NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[bushwacked]

So do I. I firmly believed in evolution over creationism until 3 or 4 months ago.

 

Now that you are saved, did you have to stop thinking that all black people are stupid?

[SF409ers]

.I think it's pretty obvious what part of my statement wasn't definitive. But that seems to be your hang up not mine.

 

Also, Gravity is a law. Not quite sure if it is relevant, but then again. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

 

Well than we are at a crossroads as I feel I have been pretty clear. I simply pointed out, MY BELIEF, on the relationship between god and science. And no it is not relevant, I am sure it was pretty clear what I was trying to say (that is why I put "in basic terms" in parenthesis), but then again maybe not.

 

EDIT: I just noticed I was editing my post to address your definitive statement as you were posting a response to my original at the same time. I just wanted to clarify that.

Edited November 20, 2007 by SF409ers

[bushwacked]

I simply pointed out, MY BELIEF, on the relationship between god and science.

 

 

Yea...you pointed out how you think it is contradictory for me to believe in the evolutionary process and consider God may have created the Earth while you don't think God is holding you up in the air when a jet plane takes off.

 

Anything else?

[SF409ers]

Yea...you pointed out how you think it is contradictory for me to believe in the evolutionary process and consider God may have created the Earth while you don't think God is holding you up in the air when a jet plane takes off.

 

Anything else?

 

I started to explain this but fug it, dude you are totally confused about what I wrote. Go back and read it again. I was pointing out the exact opposite.

[tonorator]

if you are convinced that the science doesn't work and are hung up on 6000 years vs. millions....I really don't know what to tell ya.

 

this isn't really a fair statement and doesn't give justice to the discussion.

 

i know science works within the frame of reference you apply it. our world is amazingly consistent ... painstakingly so. it doesn't surprise me that you can process sample after sample and get consistent results. one could definintely determine that based on all of our observations, we live on a planet in a universe that seems to be operating by a definite set of rules and axioms that keep it so we can keep breathing and moving around on this spinning ball.

 

if we are the product of billions of years of evolutionary changes that have culminated in the ability just in the last 50 years to fully understand how we came to be and to determind precisely how old our planet and solar system are, hey, more power to us. but saying the earth is so many billions of years old or saying that humans are here as the result of a series of survival-based, largely random genetic mutations ... saying this with the certainty of believing that we have discovered all we need to discover to make these determinations, well, i just don't believe that. this doesn't come from a religious point of view because i felt this way before accepting christ into my life. we are on the journey to understand and i believe there are many more sights to see and discoveries to be made that will cause us to rethink our science. i hope many of them happen during my lifetime ...

[tonorator]

I started to explain this but fug it, dude you are totally confused about what I wrote. Go back and read it again. I was pointing out the exact opposite.

 

your point was clear to me. bush has admitted that he either believes or allows for the possibility that god created the world. so if this is true ... if god created this place according to his design ... then this place operates today in a consistent manner, following that design. when we then employ the tools of science to help us understand this place where we live, we are then studying and striving to understand god's work.

 

i think bush is trying to remain a purist here and claim that this process of understanding (science) is completely independent of god or any other mechanism that caused us to be here. it just strives to understand, label, classify, predict, verify, label some more, classify some more, predict some more, etc. etc. as you are doing that, you aren't concerned with god, religion, etc. you only care about what you can observe and prove under the set of boundary assumptions upon which you are operating.

 

based on this, christians can be great scientists if they pursue and follow the scientific method, independent of letting their personal beliefs impact their work. non-christians and non-creationists generally can't see christians operating independently. i would submit that non-christians or non-believers are also not operating as independently as they might think, because not believing is taking a stance as well, and that stance can indeed impact how you go about your work.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Now that you are saved, did you have to stop thinking that all black people are stupid?

[Jumpin Johnies]

Why is it that when these discussions come up I always get the impression that the creationists are completely unable to appreciate what an incredible length of time has passed here on Earth? I think this inability to understand (or, if not understand, at least have an inkling of) the vastness of elapsed time (and therefore the potential for an almost infinite variety of events to have happened within it) causes them to deny the near infinity of it and seek simpler solutions.

