity – nothing more.
What!!?? Seriously? A clock produces no information? Not even about the time? Or date? Why in blazes do we make clocks, if not to produce information about what time it is? What in the world would you call the numerical data that is perceived by a human observer to gain enlightenment about their local time?
Information is the product of perception – and by no other means does it come into existence. For information to be produced using a clock requires a perceiver to perceive what the needle on the dial represents.
This flat out contradicts what you just said. You say that if a perceiver perceives the clock, it does produce information. (about the TIME!) What happened to "a clock produces no information?" Do you guys just like to argue about everything, or is your cat jumping around on your keyboard again? The simplest natural thing can produce information. If I were to awake in a metal room with nothing but a rock floating in front of me, the rock convey information that I was in a zero-gravity environment. Tree rings, things that are formed naturally, contain the information of the age of the tree. Likewise, rock strata, sediments that are laid in order by completely blind, undirected geological processes contain information about their relative age, past floods, etc. Please, no more nonsense like "natural processes cannot create information." At least stick with the party line that natural processes can create 'simple' information, but they cannot create digital, functional, complex, specified, information. (Though feel free to not define or quantify that term in any way in which it could be falsified; or else you may have to add more letters to it)jurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden @ 10:
I’m embarrassed by them, so now where are we?
We're stil a looooong way from 'fear' and 'embarrassment' being the same thing.jurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
bornagain77, I asked for 2 things: 1. A definition of FCSI that is precise and concise 2. A way to objectively quantify FCSI. An eight thousand, seven hundred character reply that is comprised mostly of copy and pasted quotes and links, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with defining CSI, is not 'concise' by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone can copy and paste the first few pages of a google search; I would like for you, or anyone else here to explain what FCSI, in your own words. I don't feel that this is asking much. I would be happy to define, in my own words, any term that I bring up regarding evolutionary theory. The second thing: Please describe to me a way to objectively quantify FCSI. Or failing that, (which is usually the case) could someone tell me exactly, or even approximately, how much FCSI is in Human Chromosome 2? Or any other chromosome. Or any functional gene for that matter.jurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
jurassimac you state: 'Now, even though you’ve placed ‘complexity’ by itself on the other side of the “/” – I’m sure you don’t need me to explain how natural processes can produce complexity' well I put the slash there to indicate,,, functional information "and/or" complexity So sorry for not being more explicit, yet when I state that evolutionary processes have NEVER been observed generating functional complexity, I am in fact specifically referring to Behe's work on the 2 protein/protein binding site limit in particular that he set that no one has falsified,,,,: Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.html What does the recent hard evidence say about novel protein-protein binding site generation? "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square 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 can’t 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.html The Sheer Lack Of Evidence For Macro Evolution - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023134 But jurassicmac the evidence you need to produce to even make neo-Darwinism a legitimate line of reasoning, instead of the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science, goes far beyond just a couple of protein/protein binding sites that Behe has set for 'the edge of evolution'. To gain respectability in my eyes, and hopefully anyone else who has yet to swallow Darwinian hogwash, would be on the order of generating a molecular machine by Darwinian processes: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Articles and Videos on Molecular Motors http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMzlkNjYydmRkZw&hl=en Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A Biologist Howard Berg at Harvard calls the Bacterial Flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe." I don't know jurassicmac, evolutionists jump up and down that Darwinism is as well established as gravity, and indeed I can release a ball from my hand and watch the expansion of space-time cause the ball to move towards the ground, yet I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever of something actually 'evolving' in the vertical sense of gaining functional complexity. I don't know about you jurassicmac, but I sure ain't impressed!!!bornagain77
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Definition of functional information: Functional information and the emergence of bio-complexity: Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak: Abstract: Complex emergent systems of many interacting components, including complex biological systems, have the potential to perform quantifiable functions. Accordingly, we define 'functional information,' I(Ex), as a measure of system complexity. For a given system and function, x (e.g., a folded RNA sequence that binds to GTP), and degree of function, Ex (e.g., the RNA-GTP binding energy), I(Ex)= -log2 [F(Ex)], where F(Ex) is the fraction of all possible configurations of the system that possess a degree of function > Ex. Functional information, which we illustrate with letter sequences, artificial life, and biopolymers, thus represents the probability that an arbitrary configuration of a system will achieve a specific function to a specified degree. In each case we observe evidence for several distinct solutions with different maximum degrees of function, features that lead to steps in plots of information versus degree of functions. http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Hazen_etal_PNAS_2007.pdf Mathematically Defining Functional Information In Molecular Biology - Kirk Durston - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995236 Entire video: http://vimeo.com/1775160 and this paper: Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins - Kirk K Durston, David KY Chiu, David L Abel and Jack T Trevors - 2007 Excerpt: We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable. The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable. To demonstrate the relevance to functional bioinformatics, a method to measure functional sequence complexity was developed and applied to 35 protein families.,,, http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 It is interesting to note that many evolutionists are very evasive if questioned by someone to precisely define functional information. In fact I've seen some die-hard evolutionists deny that information even exists in a cell. Many times evolutionists will try to say information is generated using Claude Shannon's broad definition of information, since 'non-functional' information bits may be considered information in his broad definition of information, yet, when looked at carefully, Shannon information completely fails to explain the generation of 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 Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/ As well it is found that Claude Shannon's work on 'communication of information' actually fully supports Intelligent Design as is illustrated in the following video and article: DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 - Perry Marshall - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtMQUFOwEFo Skeptic's Objection to Information Theory #1: "DNA is Not a Code" http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htmbornagain77
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
bornagain77 said:
"So the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other evolutionists on UD. Can you please provide just one example of functional information/complexity being generated by evolutionary processes that will withstand scrutiny?"
