Intelligent Design makes more sense than BioLogos

[quote=“grog, post:206, topic:35483”]
So many scientists want folks to agree with the age of the earth being 4 point something billion years yet these same are unwilling to contend that the one and only God who is POWERFUL and created may be cause for an incapability in science to determine an age or for science to reason a model on how He brought life on earth!
[/quote]I don’t know any scientists who think that. Of course God can do what he likes, including obfuscating our attempts to understand him. The question, as we often reiterate, is not what God could do, but what he actually did do, and what he actually did was to derive all his living creation from common ancestry. This seems to me so much cleverer, so much more powerful, so much more magnificent than poking about here and there with sporadic spontaneous creation that I embrace it as a manifestation of his creative imagination with enthusiastic delight!

1 Like


You are most astute! And a man of some fortitude I might say as well, for you do not flinch from stating the clear facts about rain.

Indeed, I would say that the “water cycle” and “caused by God” are the same! And I would extend this dual-application to a great many things, including things that some might think miraculous.

Armed with this capacity to see the natural world in two ways (natural and divinely arranged), what set of facts or observations leads you to think that there are some categories of the natural world in which science could detect the presence of Divine action (differently than from the example of rain)?

I can safely assume that you think some divine actions are detectable as such by science?


I don’t believe you are reading my statement as I intended it. My point is not that Young Earther’s can’t be scientists. My point was that you can’t turn YEC-itself into a science if you have to jettison all the science for Old Earth to do it!

Okay, but I’m sure there is science that ID could strive to do without depending on the age of the Earth. Besides which, no movement (scientific or otherwise) is homogenous. So some ID scientists certainly are “old earth.” Again, generalizations.

The ID scientists that are Old Earth are the closest ones to making ID into science.

It doesn’t do much good for the YEC’s. All power to the Old Earther I.D. folks!

No, it’s not science because it’s technology. [sarcastic comment removed by moderator]

Also, his name is Sanford.


Well done. Don’t know the guy. Just pretty well googled some scientists that were young earth. Does that mean you get an extra point?

A post was split to a new topic: Can you prove of common descent, disprove God created “kinds” (spin-off)


I hope this isn’t a posting about me, because it doesn’t sound like anything you and I ever discussed to such a level of detail.

Firstly, you are attempting to divert attention away from Common Descent by throwing in this foolishness about “losing information”. So before we explore “losing information”, do you finally admit the Case of the 3 Rabbit Populations shows common descent?

Secondly, how does one quantify “losing genetic information”? One population of rabbits has gained the ability to live in really cold weather, and the other population has gained the ability to live in really hot weather. Sounds like both populations have “gained” something, in exchange for something else.

Is an amphibian a fish that has lost the information to live underwater? Is a whale a mammal who has lost the information to live on land? This is a bizarre red herring, that only Creationists Scientists ever bring up.

And a final note: if God is behind evolution, why would you be so certain that no new information can be added to the process? it is God, after all.

No, the problem is you’re avoiding the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether ID is science. It isn’t science until IDers are actually doing science with ID. ID doesn’t magically become science just because some IDers do scientific work which is entirely unrelated to ID, any more than astrology becomes science just because an astrologer might come up with a scientific theory which is entirely unrelated to astrology.



I’m more interested in arguments like this with the sterngth of the arguments (beause they can be applied to more important matters): I am personally convinced for many reasons that the earth is old and species changed over time.

But your argument here is astonishingly circular: having rejected the use of arguments of what God “would” do in favour of what he “did” do, you resolve the point in dispute (the age of the earth) by a blank assertion in favour of an old earth and common ancestry, and justify it it on the basis that that is what God would do in order to be cleverer, more powerful and more magnificent by human standards.

It occurs to me that the scientific challenge is to do without any subjective theological arguments - incredibly different when it’s tried. The theological challenge is to justify ones science from revealed Scripture - that’s actually not such a tough challenge, but requires a lot more precision.

No his argument isn’t circular. It’s entirely rational. It goes like this.

  1. Instead of making arguments over what God would do (or could have done), we need to start with what He actually has done.

  2. There is indisputable evidence for what He has done (age of the earth common descent). These facts are only “disputed” in the same way that global warming and the shape of the earth are “disputed”. This is not a “blank assertion”, it is an acknowledgment of facts which have been established through overwhelming evidence.

He then comments that to him this would seem more clever, powerful, and magnificent than poking about here and there with sporadic spontaneous creation". That is an opinion he expresses on the basis of established facts. It is not a premise in his argument, and is not a statement he uses to assert those facts.


Perhaps my answer was a bit trite! Nevertheless, it is rarely the evolutionist who declares that he understands the nature of God better than everybody else, and Jonathan’s response reflects my attitude entirely. The evidence of the world around me, which I joyously assert to be the work of a supreme creator, supports an evolutionary creative process so much more strongly than it supports a spontaneously creative one that I think that that is how he goes about it. Having embraced that, it also seems to me that there is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Compared to which spontaneous apparitions look like cheap conjuring tricks.


@Hugh_Farey I see how you argue for grandeur in your view, but don’t agree that there is less grandeur in continual creativity. Continual creativity provides a deeper ontology for our own creative processes. The Image of God is seen when we are building day by day. That is beautiful to me. It seems to me that humans would be less like God in your view. So the argument of “grandeur” is interesting, but either way God did it, front-loaded or on-going, there is astonishing grandeur.

@Jonathan_Burke I’m not getting why ID can’t use science (hopefully using it well), that it must be science. The requirement that it be science by definition excludes detection of intentionality. That requirement looks to me like scientism. But since scientism itself cannot be justified by science, the requirement fails its own rule.

I return to my CSI analogy, that in ID, science is used to detect intentionality, not to prove it.

Is your concern that you think ID proponents claim that it is science rather than uses science? This could hinge on what the definition of “is” is. :grin:

Entirely fair. The majesty of God’s creation will appear differently to different people; my view is just how it seems to me, but I certainly won’t deny you yours.

[filler to satisfy software]

1 Like

You should put Darwin’s wonderful words in quotation marks.

It looks like the post may have been truncated, but the question is fair by itself.

Intentionality is evidenced typically by unique events, which are not themselves reproducible, certainly not scientifically repeatable. However it may leave behind evidence, including scientifically detectable or verifiable evidence, allowing us to recognize that “a person did something here.” Does that help?

Science doesn’t exclude intentionality. Archaeology certainly involves intentionality, as it studies artifacts all the time. But when scientists find, say, hand axes, they try to identify the people who made them. The problem is that the ID community doesn’t want to answer questions about God the Intelligent Designer.