Intelligent Nature
If God created life, Did life come about naturally? The actual definition of natural as it relates to biology is "Not produced or changed artificially". So I guess we would have to answer the question is only human interference considered artificial? Or is Gods interference also considered artificial.
I have recently been debating Dr. Pigliucci (and friends) on the subject of evolution
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15005476&postID=114118185759772703
I have been on the fence for some time as whether I believe in evolution or Intelligent Design. For the sake of this debate I was neither, just taking an anti-evolution stance to play devils advocate. As I was conducting thought experiments in my head trying to picture macro evolution. It hit me. This never happened. I feel now beyond a doubt that macro evolution (at least the way science says it happened, didn't. I will explain why in a minute.
I am no biologist. Have a minimal understanding of genes and how most micro biological processes work. Neither did Darwin. Darwin did not know what a gene was. So to understand the most important part of evolutionary theory you must be a good physical and mechanical thinker (not that genes don't play an important role) I have learned evolution quite well from a physical prospective. The main process responsible for evolution is purely physical. Yet when I debate evolutionists. They insists I need to have my doctorate in microbiology and so on. I ask the simple question of "How does macro evolution produce complex features" ? Such as a human foot, or all the body parts required for reproduction. I always get referred to some book or article. The person understands it fully but doesn't have the time to tell me, but if I just read such and such I will find the answer. This is no better than saying creation is true because the bible says so.
Along these debates it occurred to me that in order for macro evolution to produce a mechanical features (where there wasn't one before) then gross macro mutations would have to cover the species that developed it. If it happens by chance random mutations, then it requires thousands of bad mutations to get one good one that would be part of a bigger macro mutations. These mutations would be visible everywhere in nature, but they are not.
If your interested, post a comment and I will get into detail with you.
Which leads me back to the original question. I think many people don't like intelligent Design because it somehow leaves the scientific realm of explaining how something happened, and goes into the supernatural realm of explanations, thus making it unnatural. That's why I think if somehow I.D. could somehow be put into naturalistic terms, more people would accept it. The movement can't be driven by religion as it currently is. It must be driven by people like myself that don't have a problem with evolution because of religion (I would have no issue being a Christian and believing in evolution). I just don't think evolution works. We need to move Intelligent design forward by leaving church behind.
I have recently been debating Dr. Pigliucci (and friends) on the subject of evolution
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15005476&postID=114118185759772703
I have been on the fence for some time as whether I believe in evolution or Intelligent Design. For the sake of this debate I was neither, just taking an anti-evolution stance to play devils advocate. As I was conducting thought experiments in my head trying to picture macro evolution. It hit me. This never happened. I feel now beyond a doubt that macro evolution (at least the way science says it happened, didn't. I will explain why in a minute.
I am no biologist. Have a minimal understanding of genes and how most micro biological processes work. Neither did Darwin. Darwin did not know what a gene was. So to understand the most important part of evolutionary theory you must be a good physical and mechanical thinker (not that genes don't play an important role) I have learned evolution quite well from a physical prospective. The main process responsible for evolution is purely physical. Yet when I debate evolutionists. They insists I need to have my doctorate in microbiology and so on. I ask the simple question of "How does macro evolution produce complex features" ? Such as a human foot, or all the body parts required for reproduction. I always get referred to some book or article. The person understands it fully but doesn't have the time to tell me, but if I just read such and such I will find the answer. This is no better than saying creation is true because the bible says so.
Along these debates it occurred to me that in order for macro evolution to produce a mechanical features (where there wasn't one before) then gross macro mutations would have to cover the species that developed it. If it happens by chance random mutations, then it requires thousands of bad mutations to get one good one that would be part of a bigger macro mutations. These mutations would be visible everywhere in nature, but they are not.
If your interested, post a comment and I will get into detail with you.