I'd be glad to. But before I can do that the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other creationists on the internet. Can you please provide a precise, concise, definition of functional information/complexity, {or FCSI} and more importantly, an objective way to quantify it that will withstand scrutiny?" Now, even though you've placed 'complexity' by itself on the other side of the "/" - I'm sure you don't need me to explain how natural processes can produce complexityjurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
unequivocally = unequivocably ...by the way, why don't you share with us some of those ID icons that have been shot down.Upright BiPed
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
#11 "What makes you think that?" Peeler can answer for himself, but I'll bet it's because its unequivocally true. "Natural processes produce information all the time. A well made clock, which requires no intervention after it is built" Since when is a clock a natural process? And if a clock in not a natural process, then what is it doing in your sentence other than creating a category error? Moreover, a clock produces no information, it simply has a mechanism for moving a needle around a marked dial with regularity - nothing more. Information is the product of perception - and by no other means does it come into existence. For information to be produced using a clock requires a perceiver to perceive what the needle on the dial represents. There is a line of thinking that there is information throughout the cosmos. It is not true. There are no particles of information among the other particles of matter. Infomration is immaterial (yet, apparently requires a material/energy substrate as far as anyone knows). In other words, information is not in the matter, nor is it the product of the matter. It is about the matter instead - and requires perception in order to exist. Perhaps you disagree. That's cool :)Upright BiPed
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
jurassicmac, So the question goes to you as it has gone to hundreds of other evolutionists on UD. Can you please provide just one example of functional information/complexity being generated by evolutionary processes that will withstand scrutiny?bornagain77
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
tgpeeler said:
"Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information."
What makes you think that? Natural processes produce information all the time. A well made clock, which requires no intervention after it is built, provides the information of the current time long after its maker has turned it on. In fact, that's the whole point of a clock, to keep providing information while operating according to laws like friction, inertia, electricity, etc. Or, imagine you build a device with a camera and a basic computer with software for object and color detection, and a voice synthesizer. You set it up on a busy city corner and it says 'brown dog' or 'red car' whenever one of those things passes by. You can leave this device, and will continue to speak information about its surroundings, without intervention on its maker's part, according to the laws of nature and its programming. Now, of course I'm not arguing that there's no design in the process at all, I'm just demonstrating that things acting according to predetermined rules can produce information 'on their own,' if designed to do so. I believe the universe is designed, but that that design is all up front, in the finely tuned initial conditions. That, in my opinion is why ID theory continually fails; it is looking for design in the wrong place; it is continually 'crying wolf' by declaring that natural mechanisms couldn't have produced this feature or that feature. When a plausible natural mechanism is found for those features, (Which has been the case for many of the icons of ID,) IDers loose that much more credibility.jurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
I don’t think that Theists who accept darwinism ‘fear’ ID as much as ‘are embarrassed by it.’
I'm embarrassed by them, so now where are we?Clive Hayden
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
I don’t think that Theists who accept darwinism ‘fear’ ID as much as ‘are embarrassed by it.’ IOW, if you are seen associating with it those from whom you wish to curry favor might not invite you to their parties.tribune7
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
jurassicmac @ 5 "There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn’t set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started. If one were to have perfect knowledge of all natural processes and laws, (like if one had created them) It would be trivial to set up initial conditions to produce any desired outcome, without having to violate those laws or intervene in any way." Perhaps not. Here's why I think so. Natural processes (everything described by physics and chemistry) cannot create language or information. But the genetic code/language and biological information must be explained. All languages require symbols, rules, and the exercise of "free" will else information is impossible to create. This necessitates Mind as natural laws have nothing to say of symbols, rules, or free will. Even those created by the Mind in the first place.tgpeeler
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
jstanley01 "is the “created randomness” (as opposed to, I suppose, “the random randomness”) a sufficient cause to produce the observed phenomena?" Thanks for the chuckle!bornagain77
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
If God created everything, obviously He created randomness too. Therefore the question that ID has to ask of "theistic evolution," it seems to me, is little different from the question ID is asking the Darwinists. That being, as I understand it: Is the is the "created randomness" (as opposed to, I suppose, "the random randomness") a sufficient cause to produce the observed phenomena?jstanley01
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
I usually don't refer to myself as a 'theistic evolutionist' for the same reason I don't refer to myself as a 'theistic gravitationalist' or a 'theistic heliocentrist'; To a scientifically inclined Christian, those terms should be redundancies. I don't think that Theists who accept darwinism 'fear' ID as much as 'are embarrassed by it.' Gil, I agree with you that it doesn't make any sense to say that 'God guided darwinian evolution.' But that certainly doesn't rule out the idea that God intended the results of darwinian evolution. There is no reason to think an omnipotent being couldn't set up the proper initial conditions for a universe in which evolution not only occurs, but also produces intelligent creatures, and not have to fiddle around with the process after it is started. If one were to have perfect knowledge of all natural processes and laws, (like if one had created them) It would be trivial to set up initial conditions to produce any desired outcome, without having to violate those laws or intervene in any way. With perfect knowledge of the laws, intervention would only be required for interaction with the creatures, not for the assembly of them.jurassicmac
September 10, 2010
September
09
Sep
10
10
2010
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply