The trackback URL for this entry is:

Moreover, if you are trying to argue against evolution, that’s about the stupidest tack to take.  No one claims we evolved from apes, chimps, or any other primate.  If you accept macro-evolution as the best explanation for the differentiation of the species, then chimps, apes, and gorillas are highly evolved products of some common ancestor just as we are.  We would be distant cousins from a common progenitor, not evolved from primates that are currently in existence.

There are other, better reasons to disagree with macro-evolution.  This guy does our side no favors...[sigh]

Nathan, I did not know that. I thought the claim was that we evolved from apes or something like them. Do you have a link about that? I would like to read the actual theory. (in non geekspeak if possible)...

As for the biting, the guy obviously never had a 2 yr old.

RWS - We did evolve from something like apes. But the key word is like… as Nathan says, we and the chimps had some common ancestor that was like both species while being neither.

RWS - visit the Talk Origins archive and your eyes shall be opened wide (yes, they even provide samples of documented speciation events, but - sadly - no fish turning into monkeys).

Yea, right. Evolution. Sorry, I haven’t believed in fairytales since my momma told me that there was no Santa Clause.

As for Teflon, maybe he was sick that day?

So if evolution is too much of a fairytale what do you believe in?

People, can’t we all.....just....get along?

So, the humanists believe in macro-evolution.  Fine.  The creationist believe in being created by God. 

And?

I believe the account in the book of Genesis. I haven’t heard anybody explain how two bits of nothing combined and formed something.

Also, Halle Berry. Do we need anymore proof of God’s existence?

You believe Genesis and dismiss evolution as a fairytale? Talk about backasswards.

And Halle Berry is evidence of Satan’s existence. One word: Catwoman. But I guess evidence of Satan is evidence of God, in a way.

No, Steven’s right about Halle Berry proof of God’s existence. Her taking the role of Catwoman—that’s evidence of Satan’s existence, sitting on her shoulder, giving her really bad advice.

The theory of evolution does not speak to first causes and so doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of a creator.  In short, evolution doesn’t fear creationism.  Why do creationists so fear a scientific thesis that makes perfect historical and biological sense?

Jeff G,
I’m a creationist. I don’t fear a scientific thesis that makes perfect historical and biological sense.  I haven’t seen one yet.

Macro evolution has bunches of problems if taken on its own: including Irreducible Complexity, the earth not being old enough for macro evolution to have resulted in this much differentiation (from what I’ve read, the earth is several billion, if not a full trillion, years too young for this much differentiation to have occurred).

But all those problems go away if you assume a guiding intelligence could cause them to come about.

Heck, any experiment that tries to prove macro-evolution could work could only prove Intelligent Design, when you think about it.

Micro-evolution?  We’ve seen that every flu season.  Macro-evolution?  I’m still a skeptic.

...the only thing is, while you may not fear creationism, most Evolutionists most definitely fear and loathe Intelligent Design, much less Creationism.

Jeff G.
Well Catholic teaching is that it is fine to believe in evolution (one can hardly deny we evolved) We have a bit of a different take on it than alot of Protestant religions. Why is it so hard to believe that an evolutionary process is how God created us? It just makes sense to me.
The Old Testament is a very different book than the New Testament told in a very different way. I don’t understand why people don’t see that.
I haven’t looked into what “intelligent design” teaches other than the theory that we might possibly come from a higher power. If that is all it says, then I have no problem with it. It is a theory, after all. (One I believe in)

Jeff G. didn’t say that he didn’t fear creationism, he may very well be under the covers with a flashlight right now. He said evolution doesn’t fear creationism, it has room for a creator.

What evolution does fear is Biblical literalists like Kelso. And I, personally, an am evolutionist that fears both creationism and creationists. Tiny hands, smell of cabbage.

Matt, I was with you until you got to the cabbage thing. Is that a northern phrase or something...?..

Matt is correct, Nathan.  I said evolution doesn’t fear creationism because it cannot concern itself with first causes.  Problems with macroevolution have all been dealt with to my satisfaction by Richard Dawkins—including quite detailed chapters on so-called irreducible complexity (with, for instance, the human eye being the prominent example).  In just about any example of irreducible complexity, the problem lies with attempting to study a mechanism from its current state of use in order to deduce its design intent.  Or something along those lines.