Which leads me back to the original question. I think many people don't like intelligent Design because it somehow leaves the scientific realm of explaining how something happened, and goes into the supernatural realm of explanations, thus making it unnatural. That's why I think if somehow I.D. could somehow be put into naturalistic terms, more people would accept it. The movement can't be driven by religion as it currently is. It must be driven by people like myself that don't have a problem with evolution because of religion (I would have no issue being a Christian and believing in evolution). I just don't think evolution works. We need to move Intelligent design forward by leaving church behind.
posted by Jim Fisher at 1:51 PM
12 Comments:
Boy, would my husband LOVE to debate with you!!! You need to email him and get his opinion. He wrote a paper and spoke at a symposium on creation vs. evolution.
He is an old earth creationist...his views are very different than many Christian's...and I think you'd find them interesting.
Visit his website, onlinesolutions.com or email him at scott@lynn.net
You won't regret debating with him. :)
Kendra
"That's why I think if somehow I.D. could somehow be put into naturalistic terms, more people would accept it."
In other words, you have to accept their worldview in order to make it more palatable? The fact that you are opening up the realm of possible explanations is the whole problem.
Creationists have been using naturalistic examples in the sense of how intelligent human beings design things to explain the "God did it" conclusions. This however will not satisfy naturalists who define naturalism to be outside of any design at all.
"The movement can't be driven by religion as it currently is. It must be driven by people like myself that don't have a problem with evolution because of religion (I would have no issue being a Christian and believing in evolution)."
I must disagree with you here. There is no such thing as having a front without a back. As you so clearly pointed out, Darwin did not know what a gene was. The fact is, he was extremely influenced by religion and his philosophical views. To say otherwise is to be in denial.
The same is today. It is impossible to approach these questions in a vaccum.
Man is not some morally neutral creature and just evaluates evidence. He is a sinner. Those who call themselves Christian and abandon the traditional young earth belief do so not on the basis of exegesis, but based on man's hypotheses and then reading that into Scripture. This is eisegesis, and it is not God-honoring.
The straight forward and natural sense of the text destroys man's exalted view of himself. I am always amazed at the great lengths natural man will go to to surpress the plain and clear truth of God's Word. But then again, what else should we expect from rebel sinners as described in Romans 1.
God Bless
Jim,
I went and read the Blog from that link. It is a typical debate that I have encountered a thousand times.
Again the problem comes from worldviews. They believe that the Ireducible complexity argument doesn't work, yet they have to use the Christian worldview to say it doesn't by appealing to a universal negative argument.
This doesn't fly with me anymore. Both sides are appealing to an epistemology that assumes the Christian worldview atleast in part. Only the Christian can be consistent since they (the evolutionist) deny they are making a claim to authority and having any real world examples to back up their claims.
In a response to you he says that a naturalistic explanation just hasn't been found yet. This is exactly the problem. His worldview assumes there MUST be a naturalistic explanation. But his worldview also claims we can ONLY know things by observations that are repeatable. Hence a MAJOR CONTRADICTION within his worldview.
God Bless
Again the problem comes from worldviews. They believe that the Ireducible complexity argument doesn't work, yet they have to use the Christian worldview to say it doesn't by appealing to a universal negative argument.
I am not so sure it is as simple as that. As the debate continues. I think you will see it is not so much the Ireducible complexity argument being totally imposible, I would concede it is possible, but nature would look like a monster of mutations in order to mathmatically have the number of mutations to make evolution possible. It is as if science has assigned evoltuion a brain for design and not chance. So that we don't need a vast number of mutations to get chance good ones. So if we could see mutations (physical in nature) covering our bodies (inside and out) I would buy into it. I will not just buy the we are not sure how that happens yet.
I have to admit the problem of strata (not holding newer fossels in older layers). Is a hard blow for I.D. Even if you believe in a young earth, this is still an issue.
I haven't followed the comments on this thread -- just reacting to your original post.
I agree with you. Evolution has far too many holes; it leaks like a sieve. The entire evolutionary system, supported by so many scientists, reminds me of the many people who speak Klingon. They write in Klingon, translate the Bible and Shakespeare's works into Klingon, even make money off of Klingon. But none of that makes Klingon a language with roots in history.
