Intelligent Design = evolution without a commitment to materialism

[Gup20]

ID is evolution without an a priori committment to materialism. I find it silly and compelling that evolutionists continue to attack ID as religion when ID has far more in common with evolution than with creation. In fact, the only difference between the science of ID and the science of evolution is the commitment to materialistic causes and conclusions.

What's more, those here who claim to be evolutionists are in a logical predicament. They are committed to a belief system that - by definition - does not allow for an immaterial source to life. Moreover, they are committed to a belief system that does not allow for immaterial influence over the material realm. They are - by choice - humanists who claim to believe in God, but deny his role as creator.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

These humanistic materialists (evolutionists) have changed the word of God into a lie, and proposed materialistic causes for things God tells us in his Word that He performed himself supernatually.

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[just-want-peace]

BULLS EYE!!!!

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Gup20:
What's more, those here who claim to be evolutionists are in a logical predicament. They are committed to a belief system that - by definition - does not allow for an immaterial source to life. Moreover, they are committed to a belief system that does not allow for immaterial influence over the material realm. They are - by choice - humanists who claim to believe in God, but deny his role as creator.

False witness. You know better.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Gup20:
I find it silly and compelling that evolutionists continue to attack ID as religion when ID has far more in common with evolution than with creation.

Even BJU attacks ID, as being both bad religion and as not being science. (though I suspect that they attack it mostly because it does not conform with their published cirricula).

The problem is that ID is not based on the scientific method. It's based on philosophy. I have no problem with it being taught in a philosophical setting, even if some view it as bad philosophy. I likewise have no problem with evolution being taught in the scientific setting, even if some view it as bad science. Creation, should most definitely be taught in the pholisiphocal setting, because it is, imo, good philosophy.

[ November 03, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Gup20:
ID is evolution without an a priori committment to materialism.

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. The supernatural is the perview of religion - which is why ID is religion and not science.

I find it silly and compelling that evolutionists continue to attack ID as religion when ID has far more in common with evolution than with creation.

No, ID is just gussied up Creationism. Name one advancement in scientific knowledge which has come from research into ID...it's been around for a couple of decades now, so surely, if it were valid science, something would have come of it.

In fact, the only difference between the science of ID and the science of evolution is the commitment to materialistic causes and conclusions.

Correction: one of the many differences between the religion of
ID and the science of evolutionary theory is the commitment to materialistic causes and conclusions - that is true of all science. Science starts with observations, accumulates evidence and culminates in a theory while religion starts with the Ultimate Cause and works backwords to make the evidence fit the conclusion.

What's more, those here who claim to be evolutionists are in a logical predicament.

Well, that there is a problem. Very few people here "claim" to be "evolutionists". More often, that is a term applied to them by others who don't understand that evolution is not a belief system with morals, philosopy and values but a material fact and a system of accecpted theories which explain the evidence.

They are committed to a belief system that - by definition - does not allow for an immaterial source to life. Moreover, they are committed to a belief system that does not allow for immaterial influence over the material realm. They are - by choice - humanists who claim to believe in God, but deny his role as creator.

The theory of evolution does not address creation, it is about speciation and the change of populations over time.

These humanistic materialists (evolutionists) have changed the word of God into a lie, and proposed materialistic causes for things God tells us in his Word that He performed himself supernatually.

We also insist that the earth revolves around the sun and turns on its own axis.

Some people prefer to embrace ignorance and proclaim it all a mystery; others prefer to discover why and how.

 

[James Flagg]

Originally posted by Daisy:

. . .Some people prefer to embrace ignorance and proclaim it all a mystery; others prefer to discover why and how.

Bingo.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Gup20:
What's more, those here who claim to be evolutionists are in a logical predicament. They are committed to a belief system that - by definition - does not allow for an immaterial source to life. Moreover, they are committed to a belief system that does not allow for immaterial influence over the material realm. They are - by choice - humanists who claim to believe in God, but deny his role as creator

I'm so glad I have you around to tell me what I think!