As to being able to “prove” macro-evolution, well, this is the creationist trump card, because to date we don’t have time-lapse photography that is prepared to film a given set of organisms for billions of years.

...but the fossil record, man!  Shouldn’t that demonstrate something?!??!  And it doesn’t...hmmm…

In any case, you make a good point about first causes.  It’s a point I’ve tried to make to Science! adherents trying to insist they’ve disproved God because their instruments can find no evidence.

I’ve read Richard Dawkins, too.  His arguments failed to convince me.  Just because something could happen doesn’t mean that’s how it did.  To me, his arguments all boil down to using his own paradigm to demonstrate his paradigm is real.  Which we all do to some extent, I guess.  It’s just that Occam’s Razor can’t really apply when no one has any clue which explanation really is the simplist.

When you can’t defeat the argument, claim fear. I’m typing on a computer right now. Me and science are homeboys.

If you cannot answer this query: explain how two bits of nothing combined and formed something.

Then “evolution” makes really cool sci-fi, but that’s about it. I’ve been promised the missing link since the 70’s - heck - I was promised global cooling in the 70’s!

Life adapts, it does not evolve. That super AIDS virus made adapt, but it’s always gonna be a virus.The Earth is about 5,600 years old and all life was created in 6 days. Evolution fears me because it does not stand up to the very thing it was created to advance - reason.

Halle makes movies? I just like to look into her eyes…

Well, I take your two bits of nothing becoming something and up you nothing becoming an all powerful God. If God created everything, where did He come from?

My 8 yr just asked me that same question....

He has always been, my dear. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

And what evidence of this world points to anything that has always been? It’s the very definition of a fairy tale.

You’re taking a leap of faith. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend that evolution, based on actual scientific evidence, is the fairy tale.

Oops, I thought it was Steven comparing me to an eight year old. Read that comment as if that had happened.

No problem. But just to be clear I believe in both. (God and evolution)

and yep...that is why it is called faith.

When you can’t read an argument, claim that somebody claimed fear. 

I have no reason to “defeat” the argument because arguing macro-evolution and creationism is like arguing bowling and crayons.  There is no inherent connection, though I can easily point out that crayons must have made bowling balls because look at all the pretty colors on the bowling balls.

"The Earth is about 5,600 years old and all life was created in 6 days. “

*snicker*

I’m sorry, but I don’t feel the least compulsion to dignify such an ignorant and, well, in this modern age, idiotic, statement with a reply.  Get thee an education.

You know, I try hard - really hard - not to be too insulting to creationists, but - damn - that’s just fucking stupid.

Meanwhile, while you’re working at comprehending basic logic, try to fathom the idea that if we’re so complex that we require a creator, then our creator, who is necessarily more complex, requires one of his own.  Ad infinitum.  And if you posit that your creator doesn’t require one of his own, you better be able to explain why in comprehensible terms other than “‘cause he’s Baby Jesus, DUH!”

Your answer solves nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

Christ, Kelso, if I didn’t know better I’d think you were a misguided atheist trying to make Christians look like mental midgets.

Have a pleasant evening!

Correction - Please replace all of the above with:

*snicker*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(wheeze)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now, back to the beer.

...don’t look too close, but Matt just disproved the whole universe.

Thankfully, who needs consistency of logic when you’ve got Science!...?

I should clarify:
Science! is the set of assumptions typified by the idea that Science has answered every worthwhile question, and that questions science hasn’t answered are invalid murmurings of the superstitious; further, Science! adherents seem to think we have reached a pinnacle of knowledge and understanding, and so they argue their viewpoints from the current state-of-the-art as they understand it...choosing not to recognize, I guess, that 99% of what science accepts to be true right now will be proven false within the next 100 years.  Most Science! fans are also stuck in the past, embracing a Newtonian, mechanistic view of the universe that excludes God, and willfully ignoring the ramifications of Quantum mechanics…

It’s sad, really…

I’m agnostic, religiously speaking, and I like to think on first cause every once in a while, because it makes my brain feel neat, like when I watch the Terminator stoned and try to puzzle out all the filthy implications of the Connor family tree.

Thankfully, though, I’m versed just enough in quantum physics that I can understand the time travel involved—which prevents me from organizing a mob and demanding that all copies of The Terminator be removed from public libraries at once.