 

One other thing - there seems to be some problem with the fact that in the last 50 years or so we've managed to figure out carbon dating and other technologies. That's because, in general, we're on an exponential curve of inventiveness and ability as far as science and technology goes. Nanotechnologies, cures for "incurable" disease, satellites able to read newspapers on the ground, instant communication from anywhere to anywhere - all these things are now realities when once in our lifetimes, they (or some of them) were not. Compare and contrast to the progress rate at any other period in the ascent of man. Sure there are blips, but today is so far beyond even 1960 it may as well be millenia away.

 

While the science races forward, the culture does not, so the creationists seek alternative and simpler solutions for everything in an attempt to keep their beliefs relevant.

I'm not pretending to be a scientist but with carbon dating is it true that the half-life of something can't exceed 6,000 years? When God created Adam He created an aged man. Adam was not created as a baby. When God created the world He created an aged world.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Dr. Elmer Towns poses 4 questions for evolutionists and I'm curious if any of you all can answer them.

 

First he asks, "Where is the missing link?" When evolutionary paleontologists arrange and measure brain capacity between the primate and human being, there is a significant gap between the human and the next closest primate, with no credible fossil record to prove otherwise. Darwin's theory has no subjective facts to link animals to the human race.

 

The second question relates to the process of change by which evolution happens. When mutations are observed within soecies, they tend to be degenerative and result in an inferior derivation. It is therefore reasonable to ask how man can evolve to the apex (the highest) of living beings if all the facts suggest the process of evolution goes the opposite way, that is, it devolves?

 

The third difficult question for the evolutionist relates to the origin of life itself. Christians teach creation came ex nihilo -- that God created everything from nothing. Further, both evolutionary scientists and Christian creationists would agree that spontaneous generation does not presently exist in today's universe. Therefore, the evolutionist cannot answer the question of where life originated. Evolutionists have no answer for the source of life, if there is no God to supply it.

 

Finally, there is adamant and often unreasonable opposition by evolutionist to intelligent design. The normal response by the scientific community is to study and gather data to determine the validity of any and all theories. But evolutionists refuse to even examine the claims of Scripture. They presuppose the laws of evolution, but refuse to admit there's a law giver. They see a well-balanced operating universe but refuse to believe or even explore data that suggests intelligent design (Elmer Towns,Core Christianity, p.88-89).

[DemonKnight]

Why does the honus of proof always fall on Science? When was the last time anyone provided ANY evidence that ANY story in the bible were true? Take Noah's Ark for example. Where is evidence of a global flood? Where is the genetic proof that every land based animal on Earth is decended from one breeding pair? Evidence found in Mitochondrial DNA proves beyond a doubt that we are not all decended from Noah and his wife. How do you explain that? Anyone that takes any of the stories in the old testament as literal truth are living in a fantasy world.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Where is evidence of a global flood? Where is the genetic proof that every land based animal on Earth is decended from one breeding pair? Evidence found in Mitochondrial DNA proves beyond a doubt that we are not all decended from Noah and his wife. How do you explain that? Anyone that takes any of the stories in the old testament as literal truth are living in a fantasy world.

I posed the question first but there is evidence of a global flood and you might find this site useful. I doubt you'll read over it, it sounds like your mind is already made up. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/n...a-flood-and-ark

 

As far as the scientific proof that your referrencing I would like to see it before responding. Excavations have verified the ancient cities of Gomorrah and Sodom along with the kings of the ancient worlds mentioned in the OT. It was believed by skeptics that these people and places were made up but time and science ended up proving the Bible right after hundreds of years of cynical specuation. When you date the Biblical messianic prophecies that accurately described the coming of Christ hundreds of years before He came you realize that the message in the OT is very much real. Predictions that were made by the prophet Daniel included the future demise of Babylon. He accurately foretold their downfall and predicted the city would never be a city again. Many folks have tried to rebuild Babylon but none have succeeded. Saddam Hussein tried most recently but he failed as well. Are you able to answer the four questions that I posted earlier or are you basing all of your assumptions on something that you've learned from a one sided lesson plan?

[Ill Nuts]

Therefore, the evolutionist cannot answer the question of where life originated. Evolutionists have no answer for the source of life, if there is no God to supply it.