I once wrote something similar to your conclusion in responding to my brother (who believes I, as a creationist, am brainwashed). The full (and interesting) thread is here, but the specific assertion is this:
Still, if I’m confident of anything, it’s that Darwinism is in for a fall. Too many scientists are peeling at its frayed edges. A counterbalance to the entrenched politicization of evolution is the fact that scientists make names for themselves not by confirming established beliefs, by rocking the boat — and the easiest way to rock Darwinism is to stop propping it up. What will replace it is hard to say. Certainly it’ll still be materialistic — science will never accept ID, much less creationism. Perhaps it’ll be something along the lines of Noam Chomsky, the linguist who got away with arguing that the human brain is hard-wired for language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition#Nativist_theories). Maybe physicists will join up with biochemists to link string theory to DNA. Whichever way it goes, Darwinism’s lack of evidence is catching up to it, bringing us to the verge of a huge paradigm shift.
Evolutionists are fond of bragging about what a revolutionary thinker Darwin was, but they're hardly revolutionary themselves, harping on and on about a fossil tree that doesn't exist.
If evolution is to escape becoming entirely laughable, it must change. Can't even one evolutionist ditch the mythical tree of life, and devise a non-Darwinian but perfectly naturalistic method for life to arise all by itself, sans God? Come on!
" It is as if science has assigned evoltuion a brain for design and not chance."
This is exactly the problem that you say is "not as simple as that". It is that simple. Materialism has by definition closed out any possible theory of design. You are forced to debate within a worldview you cannot accept to start with.
Therefore it is not some neutral system by which to judge evidence. THERE IS NO SUCH SYSTEM! Man is not a morally neutral creature. He surpresses the truth. God says so. Look at the evidence from God's view, and it is consistently plain that is what man does.
Case in point, you said, "I have to admit the problem of strata (not holding newer fossels in older layers). Is a hard blow for I.D. Even if you believe in a young earth, this is still an issue."
It is true that generally speaking, older fossils are on the bottom. But again, I do not grant the assumption that is being made. It is ASSUMED that the fossils on the bottom, that are mostly considered older and less complex, are in fact evidence for evolution. Why should I believe they are older? God says they are not, Evolutionists say they are. Should I take man's wisdom over God's?
This is circular reasoning at its finest. I do not accept that so-called simple life forms are older simply because they are at the bottom of some strata.
What about strata that is completely upside-down? Well, the evolutionist assumes his naturalism and explains some kind of mechanism that MUST be naturalistic and non-Biblical must have caused it.
Again, why should I accept a world-view based on pagan religions? Is God not able to give us sufficient revelation?
I have been down the path you are arguing for a loooooong time. To Forester you listen, save you trouble he can (sorry, I am parroting Yoda). I think he would agree.
I figured this out years ago when I was debating atheists as a hobby. It almost always came down to an argument over the laws of logic. Then I figured out their worldview could not account for their own assumptions, because they belong only to the Christian worldview. Hence they are borrowing from us when convenient while forcing us to debate on their terms. Picking and choosing their presuppostions as they go.
To Presuppositional Apologetics you must go my brother. Go to Dagobah. Find Master Greg Bahnsen. He will finish your training. ooops sorry again This was too long.
Soli Deo gloria
Howie,
I am not sure what you mean when you say they are borrowing from a Christian world view (only when convienent). Give me an example.
I have given you several examples. For instance, their worldview can not account for the laws of logic. It is outside their epistemological system. So when refuting Christians, they must use the laws of logic.
Some atheists however are arguing that the laws of logic are not absolute and therefore not having to even be consistent there.
Another is morality. Often while arguing with evolutionists, they will try to explain morality, but they do so in a relativistic manner. This is simply silly, for in nature, there is no morality if there is no Creator.
Another is saying that we can only know facts by repeatable obervations using the scientific method. The way to defeat the atheists is to challenge their worldview. I do not accept their epistemology. They simply do not know what to do when you do this. They start arguing the authority arguments and getting silly.
God Bless
Jim,
ID is one of my pet peeves, and I'd like to discuss it with you over the next few weeks.
One point to get started:
I ask the simple question of "How does macro evolution produce complex features" ? Such as a human foot, or all the body parts required for reproduction. I always get referred to some book or article. The person understands it fully but doesn't have the time to tell me, but if I just read such and such I will find the answer. This is no better than saying creation is true because the bible says so.