Nathan, almost all the great scientists of our history are theists, if not Christians. Newton, if you have read Stephen Jay Gould, was just one of the many scientists of his time who have found no conflict between science and faith.

There is none: no fight, no conflict. That is, until you add in the Randroid rationalists and the Luddite creationists---two extremes of a circular spectrum---for who one is over the other. I’m only now starting to read Rocks of Ages but I’ve had enough a background in the history and philo. of sci. to state with confidence that for the longest time, science was a way of discovering the glory of God’s work. Until, of course, the discoveries didn’t reconcile with the literal word of an English translation of ancient texts approved by a Roman Catholic board of clerics in the middle ages. The men of the so-called “Scientific Revolution” had no philosophical argument with scripture in that they knew as a matter of faith that they were uncovering God’s work to as much as their human minds can understand. Conversely, through to this day we have the faithful who can not even approach that level of grace: their eyes see but they refuse to look, because any rationality discordant to the word of an English translation of ancient texts is not just suspect, but downright unacceptable.

Science! as you define it isn’t even scientific at all. It’s a pseudoscientific mentality approached by its adherents with as much religious fervor as zealots of other faiths do. The task incumbent unto a lot of us, is actually discerning one from the other.

Please tell me how I disproved the universe? I don’t see how the universe has to have always been to exist, that’s what the big bang is for. What created the big bang? Perhaps a god. Maybe not the God of Genesis, so I doubt it’ll make Kelso happy.

I’ve got no problem with those that think there is a God that started everything, but to dismiss everything we know as a “fairytale” and insist that the world was created 5600 years ago and that man was literally made from mud and woman from rib is just ridiculous.

Matt,
If God can’t exist because you can’t conceive of a beginning, then the universe can’t exist because you also cannot conceive of a beginning.

Big Bang?  Where did the stuff come from to provide the material for the Big Bang?  No answer, so I guess the universe can’t exist any more than God can.

This is what Jeff was talking about when he brought up ‘first causes’...or at least, that’s what I mean when I use similar words.

Science, true science, is a quest for understanding.  Science isn’t so much about why as about how.  As in, science cannot explain why the universe is here, or what was its origin, but it can describe in ever-more-accurate terms how the universe came to the point we see it now.

Which says nothing about the force behind it.

Maybe it is God, maybe it is nothing.

But please note my use of the term “ever-more-accurate”.  Science once told us the universe revolved around earth, the earth was flat, humors caused illnesses, bleeding was a good treatment… And the “smart people” laughed at anyone who said anything different, because “everyone knows”.

It is not only possible, but entirely likely that some deeper understanding of the universe will overturn everything that we know about the universe, and any one concept, like, say, the theory of relativity, will be totally discredited.

Scientists still don’t have an overall unifying theory of the universe and natural laws yet!  (String theory is coming close, but...)

Even Big Bang theory was once ridiculed as attempting to cram theology into science, just like evolutionists say people are trying to do with Intelligent Design...but now the Big Bang theory is considered consistent with an atheistic view....

The thing that raises my dander is when someone tries to use scientific principles to “prove” anything.  This is just another way of saying what I’ve already said, but true science doesn’t look backward at “proof”, it looks forward through theories.  If you think you know something, you’ve already stepped out of science and into engineering.  Science is about looking at all the available facts and drawing conclusions...but when the available facts change, the conclusions should change.  Most of the people who reject God on the basis of science are still stuck in Newtonian physics.  Those have already been disproven!!!!

Yes, disproven.  However, the Newtonian principles of the physical universe are useful as an excellent approximation of how the universe works.  When we build buildings or shoot ordnance or drive a car, we are working in the range that Newtonian equations align extremely closely with the way things work.

But the more energetic, or the bigger, or the smaller the object/force, the less appropriate Newtonian physics apply.

Atheists laugh at the idea that prayer can make a difference.  Unless they see a phyiscal change, they sneer and say that obviously prayer is false and falsifiable.

But when you start studying the implications of Schrodinger’s Cat, and determining the orientation of an unknown quark by studying the paired known quark, when information can be transferred faster-than-light (impossible in both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, I point out), then the idea of prayer having an effect that is unverifiable and imperceptible to human ranges of perception becomes extremely possible.  Not probable, no...at least, not by the available facts/evidence...but who knows what quantum research may provide tomorrow?

