Intelligent Design makes more sense than BioLogos

@bill_wald,

You lost me, sir. I’m not sure I’m following your line of discussion?

Did you mean to respond to something I wrote?

1 Like

Not specifically. Some people think that this universe is not a 'stand alone" physical entity and everything would disappear if God stopped micro-managing the universe.

I am more concerned (?) about “The Matrix” than discussions of Christian theology. There is no logical way to dispute the possibility that we are all not living in some future kids’ computer project.

But your kid hasn’t created his project yet, since he’s in the future. So we’re safe for now.

2 Likes

@bill_wald, if you are more concerned about such things, and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying, I think you are ready for a completely different blogosphere … you have graduated past BioLogos.

And I commend you for knowing this about yourself.

1 Like

By Jove - Bill is right! We think we may be living in a simulation - but it’s all an illusion! We only _think _ we’re thinking we’re in a simulation. One day we’ll wake up and realise it was actually a simulation of a dream, and we only thought we were thinking we thought we were in a simulation.

4 Likes

Or it could be more like what this physicist describes in a powerpoint presentation featured in this thread …

When did that become a criterion of for the practice of “real science”?

@fmiddel

Because there is no rival theory for the age of the Earth that qualifies as valid science!

Somewhere around 1785.

2 Likes

Besides, the sciences are integrated. You can’t just break off disciplines you don’t like. This is very well illustrated in that ID debate I linked to.

1 Like

But can this request meet it’s own criteria? Can we post peer reviewed scientific literature that shows we are only allowed to engage in ideas that come from scientific literature?

It seems to me that it is a philosophical argument intended to limit discussion to naturalism. This by definition excludes questions of intentionality, and strikes me as closer to scientism.

Crime scene investigations always must determine if the evidence indicates natural causes or intentional action. So it is quite valid to use science to help answer this question.

Am I missing something here? Am I wrong to ask that this request be judged by its own standard and found wanting?

@Marty,

Would you be in favor of every city in America collecting additional taxes to fund a law enforcement department whose scope of responsibility was to determine whether or not every death was caused by either God or Aliens?

Would you feel any better about such a department as long as they don’t have to specify which of the two, God or Aliens, may have been involved… just as long as they could narrow it down to:

“Definitely caused by God or Aliens” vs. “Definitely Not Caused by God or Aliens”?

1 Like

@gbrooks9 lol! Cute. I think the final conviction would depend on if the jury was Francis Collins or Francis Crick!

1 Like

@Marty

Do you think science is capable of distinguishing between rains caused by the workings of the water cycle versus rains caused by God?

1 Like

If I understand correctly, my new friend George Brooks might say that the water cycle and “caused by God” are the same thing. :slight_smile:

But no, science is not capable of distinguishing between these.

1 Like

Well in this case we don’t actually need to.

Nope. There are several issues here.

  1. ID itself claims that the fundamental idea of ID (the “designer”), does not say anything theological about the identity of the designer. So according to ID, its claims can be tested perfectly well using the scientific method, and even by applying methodological naturalism.

  2. ID itself claims that ID can b tested using the scientific method, and attempts to use the scientific method to justify its claims, while adhering to methodological naturalism. So according to ID, its claims can be tested perfectly well using the scientific method, and even by applying methodological naturalism.

  3. Methodological naturalism practiced in science does not preclude at all the possibility of an intelligent designer for a specific phenomenon. It does not preclude intentionality at all. So according to science, ID’s claims can be tested perfectly well using the scientific method, and even by applying methodological naturalism.

Exactly, and both IDers and non-ID scientists agree on this. This is why the fundamental premise of ID is scientifically testable, as long as IDers can present a falsifiable hypothesis.

You’re missing the fact that this request, when judged by its own standard, is not found wanting.

1 Like

I agree with you Darius: I saw this verse on a church billboard in TN the other day out from Ps 147:5 It says, “Great is our Lord and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.” 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! To be fully engaged towards science first and theology second to me is nothing more than putting man first and God second and God does not take second. Christian faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God!

The other day upon being told by an evolutionist that two rabbit sub-species “evolved” from what was speculated from what i will call the mother rabbit letter “A” and these two rabbit sub-species could not mate and reproduce with one another, yet the “mother” rabbit was still able to mate with them…and this proves common decent evolution. A stretch I thought…And when I quizzed the person presenting the theory about the difficulty I had with the fact that these rabbit offshoots actually lost genetic information and thereby were devolving and becoming less capable to survive their environments in which they were placed, thus being a major flaw in the evolutionary theory, I heard mainly silence…And then from only one other person who said that the rabbit was still able to gain genetic ability via mutation for survival! I could not believe my ears! This is what I would call straining out a scientific gnat while swallowing a camel (No disrespect to God’s Word for adapting this phrase meant to describe concepts of spiritual pride and hypocrisy) Isn’t placing one’s focus on mutation for evolution which might be suggested (albeit unreasonably so) requires millions of years while ignoring de-evolution in plain sight that can cause extinction of a rabbit in a matter of hundreds of years more a lean on secular philosophy than science?

So as I continued to think about this. We see a wolf dog with millions of genetic possibilities to adapt wrapped up in their code where they lose genetic information when they adapt towards a certain environment. This process of genetic information loss is devolution. And one wants me to believe that the wolf dog with those million possibilities in their genetic code came via mutation? And remember- if you don’t call it mutation, then you have completely and totally abandoned common decent theistic evolution to be replaced with intelligent design.

And if you are so willing, and believe like I do that our God who is indeed immeasureable and who was powerful enough to raise dead people who were rotting in the grave back to life must also be capable to speciate the planet in timeframes He saw fit and potentially short timeframes, then that intelligent design proponent just became much more in line with all of those young earth creationists that they had despised all these years!

Ultimately, I frankly find it must more difficult to reason how such a magnificent Creator who paved a way for human kind to be saved from their sins by Himself taking their form as a human being while remaining God and sacrificing himself for our crimes than reasoning Him creating all we see today in days or even seconds! That God by definition is tremendously unreasonable to the finite mind of man and this is why I believe in this One and Only God and not some explainable one from all of the other man made religions out there. And God did what I consider unreasonable in sending His Son to the cross on our behalf anyway because He is not only incredible and not only just, but He indeed loves us with a love more than we have ever experienced this side of heaven!

Agree with you entirely on this, and hope this holy week brings you peace and joy, as we repent yet celebrate the resurrection.
But, it really is not dependent on whether or not evolution is a valid conclusion when you look at creation. That dependence on man’s particular interpretation is something we need to wary of, no matter which side of the fence you are on.

Blessings in your celebration of our Savior as well!

That seems like an arbitrary kind of catch-all. What if they’re suggesting a hypothesis for, say, a cure for the common cold based on ID? “Not valid” because they cannot agree on the age of the earth?

Quick google search to make my point:

John C. Stanford “and colleagues developed the ‘Biolistic Particle Delivery System’ or so-called ‘gene gun’. He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.”

Not real science because he believes in a young earth?

I could probably find a dozen similar examples, but I think my point is made: generalizations are always wrong.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.