 

Creationists don't have an answer for where life originated. What y'all have is a book written thousands of years ago with fables in it. See, here's the root of the thing, and what the show was addressing, ID (creationism) is fuzzy science. You present no provable hypothesis, you bring up (admittedly valid) holes in the theory of evolution, and fill in those holes with "old man in robes who lives in the clouds". I have yet to see one theory from the God folks that says "God did it, and here's how I can prove it . And once that's done, we can run the same experiment and get the same results." See, that's science. I have a theory, I can do things with predictable, repeatable results to back up that theory. What ID says is, "we can't explain it, therefore......noodley appendage!"

 

And if you can be objective enough about it, you'll find that teaching kids fuzzy science, or teaching "science" minus the "scientific method", is a huge dis-service to them.

[BiggieFries]

First he asks, "Where is the missing link?" When evolutionary paleontologists arrange and measure brain capacity between the primate and human being, there is a significant gap between the human and the next closest primate, with no credible fossil record to prove otherwise. Darwin's theory has no subjective facts to link animals to the human race.

 

It's possible that we just haven't found that particular fossil record and we may never find it. This missing link, however, may be found not in fossil records but in DNA. Bushwacked posted a link a few weeks ago that showed a video of a study where the scientist found a "link" between chimps and humans. I can't find the thread at the moment (BigJohn, can you find it?).

 

The second question relates to the process of change by which evolution happens. When mutations are observed within soecies, they tend to be degenerative and result in an inferior derivation. It is therefore reasonable to ask how man can evolve to the apex (the highest) of living beings if all the facts suggest the process of evolution goes the opposite way, that is, it devolves?

 

Do you have a link that suggests this? Mutations are not "only degenerative". An example of this is with Darwin's finches. They mutated their beaks to fit their environments. Darwin's Finches If a genetic mutation is degenerative in some way then that particular breed will die out because it will not be able to survive its environment.

 

The third difficult question for the evolutionist relates to the origin of life itself. Christians teach creation came ex nihilo -- that God created everything from nothing. Further, both evolutionary scientists and Christian creationists would agree that spontaneous generation does not presently exist in today's universe. Therefore, the evolutionist cannot answer the question of where life originated. Evolutionists have no answer for the source of life, if there is no God to supply it.

 

I don't think this is a proper question for evolutionists to answer. Mostly because this is a different theory. Evolution tries to answer what happened AFTER the first inkling of life came to be on Earth. How that life got here in the first place is not the goal of the theory of evolution. That's more of a Big Bang question.

 

Finally, there is adamant and often unreasonable opposition by evolutionist to intelligent design. The normal response by the scientific community is to study and gather data to determine the validity of any and all theories. But evolutionists refuse to even examine the claims of Scripture. They presuppose the laws of evolution, but refuse to admit there's a law giver. They see a well-balanced operating universe but refuse to believe or even explore data that suggests intelligent design (Elmer Towns,Core Christianity, p.88-89).

 

Read DemonKnight's post right below yours.

[tonorator]

Creationists don't have an answer for where life originated. What y'all have is a book written thousands of years ago with fables in it. See, here's the root of the thing, and what the show was addressing, ID (creationism) is fuzzy science. You present no provable hypothesis, you bring up (admittedly valid) holes in the theory of evolution, and fill in those holes with "old man in robes who lives in the clouds". I have yet to see one theory from the God folks that says "God did it, and here's how I can prove it . And once that's done, we can run the same experiment and get the same results." See, that's science. I have a theory, I can do things with predictable, repeatable results to back up that theory. What ID says is, "we can't explain it, therefore......noodley appendage!"

 

And if you can be objective enough about it, you'll find that teaching kids fuzzy science, or teaching "science" minus the "scientific method", is a huge dis-service to them.

 

today we teach kids that we evolved from apes. this is how we fill in the big holes in the evolution theory. we can't run an experiment on this to prove it, but we call it science. there are no predictable, repeatable results to back up this theory, only examples of evolution on a micro scale, from which we make the jump that all life came from the unexplained, spontaneous generation of the first few cells. there's some fuzz here as well, if you ask me.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Creationists don't have an answer for where life originated. What y'all have is a book written thousands of years ago with fables in it. See, here's the root of the thing, and what the show was addressing, ID (creationism) is fuzzy science. You present no provable hypothesis, you bring up (admittedly valid) holes in the theory of evolution, and fill in those holes with "old man in robes who lives in the clouds". I have yet to see one theory from the God folks that says "God did it, and here's how I can prove it . And once that's done, we can run the same experiment and get the same results." See, that's science. I have a theory, I can do things with predictable, repeatable results to back up that theory. What ID says is, "we can't explain it, therefore......noodley appendage!"