Quantum theory already says that anything extremely large or energetic will act in ways that seem to violate the Newtonian laws of physics.  If there were an entity that was sentient and large or energetic (and an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God would certainly fit that description), then saying “a God that can violate the obvious laws of physics is impossible by the very laws of physics” becomes
a non-sequitor.  If you say that such a God cannot exist because you believe such a God cannot exist...well, you aren’t doing anything but restating your belief system.

(continued)

So here’s the thing: I’m a Christian.  My own, non-verifiable experiences tell me there is a God, just as the atheists own, non-verifiable experiences tell him there can be “love” and “honor” apart from God.  Neither can adopt the perceptions and experiences of the other whole-cloth, so debate is usually useless.  The paradigms are too far apart and mutually exclusive.

But while I am a Christian and believe in God, I recognize that I live and act in the Newtonian realm.  If it were necessary and would fulfill God’s Will, I believe I could defy gravity itself.  But I don’t think God needs to work that way, so, lacking any specific instruction from God, I see no reason to jump off of a tall building to prove my faith.
I see no reason to declare evolution to be a fraud or false.  I do say that the pseudo-scientific arguments in support of evolution don’t convince me or rise to the level of science (i.e., demonstrable, falsifiable, logical, plausible, predictive), but I do recognize that new information could appear tomorrow that could change my opinion, or even demonstrate its truth beyond all reasonable doubt for almost everyone.  But I see the way that evolutionists use derision, sneering, litmus(t) tests, exclusion, strawmen, etc, to maintain its orthodoxy and avoid facing up to Evolution Theory’s very real problems and inconsistencies, and conclude that they are attempting to prevent Survival of the Fittest Ideas from consigning their pet theory to the dustbin of history…

And yet, there is no proof of Intelligent Design, either.  But Intelligent Design is no more or less pseudo-science that evolution.  If ID should be taught in religion/philosophy instead of science, then so should evolution.

All theories are still possible, including ID and Evolution.  But when I react in arguments like these, it is because the argument techniques in defense of Evolution set off my B.S. detector.  It may seem like I’m arguing against Evolution Theory, but it would be more accurate to say I’m arguing for greater open-mindedness...or that I’m arguing against an automatic assumption that everything has already been explained fully by Evolution Theory.  That’s a distortion of scientific principles.

Science! as you define it isn’t even scientific at all. It’s a pseudoscientific mentality approached by its adherents with as much religious fervor as zealots of other faiths do. The task incumbent unto a lot of us, is actually discerning one from the other.

Actually, Jay, that’s exactly my point.  That’s why I put it in italics with the exclamation point.  It’s the PC-think of scientific thought: the idea that science has already proven almost everything and all that is left is to force the superstitious religio-fascists out of their belief/trust in God...or at least out of scientific circles.

There is conflict between science and religion.  Maybe I argue that point incompetently, but I’m convinced the division is artificial and unnecessary.

So anyway, I apologize if I offended anyone.  If this discussion were in person, it might become more obvious that I’m standing in pretty much the same position, I’m just looking in a slightly different direction.

If it isn’t obvious, I’m a very logical, scientific, rigorous, left-brained person.  But I’m also very right-brained, intuitive, creative, and emotional.  It depends on which mode I want to work in.

I don’t deny or reject science.  I just refuse to deny or reject God, either.

Oops: change the statement to: “There is NO conflict between science and religion”.  I’m in agreement with Jay on that, not opposition.

Nathan, I’ve known of you long enough to know that you are not an irrational Luddite when it comes to the sciences. I see that you’re more against the sheepthink of many in the scientific community and I agree with you that it is bad not just for science but for open thinking in general. I’m only now starting to read into evolutionary theory on both the macro (visible) level and the micro (genetic/molecular) level.

I’ll say this right now: phylogenetic provenance is probably the most difficult to prove to an acceptable level for anyone who refuses to accept that there are inconsistencies in the study of biology. Biology and many of the natural sciences that are not quantitative rely on inductive knowledge founded on a body of heuristics that refines itself as it goes along. Many of the standards of proof that I encounter---yours not included because you’re quite reasonable on this subject---demand DEDUCTIVE proof. Given that standard, a biologist will never be able to meet them when it comes to certain topics.