My response to these type of statements is always the same: "Except we aren't, so that can't be right."

I also wonder why this is in the Science forum.

 

[The Galatian]

As they say, there's a big difference between YE creationism and Christianity.

False witness is pretty much all they have left to attack science.

 

[jcrawford]

All I can say at this point is that evolution is a commitment to material design without any sign of intelligence.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
All I can say at this point is that evolution is a commitment to material design without any sign of intelligence.

You know, you've almost got it there. You've got some extra baggage in that word "commitment" that doesn't go with science, but you are not far from the scientific point of view.

Personally, I don't think science has all the answers. I prefer to include theology and philosophy for some of my answers, and there, I find lots of room for "intelligent design".

 

[Gup20]

The problem is that ID is not based on the scientific method. It's based on philosophy.

Evolution has this same problem. Both evolution and Intelligent design are forensic sciences. This means that 'they were not observed', but the processes were approximated after the fact. The Bible claims to be the Word of God. It also claims that God was there before the earth was created - and that He is the one who created the earth. Therefore, if you take the Bible to be true, you must conclude that the Bible is the written record of the One witness who observed the beginning of time and space. It seems, therefore, that creation is more 'scientific' (based upon observation) since the Bible is a written record of that observation. Intelligent Design and evolution both provide forensic possibilities of what 'probably' happened based upon forensic (aka unobserved - assumptive) evidence. Moreover, evolution is committed to material (natural) causes and conclusions. Any evidence that is not material is abandon with prejudice. Additionally, unobserved and assumptive evidence which is material is accepted based upon the need to fill gaps, and the fact that it is material rather than possibility or likelihood. That isn't science.

Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. The supernatural is the perview of religion - which is why ID is religion and not science.

So you are aware of an observation where life has happened spontaneously from non-life? If not, then you must assume that life came from non-life - otherwise evolution cannot begin. If there is no beginning, there is no evolution. However, you accept by faith that there was a material beginning. Sounds supernatural to me. Moreover, you accept that one animal evolved into another in an upward trend of information. Again, this has not been observed, so it is science fiction rather than science fact. However, this process would have had to happen billions upon billions of times. Your belief in the process is based again on faith rather than fact. You believe once again in the supernatural.

No, ID is just gussied up Creationism.

It is definately NOT creationism. Perhaps one of the MOST important and primary beliefs of creationism is a young earth. ID does not hold this belief. Moreover, ID is forensic and does not take the Bible into consideration. This is also integral to creationism. ID is simply not dedicated to materialistic causes and conclusions. Moreover, ID would support Christianity, Islam, Buddha, or that life originated from the Klingon High Council equally. It does not confer any special privilage to christianity over any other immaterial cause or conclusion (although real science does).

Name one advancement in scientific knowledge which has come from research into ID...it's been around for a couple of decades now, so surely, if it were valid science, something would have come of it.

Your implication is that without an a priori committment to materialism, science cannot be advanced. Creationist Isaac Newton would disagree with you.

The theory of evolution does not address creation, it is about speciation and the change of populations over time.

See the article Definitions slippery as eels.

What you are really promoting is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

However, many many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

However, many of them are simply examples of change over time, so are not disputed by creationists. But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

1. All living things reproduce.

2. Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.

3. Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.

4. There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …

5. Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
All I can say at this point is that evolution is a commitment to material design without any sign of intelligence.

You know, you've almost got it there. You've got some extra baggage in that word "commitment" that doesn't go with science, but you are not far from the scientific point of view.

Personally, I don't think science has all the answers. I prefer to include theology and philosophy for some of my answers, and there, I find lots of room for "intelligent design". </font>[/QUOTE]Don't leave out evolutionary psychology. It is useful for seeing evolution as an intelligently designed theory by intelligent "evolutionary scientists" whose counterparts in real science intelligently design new products all the time.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Don't leave out evolutionary psychology. It is useful for seeing evolution as an intelligently designed theory by intelligent "evolutionary scientists" whose counterparts in real science intelligently design new products all the time.