 

And if you can be objective enough about it, you'll find that teaching kids fuzzy science, or teaching "science" minus the "scientific method", is a huge dis-service to them.

Let me get this straight, you agree that there are holes in the evolution story but you think it should be taught to our children anyways but we should abstain from teaching the counterpoint of a theory with flaws? We do have a theory for where life originated, God. I choose to believe that theory and I've not seen anything to change my belief (certainly not in this thread). Time has proven the Bible right and evidence of the people and places have been proven with excavations. I don't picture God as an old man with a robe on standing in the clouds. I have seen that depiction in children's Christianity coloring books, maybe that's where you get the majority of your information on the Bible.

[bushwacked]

We do have a theory for where life originated, God. I choose to believe that theory and I've not seen anything to change my belief (certainly not in this thread).

 

That isn't a theory.

[tonorator]

It's possible that we just haven't found that particular fossil record and we may never find it. This missing link, however, may be found not in fossil records but in DNA. Bushwacked posted a link a few weeks ago that showed a video of a study where the scientist found a "link" between chimps and humans. I can't find the thread at the moment (BigJohn, can you find it?).

 

just because we share DNA similarities, you cannot assume that we are all derivations from the same DNA. the DNA is the stuff that all life is made of and it is fashioned differently for different kinds of life. interesting stuff here on this, which may be what you are referring to.

 

Metaphorically speaking, Dugaiczyk said, "Humans and primates march to the rhythm of a drum that looks identical; the same size, shape and sound. But, the human drum beats faster."

 

This chemical analysis of DNA structures also showed something else. The spread of the Alu DNA repeats was written into the chemistry of human chromosomes. The process was not random, Dugaiczyk said, and it was not subject to an environmental "natural selection," separating winners and losers as theorized by Darwin.

 

"We are not contending that natural selection does not exist, but that in this instance it is a chemical process within human chromosomes that explains why humans have an explosive expansion of DNA repeats, and primates do not," Dugaiczyk said.

 

Determining the genetic differences between humans and primates is important for several reasons, Dugaiczyk said, including advancing knowledge about how life developed and evolved on earth. Other benefits include making it easier to identifying human predisposition to genetic disease, by comparing humans with other primate species. A third possible benefit is to underline the importance of protecting endangered primate species.

[Kid Cid]

today we teach kids that we evolved from apes. this is how we fill in the big holes in the evolution theory. we can't run an experiment on this to prove it, but we call it science. there are no predictable, repeatable results to back up this theory, only examples of evolution on a micro scale, from which we make the jump that all life came from the unexplained, spontaneous generation of the first few cells. there's some fuzz here as well, if you ask me.

Which is why it is still called the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

 

You are correct in that there are holes in the fossil record and other evidence being used to build the evolutionary tree. However, there is a fossil record and DNA, actual physical evidence, coupled with observations such as the Darwins Finches that provide that basis upon which the Theory of Evolution is founded. We have nothing but the oral traditions of a wandering tribe that were finally cast into written word and translated multiple times to support this hypothesis of creation. The only experiment I know of that even begins to touch upon the validity of those claims are those we conducted back in grammer school. Back then we called it Post Office. It has been repeatedly proven that a message passed by word of mouth cannot survive intact through multiple tellings. Couple that with possible errors in translation, and I just don't see how anything in the Bible can be taken as 100% accurate.

[BiggieFries]

just because we share DNA similarities, you cannot assume that we are all derivations from the same DNA. the DNA is the stuff that all life is made of and it is fashioned differently for different kinds of life. interesting stuff here on this, which may be what you are referring to.

 

If buswhacked (I think, could have been someone else) or BJ can find the link, you'll see what I'm talking about. It showed that the DNA isn't just "similar" but that it's damn near identical, with one small mutation. Which adds quite a bit more credibility to the theory of evolution, as well as the theory that chimps and humans once shared that same DNA at one point in time.

 

Also, since a "missing link" fossil hasn't been found as of yet, doesn't mean you can assume that God "poofed" us all here 5000 years ago.

[bushwacked]

If buswhacked (I think, could have been someone else) or BJ can find the link, you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

I don't think that was me. Toranator posted a link awhile back where they found new evidence and tried to say it showed the evolution was a hoax.