Are we approaching a second “scientific revolution” as a result of the Scientific! community’s actions? Perhaps, and it’s not going to be an entropic process over a period of decades. The ”Scientific! community” itself is engaging in a rehash of the Renaissance (everything there is to know, has been discovered and known and we just need to look at the past). Believe you me, Nathan, that thought the people who engage in Science! get the loudest press, they’re not at the forefront of discovery and they never will.

Who knows I may get back to you on the concept of macroevolution and speciation when I’m ready to do so.

Well, someone didn’t read what I wrote, so I’ll repeat:

I’ve got no problem with those that think there is a God that started everything, but to dismiss everything we know as a “fairytale” and insist that the world was created 5600 years ago and that man was literally made from mud and woman from rib is just ridiculous.

I gots no problem with your irrational belief in a Christian God. I didn’t dismiss anything you believe in as a fairtytale. Kelso did that. So don’t try to explain to me that I “disproved” the universe, because I’m sure we’ll all notice it disappearing when I actually do.

I’m just saying, and I think Jeff G. is saying, that belief in evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Kelso, on the other hand, thinks that Genesis actually happened, so he disagrees.

It is hard to admit that I may look foolish to people for believing how I do, ‘cause I so like to appear intelligent, intellectual, witty, beautiful, and numerous other adjectives. But, I’d rather take the risk of being thought foolish, live this life with belief in God and creation, and die having been correct. 

What’s the risk of believing other than being thought a fool if in the end you’re belief was right?  I mean according to atheism, there’s nothing at the end, correct? 

So, I’d rather be wrong in believing in God while alive and find that perhaps the atheist was right, and there is nothing, than to choose not to believe in God, be thought brilliant by my peers, and find I was wrong and there is a God and an “afterlife” when I buy-the-farm, kick-the-bucket, keel over, give-up-the-ghost.  See, ultimately no loss if I choose to believe, other than respect of my peers, perhaps.

The thing is, neither one is completely proven.  It takes a “leap of faith” (quote your philosophers there, Matt ) to believe in either Evolution or Creation as no one has ever seen direct evidence of either (yes, yes, here is where I say I believe in genetic drift and micro-evolution, so I do recognize the contribution of the discovery and development of evolutionary theory).

I do refuse; however, to snicker or be derisive with those who disagree.

See, already proving myself less than perfect up there by having typed “you’re belief” rather than “your.” Innocent mistake, and perhaps evidence of a glitch in the matrix, but then we were talking creation and evolution…

You know what bangs me up so much and drives me up the wall beyond all imagining is that we’re using the same terms for different things and in many cases we’re seeing past each other. What is this Creation we’re talking about and what is this Evolution that adherents to Creation are distinguishing from evolution and how is it different?

Just how difficult is it for one to grasp the concept that not all that has to be known of God can be read in the pages of an English translation of ancient texts approved by a Roman Catholic board of clerics in the middle ages? Just what kind of intellectual and general indolence is it to not use the abilities and faculties that God gave us? One thing I learned growing up a Roman Catholic Christian is that one who does not put his talents to good use are not serving the will of God because he has given us gifts that we do not use out of sloth or defiance. Just how difficult is it for a scientist, or as Nathan calls Scientist! to merely reconcile the cdenturies-old idea that what we discover as the laws of physics and nature is not the work of men, but is how we understand God’s work?

WHY is it so anathemic for so many of the Christian faithful to accept the generalistic causation statement that God works through the physical means of the world that we as a species discover each day?

If you’re a Literal Creationist don’t even try to answer this question. This one’s for those who are willing to accept that the earth is much more than 6000 years old: is it so hard to accept that evolution (Dariwnian speiciation, natural selection and what have you) is just one of God’s many methods with which he has shown his love for us? Sheesh!

I read something once that was nice. It said something like “Science is the canvas upon which God painted the world.”

Jeff G. You know what an agnostic is, right? An athiest just covering his bets....

Matt,
I apologize for not being clear.  I was speaking of this statement:
“If God created everything, where did He come from?”
That applies to the universe, too: if the Big Bang created everything, where did the material for the Big Bang come from?