Sorry, JC, your alternate universe of mental concepts is so different from mine that I cannot parse this sentence. Please rephrase.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gup20:
What's more, those here who claim to be evolutionists are in a logical predicament. They are committed to a belief system that - by definition - does not allow for an immaterial source to life. Moreover, they are committed to a belief system that does not allow for immaterial influence over the material realm. They are - by choice - humanists who claim to believe in God, but deny his role as creator.

Nature is like God's own painting - the direct product of His own mind and His own handiwork.

The athiest is "obligated" to see the picture and declare "it shows no intelligence at all behind it for there is no painter!". As flawed as their logic is - it is easy to see "Why" they must do it so they can still be atheist!

But why do Christians do it?

They are like one who finds a painting AND admits to the painter but then shouts out - "This painting makes the painter look like he is without a brain - not a trace of thought, intelligence of any kind can be seen in his work on this painting"!

The Christian evolutionist denying ID must make a far bigger blunder than the atheist!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The problem is that ID is not based on the scientific method. It's based on philosophy.

PAtently false.

It is like saying that the science of forensics in determining "who did this" is based on "philosophy not science".

If we were so faithful as to "admit" for a second that The Creator actually DID what He SAID that HE DID -- then the FACT of history becomes HIS action in REAL nature, the REAL universe.

Discovering REAL activity in the REAL universe is not simply a matter of "philosophy".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the "blind faith" of the evolutionist --

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

Looking for a recent example of the pseudoscience of evolutionism employing “Stories easy enough to make up” that are “not science” when it comes to lizard-to-bird stories? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
In the link above the question is asked

In what other area of science do we encounter such embarrassing forgeries as Haeckel’s “human gill slits,” England’s Piltdown Man, or China’s Archaeoraptor? It seems that all too often someone is prepared to make an outlandish claim—and back it up with what turns out to be “faked” evidence.

The pseudoscience authored by the “father of lies” has built into the core of its being “lies and deceit” masked as sincere atheist speculation to service their need for a non-god solution to origins!

The clear lesson of history is that the myths and fables of evolutionism only survive in the gray fog of uncertainty and speculation where science is not yet able to validate, certify, confirm, test, reproduce, measure facts and separate them from the bogus fiction of that “bad religion” we know as evolutionism.

But once the data is actually collected and the “full light of day is shining” the result is to erode more and more of the vast territory of speculation staked out by evolutionism’s priesthood.

David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.

"By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated." in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:

Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments. There is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].

Notice in the above quote - that what Colin Patterson calls “Stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” is euphemistically called “thought experiments” by Gould and Eldredge!

"How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.)"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Poor Bob. He keeps looking for the silver bullet quote that will kill the bad bad theory of evolution. Sorry, no single quote from anybody will ever do that, Bob.

Especially if you don't even get what the quotee is really trying to say.

Take the quote about Archaeopteryx. Because only one out of millions and millions of creatures actually fossilize, we know that Archaeopteryx is only representative of other species that were similar and did not happen to fossilize. All modern birds would have been from either Archaeopteryx or one of the other, unrepresented species. We can't tell which, there is no way of telling. That's all the quote was saying.

Somehow, this translates, in your mind, to evidence against evolution. It is not.

Its as if we found no fossils of wolves but we found, instead, a fossil of a german shepherd. And we said the ancestor of all dogs was like that, but we couldn't say for sure. (with more information, of course, we can say for sure the german shepherd is merely one of the offsprings of the wolves).

The horse series is exactly the same phenomenon. Evolutionary trees are a very nice thing to know but how can we know every detail of the tree without having every living creature? And we cannot have every living creature, part of the glory of God's nature is how He designed it all so that the creatures that die are decomposed and their elements again used in the great web of life. So the discovery of more branches than we knew about before is not a killer for the idea of evolution, it is a vindication of the idea of evolution. Suppose the only horse we knew were zebras and ponies. We might then say that the pony came from a zebra like animal. Then let us learn about regular horses, well, of course, this is a more viable candidate for the ancestor of ponies.