Number one - did you read the papers?
Number two - a scientific paper is infinitely better than just referring back to the bible. The paper is backed up by research and experimentation - the bible is an historic document with a bunch of flaws.
"Number one - did you read the papers?"
I read the Blog, if that is what you meant.
"Number two - a scientific paper is infinitely better than just referring back to the bible."
Why? Anyone can cite facts. Man is made in the image of God. Therefore he has certain abilities.
The problem is that he surpresses the truth of God, thereby becoming vain and foolish in his thinking.
He reinterprets the scientific facts and twists their meaning to erroneous conclusions.
"The paper is backed up by research and experimentation - the bible is an historic document with a bunch of flaws."
Let me think about this one. Scientific text books are constantly being updated due to ERRORS. The Bible isn't. So which one is flawed?
Again, science would not even be possible if Christ is not God in the flesh. In order for science to even work, there must be a starting point for knowledge. The evolutionist/naturalist does not have one. He starts wherever and borrows from the "image" that is within him constantly, but then surpresses that truth.
If you are going to make a claim for scientific superiority, you need to demonstrate why. Simply claiming science can know everything and ancient Bible writers are ignorant of truth is a claim you have to demonstrate (while using the laws of logic that naturalists cannot account for by the way).
I like ID. But it is still flawed. I like it because it forces Naturalists to be more open-minded. But because it's starting point is in man's wisdom, there will be as many theories as there are men.
All wisdom and knowledge are bound in Christ. He is the Creator, and we must start with Him. If we do not, we will become darkened in our thinking and vain and foolish.
Think of it this way. The Creator made us. Therefore He is the source of all knowledge. How can you NOT start with Him and His revelation to us? Otherwise we are in darkness looking for a starting point. Groping in the dark is unnecessary when we have the light of Christ.
God Bless
BTW: Jesus is the greatest of the Prophets. Was He wrong too?
Furure Geek,
I will discuss the matter with you without using religion in any way.
You say that I.D. is one of your pet peeves. So your starting point is that only one theory is possible and is the best possible scientific answer at this time. So even if I find an issue with evolution that makes it impossible, your presupposition to evolution will not be changed. No offence, but this is perhaps a big difference between you and I. I am still deciding what is truth. You are perhaps just deciding what parts of todays known processes of evolution are truth. Evolution is not one of my pet peeves. As far as did I read the papers? Yes I have done this many times. If you look at the debate on Massimos web site, Lilly refered me to a peticular "evidence of macro evoltion" And I brought up a problem with its logic that she could not explain. I had many more, but did not bring them up since it seemed she (and everyone else)was tired of the debate. I have done plenty of research on evolution. Much of what I read at the cellular level and below, I admit freely I do not comprehend due to perhaps my lack of background (or perhaps my intelligence), but I read it anyway and try my best to understand it. We talk so much about evolution at the micro level, but it is still a mainly physical science in that the actual processes that come into play are quite mechanical (this is something I like to think I am good at, since I have a decent grasp on mechanical physics and I work in a highly technical mechanical field). This is where I have issues with evolution. The main fear of global warming is mass extinction. This is exactly what I see happening if enviorments change, not only drastically, but even a little. Theoretically (by evolution) global warming should just produce new species. But we all know it won't, because every time man alters animals enviorments (even just a little) we never get a new species. We just get extinction. Nature is very delicate. Change mother nature just a little and you know what happens. We have seen this time and time again. evolution has been tested. This theory that it takes millions of years to make a change would not be a sucessful process. Unless you could tell the enviorment it can only change very slowly over millions of years. Thats not how it happens. Enviorments and food sources change at the snap of a finger. In order for evolution to be possible it must be able to respond to that.
Future Geek,
If you want to quote other research, that is fine, but it will be much easier for the sake of debate if you use papers posted on the internet. Although I do have a small collection of books, if you quote something from a book it will take me much more time to read it. Just to speed things up. Bottem line is I will take the time if you give me a link.
Post a Comment
<< Home