So if you are using that “were did _____ come from?” as a logical argument to deny the plausibility of God, you are simultaneously denying the plausibility of the universe.

Which isn’t to say you are wrong, just that the form of argument you used doesn’t advance the discussion or make sense.

Jay,
I am no Luddite...except regarding Apple’s iPod (rimshot!)

I understand what you are saying about the Bible...too many people treat the Bible as if it itself were God.  Others treat it as if that’s all<i> we can ever know about God.  Still others treat the Bible like a know-all reference book, when it is a very specific reference to be used in a very specific way.

This is hardly the location to discuss theology, but what the heck?  Zomby can always ban me if he doesn’t want to get access to an L1A1, right? [grin]

So, for everyone, my views of the Bible (again):
I’m convinced that the Bible is a starting point for our journey to find and know God.  You can’t read for proof, nor can you read for complete explanations.  So you must read with Faith.

The Old Testament (in my opinion) is largely a record of the misunderstandings man has had of God...the apparent change in God’s nature throughout that part of the Bible is because the people writing just didn’t get it...and God patiently using the best means to demonstrate who he is.  That is how the Bible can be both incorrect on factual descriptions <i>and the inerrant Word of God at the same time.

If you read with Faith, then it should raise more questions than it answers...and these questions should lead you to greater understanding.  There are apparent contradictions...but Faith can see you through until you find the resolution to those problems.

But if you read with Faith, then to describe the Bible as “the pages of an English translation of ancient texts approved by a Roman Catholic board of clerics in the middle ages” is not fully grasping the power of the Bible.  If God is who He says He is, then He is powerful enough to ensure that the Bible was written and translated and assembled without losing the essential points He wants us to absorb and understand.

The reason I feel that we are supposed to seek and muse on God is that He could just show Himself to be true...but then our situation would be exactly like the angels have: “Here is God!  Accept or reject Him!” And many people would reject Him immediately anyway, even with proof of his Existence.  In this world, this place where we see through a glass, darkly, our acceptance of God is a testament to our faith, and to our credit; but our rejection of God isn’t fatal, as it would be if He showed Himself and said, Choose!

So the Bible is sufficient, but not complete.  The completion comes only through communion with Him.

I’m going to go back to a statement by Jay to make my next (final?) points.  But after the initial paragraph or so, the rest is just continuing the general discussion, not directed just at Jay.  That’s one of the mistakes I make in comments, not making that clear.

So here goes:
You said, “WHY is it so anathemic for so many of the Christian faithful to accept the generalistic causation statement that God works through the physical means of the world that we as a species discover each day?”
I think that’s an excellent description of Intelligent Design, which most Christians accept (I think).
In my arguments over Evolution, I usually end up saying something that mirrors your statement, similar to this:
“WHY is it so difficult for so many of the opponents of Intelligent Design to allow the idea of a sentient guide to be discussed in relation to the theories of macro-evolution?  It is as plausible and possible as the idea that multiple systems all had things happen just right time and in the right order to result in multiple irreducibly complex organs and systems we see in multiple species?”
What I mean is:  you can’t get big enough to require the evolution of a circulatory system unless you have the circulatory system first, which you wouldn’t evolve because you didn’t need since you aren’t big enough…
And yet, the eye requires mutilple, independent systems all evolving at once to require or even make use of the other simultaneously evolving systems…
And the same is true of the hormone system…
And the same is true of hearing…

We have skin and at least two types of scales (fish and lizard) for epidermal coverings on completely different branches in the animal kindom...and yet the structure of the eye, the spinal cord, the circulatory system are all basically the same....the epidermis evolved after the eye and the spinal cord and the circulatory system?  Or these different branches all had the same mutation to result in the same approaches to sight and nerve transmission of information and oxygen use?

The answer given is usually a variation of : well, it’s here, so it must have happened…
...or: If everything worked just so, then it is just possible that it worked out this way to result in what we see.  And in a near-infinite universe, if it could have happened once, then this is where it did.  A one-in-whatever chance.