Sorry, the discovery of additional lines within the horse family is not evidence against evolution!

And the crack about feathers - dated 1985! Do you know there is some more recent work on feathers? That feathers have been found on dinosaur fossils, showing that the linkage of dinosaur to bird is more firmly established?

You've got to stop using these older quotes. They get outdated so quickly.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] Poor Bob. He keeps looking for the silver bullet quote that will kill the bad bad theory of evolution. Sorry, no single quote from anybody will ever do that, Bob.

Obfuscation and misdirection Paul? How surprising? How "unnexpected"!


The point remains.

The atheist must declare that the "painter does not exist" -- and so when he finds the painting he is "obligated" to turn a blind eye to the intelligence of the painter reflected in the Painting!

We can hardly blame the poor atheist evolutionist for turning a blind eye to the evidence - for clinging to evolutionism either as pseudoscience or at worst "bad religion".

He has no other choice!

But what about the Christian evolutionist? HE must confess that the painter exists AND that the painter PAINTED the painting. But then HE must jump in the pit with the atheist and claim that the painting gives us no clue as to one moment of thought, design or genius being exerted on the part of the PAINTER!

The Christian evolutionist's bogus postion is a blunder that is glaringly obvious to BOTH Bible believing Christians AND to the dedicated atheist evolutionists alike!!

The point remains.


As for the "Self confession" in the quotes above where Atheists THEMSELVES admit to THEIR OWN use of "Stories easy enough to tell" and "Thought experiments" in their pseudoscience of evolutionism -- that too is glaringly obvious.

And -- we can all read it in the text.

(That last part always comes as a surprise to evolutionists!!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul said
Take the quote about Archaeopteryx. Because only one out of millions and millions of creatures actually fossilize, we know that Archaeopteryx is only representative of other species that were similar and did not happen to fossilize. All modern birds would have been from either Archaeopteryx or one of the other, unrepresented species. We can't tell which, there is no way of telling. That's all the quote was saying.

Somehow, this translates, in your mind, to evidence against evolution. It is not.

What a great "story" Paul! Nice going!

Now back to the point of the quote.

The first part deals with the METHODS USED by evolutionists to spin "Stories easy enough to tell" AS IF they are fact, as IF they are science --

--------------------------------------

So what is the truth about Archaeopteryx? Perhaps the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

Looking for a recent example of the pseudoscience of evolutionism employing “Stories easy enough to make up” that are “not science” when it comes to lizard-to-bird stories? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp
In the link above the question is asked

In what other area of science do we encounter such embarrassing forgeries as Haeckel’s “human gill slits,” England’s Piltdown Man, or China’s Archaeoraptor? It seems that all too often someone is prepared to make an outlandish claim—and back it up with what turns out to be “faked” evidence.

The pseudoscience authored by the “father of lies” has built into the core of its being “lies and deceit” masked as sincere atheist speculation to service their need for a non-god solution to origins!
---------------------------------

And of course the GLARING example SHOWS the METHOD being exposed here in real everyday use!!

In this case we see the bogus list of frauds EVEN including the recent one with Archaeopteryx.

This is EXACTLY the mehtods we would "espect" to be employed by such a pseudoscience!

The QUESTION that the article asks -- is never addressed in your post Paul.

How "unnexpected".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"How [feathers] arose initially, presumably from reptiles scales, defies analysis... It seems, from the complex construction of feathers, that their evolution from reptilian scales would have required an immense period of time and involved a series of intermediate structures. So far, the fossil record does not bear out that supposition. (Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, Dover, 1985, pp. 349-350.)"

</font>[/QUOTE]But Wait a minute! Those "Suppositions" were passed off as "fact!" Not "Suppositions"!!

Those "Stories easy enough to tell" Were sold to the public AS THOUGH they were "science".

What more could we have expected from the pseudoscience we call "Evolutionism"?

And the predictable results of those blunders? You guessed it -- "a positive embarrassment" for team "Evolutionism".