[Jumpin Johnies]

That isn't a theory.

The creationist theory is not a theory?

[The Irish Doggy]

Dr. Elmer Towns poses 4 questions for evolutionists and I'm curious if any of you all can answer them.

 

First he asks, "Where is the missing link?" When evolutionary paleontologists arrange and measure brain capacity between the primate and human being, there is a significant gap between the human and the next closest primate, with no credible fossil record to prove otherwise. Darwin's theory has no subjective facts to link animals to the human race.

 

This is complete bull, and discredits the rest of the questions. There certainly is a fossil record of brain size dating back millions of years. The australopithecus genus had brain sizes from 300 to 500 cc. A modern chimp is about 400 cc. Early homo species (2.5 mil ago) then took off from that and through a range over time from 600 cc to finally around 1350 cc for us. There are a half dozen "in betweens" from early homo to modern humans. Appearently some Neanderthals actually had larger brains at 1500 cc. (Most of this detail is from the Smithsonian website link)

 

The demand for a "missing link" is largely a bogus argument. It implies that there is only one, when according to the evidence there are many.

 

eta: It is possible we may never be able to connect all the dots. Unfortunately, early humans didn't get into caring for the dead until the last 40K years or so IIRC. Those that lived 2 million years ago just dies on the savanna. We can't be sure which of the above referenced species became humans for sure just yet, but there are a wide variety and increasing brain sizes the closer to present you go.

 

The second question relates to the process of change by which evolution happens. When mutations are observed within species, they tend to be degenerative and result in an inferior derivation. It is therefore reasonable to ask how man can evolve to the apex (the highest) of living beings if all the facts suggest the process of evolution goes the opposite way, that is, it devolves?

 

Indeed, there are genetic defects which put an individual at a significant disadvantage. However, "all the facts" do not point to "devolving" or a higher or lower organism. Evolution does not predict some destination of a "higher being". That's a ego-centric idea of human superiority, one that is well documented in human history. Evolution is only about passing on traits/genetic information. Passing on. Doing "it". The more you are able to pass on, the more likely your traits survive. Evolution is more about having sex than running fast or being the strongest on the block. We are the sum of the beneficial variations over time. Essentially, we are the smartest tool-users and tool-makers when compared to early humans.

 

The third difficult question for the evolutionist relates to the origin of life itself. Christians teach creation came ex nihilo -- that God created everything from nothing. Further, both evolutionary scientists and Christian creationists would agree that spontaneous generation does not presently exist in today's universe. Therefore, the evolutionist cannot answer the question of where life originated. Evolutionists have no answer for the source of life, if there is no God to supply it.

 

So? Its an unknown. This is one of the great questions science is exploring now. How did it happen? If there were no unresolved riddles, there would be no need for science. That's actually at the heart of scientific exploration. We don't know how something works. Form a hypothesis and experiment. Only the creationists require answers to everything now. And they can only answer with "God did it" - which is a completely untestable hypothesis.

 

Finally, there is adamant and often unreasonable opposition by evolutionist to intelligent design. The normal response by the scientific community is to study and gather data to determine the validity of any and all theories. But evolutionists refuse to even examine the claims of Scripture. They presuppose the laws of evolution, but refuse to admit there's a law giver. They see a well-balanced operating universe but refuse to believe or even explore data that suggests intelligent design (Elmer Towns,Core Christianity, p.88-89).

 

Again, a supreme being/ law giver is completely untestable. As soon as creationism comes up with an experiment for it, let me know. The burden of proof is entirely upon them.

 

eta: Biggie has some good points too. "Ask, and you shall receive".

Edited November 20, 2007 by The Irish Doggy

[BiggieFries]

The creationist theory is not a theory?

 

Is there any form of test for the creationist theory to help support it?

[Kid Cid]

Is there any form of test for the creationist theory to help support it?

 

Oooo! Ooooo! Oooo! Pick me Mister Kotter!

 

Because there is not form of test or proof, it can only be a hypothesis until such time that a test or proof applies.

[bushwacked]

The creationist theory is not a theory?

 

Creationism is a religious belief based on a presupposed deity kick starting life. It holds very little muster in the scientific world because it relies mostly on faith and very little evidence to support the belief. It doesn't even come close to approaching a valid hypothesis.