Except according to that argument, each irreducibly complex system was pretty much a one-in-whatever chance.  There is no plausible reason why multiple irreducibly complex systems could all have everything work out just right (and in many cases, would have to spann phyla, classes, and orders after differentiation).  That’s tantamount to saying:
“There were single-celled organisms, a miracle happens, and we have the species...”
Why not just say, “There were single-celled organisms, God causes a miracle, and we have the species”...?

Particularly since computer simulations have been done that demonstrate that even for Richard Dawkins’ explanations to be correct, the universe would have to be several thousand trillion years older than all evidence says it is.

And if scientists can posit the existence of “Dark Matter” (the history of how they came up with that is truly amusing) to make their equations balance, why not allow the possibility that “Dark Matter” is actually God?  After all, the lay explation of Dark Matter makes a nice basic description of an omnipotent, omnipresent God, as well: “an invisible and unmeasurable presence everywhere that affects calculations of mass, motion, and energy.”

So if you are using that “were did _____ come from?” as a logical argument to deny the plausibility of God, you are simultaneously denying the plausibility of the universe.

Actually, um, no.  He’s applying Occam’s Razor and implying that introducing an unknown to answer an unknown is not a rational approach.  If you claim that the universe needs a creator, but can’t explain why that creator doesn’t need one (other than “just because...duh"), then you’ve contributed nothing to the argument.

Matt’s statement is essentially that the universe “just is and has been.” If you think otherwise, you’ll need to demonstrate why that should be the case. 

As for “reading with faith,” that apparently isn’t working so well given the multitudes of interpretations of “god’s will” that mankind keeps dreaming up, from a reason to love one another to a reason to kill one another.  Unfortunately, your claim in belief of the Bible as a starting point, in the OT being messed up my men, carries as much evidence for it as those who would claim killing homosexuals is justified by god.  You’re claiming, whether you realize it or not, to have a claim to knowledge of the mind of God, and such claims are incapable of falsification, no matter what your claim may be.  So, you’re welcome to believe what you like, but you shouldn’t expect it to carry a logical weight with me or even a Christian who disagrees with you.

I’ve no interest in engaging in a discussion of either evolution or cosmology, as you are firmly convinced that you are right.  If the mountains of evidence contained in numerous websites, scientific journals, and books are not enough, I doubt anything I say on a blog will make a difference.

Nathan, my usage of the “the pages of an English translation of ancient texts approved by a Roman Catholic board of clerics in the middle ages” isn’t so much a potshot at you or the Bible but a potshot at Literalists. Of course I am a tad out of line since my conversation is with you and I know that you are not a Literalist.

Where we will be quite at near-irreconcilable odds is the *location* of Intelligent Design in the intellectual schema. If science is knowledge acquired through causes---particularly through the scientific method---then the concept of Intelligent Design is a metaphysical discussion whose premises are (1) founded on innuendo ("It is as plausible and possible as the idea that multiple systems all had things happen just right time and in the right order to result in multiple irreducibly complex organs and systems we see in multiple species?") and (2) It cannot be sufficiently tested under the Scientific Method.

My earlier experience with Intelligent Design is that an aesthete takes an animal that uses the golden mean (for example the chambered nautilus) or a plant whose anatomy follows some sort of mathematical formula (sunflower centers) and says “this couldn’t be random! SOMEONE’S got to be behind this!” and in science, not Science!, this is untenable.

Apropos of these two grafs:

The answer given is usually a variation of : well, it’s here, so it must have happened…
...or: If everything worked just so, then it is just possible that it worked Except according to that argument, each irreducibly complex system was pretty much a one-in-whatever chance.  There is no plausible reason why multiple irreducibly complex systems could all have everything work out just right (and in many cases, would have to spann phyla, classes, and orders after differentiation).  That’s tantamount to saying:
“There were single-celled organisms, a miracle happens, and we have the species...” Why not just say, “There were single-celled organisms, God causes a miracle, and we “have the species”...?

If you approach any proposed process of adaptive structures as coming about as a miracle, then no amount of data that we offer you will dispel that belief, because that is a metaphysical premise, not a scientific one. You want to understand why so many adaptive (and even basic) structures exist the way they are today? I will give you the reductio answer: because they have worked for the animals that survived, they have passed these traits along to the following generations.

I will take Andy’s road and not discuss the principles of evolution itself as I understand it beyond this point. We’re discussing the philosophy of the thinking here, not the minutiae.

Am I a believer in “Intelligent Design?” Maybe I am, of my own version. I think that there is a God, he has set the universe in motion and that life evolves according to the rules he has put in place. I do not believe that God actively participates in speciation and other matters of creation, simply because such a perfect God does not micromanage a universe that he loves. He doesn’t say “today, I will make a new species of frog,” and “poof!” a new frog speciates and propagates, no. Metaphysically what seems to scientists today as random events aren’t as random as they are. They follow patterns and systems and that’s what we’re about discovering. Evolutionists like myself aren’t out to stamp out God in the process. I for one have merely accepted that he’s around, and what I’m observing is Him in action.

The Roman Catholic Church has a sweet term for the kind of thinking that I have. It basically says that we are at the “sixth day of creation,” although that’s more its euphemism for the process of change over time (DING DING DING THAT’S EVOLUTION FOR YOU!!!) than something to be taken literally.

My only questions left for all of you are these (as it applies to you): (1) As a person faithful in God, why is it also so difficult for your faithful heart to accept that what seems to be random occurence to our puny human minds can be the work of God in action? (2) As a rational person, why is it so difficult to accept that other people may ascribe seemingly random occurences to a higher intelligence, just so that they can wrap their fingers around the concept that perhaps what seems to be a random thing isn’t?

Jay,
I think I answered most of this in the new thread you started, but just in case:

I’m an “evolution theory” agnostic.  I certainly don’t argue for Bible literalism.

So why do I usually jump in on the anti-evolution theory side?  Good question.

Mulling it over a moment, I’m going to have to quote Andy a moment, when he said, “I’ve no interest in engaging in a discussion of either evolution or cosmology, as you are firmly convinced that you are right.”
Andy, you aren’t totally convinced you are right?  Should I be refusing to discuss anything with you, then?  What makes your self-assurance appropriate, but mine foolish?  There are mountains of evidence, blogs, testimonials to the existence of God, yet you ignore those.

Now that I think about it, that’s what I’m arguing about here.  If a scientist can pull “Dark Matter” out of his butt, with no rational explanation for its existence except that it helps preserve a pet theory intact that would otherwise be ripped to shreds, then why can’t I say that I’ve looked at the universe with a scientific approach, and I have demonstrated to myself beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists?  I’m not trying to make anyone else accept the existence of God on the basis of my subjective experience...but why do atheists apply a more rigorous standard to the evidence of God than they do to nearly everything else they encounter in the universe?  Including something as basic and pervasive as gravity.

Let me put it another way: I freely admit I may try to think outside the box too often and too far, but that doesn’t mean I have forgotten the box is there.  The universe is a complex, deep, amazing place, and I’m absolutely certain we’ve barely scratched the surface of our knowledge of it.  The pace of scientific discovery are increasing at a pace that I’m convinced most of the theories we accept to be basically true right now will probably all be proven false within our lifetime.  They all work as good working theories to live our lives by, but it would be folly to assume any of it is Truth.

Andy,
You’re wrong, I actually am not convinced I’m right about any of the theories we have touched upon.  I might just abandon my faith tomorrow (unlikely, but absolutely possible) if one inconvenient fact removes a cornerstone.  However, I am convinced that my thought process is correct; I am approaching science and faith in the proper manner: with an open mind.  If you want to try to convince me to close my mind toward faith and God, then you are correct: you cannot convince me to close my mind to the possibilities of the Divine, and the probabilities that all the explanations we currently have will prove to be insufficient.

That’s why I feel I am in the same mold as Newton and Einstein and Galileo, et al.  I may not have chosen to be a research scientist, I may not be able to contribute to the body of science, because I’ve chosen another path for my life.  But I’m not satisfied to swallow and regurgitate basic facts; I want to know why, and I’m intelligent enough to find problems in things other people take for granted.  I want to push the envelope of understanding for everyone.  I freely admit that perhaps I’m not intelligent enough to understand the answers...but I doubt it.  It is equally possible that I haven’t articulated my objections clearly enough.

Synergy
Hard on the heels of the two related discussions going on at Zomby's is this brief article on the efficacy of common sense. He doesn't go into it nearly deeply enough, I think, but it does make this extremely, well,...

poker
poker play casino games online casinos play casino games blackjack play casino games