So youre positing that God set that asteroid on a specific path so that it would hit the earth and end the dinosaurs so that mammals and ultimately man could develop? What is the difference between that direct divine intervention and ID ideas?
2 Likes
I dont quite follow your argument. I think many would disagree with your rather simple definition of intelligence. But the ID argument is, as I understand it, that the universe requires an intelligent being to exist in the first place, and that also appears to be the case for life itself and certain features of living organisms. Indeed your own example of AI requires a creator, in this case intelligent human beings! If AI ālearnsā it is only because its creator has built that into the system the intelligent human being has designed.
that is how I understand evolution - the mechanisms themselves have been designed by God such that life would develop, ultimately leading to human beings. But that does not mean that God has not intervened in some direct way to ensure that end result, just as you seem to believe he intervened in a direct way with an asteroid.
1 Like
But thats the issue. IDers would argue evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient to explain everything we now see, and that some of it cannot be explained by small step by step changes, ie there is a limit to what evolution as we understand it can actually do.
1 Like
I donāt see how slight negatives could build up to become problematic while at the same time not building up so the deleterious detritus remains below the threshold selection can see. This seems like claiming that halving a positive number enough times will ā once the numbers get tiny enough ā eventually lead to a negative number. But Iām no scientist, and Iām sure someone who is could respond better to that.
But leaving that aside, itās worth noting that this is an argument against microevolution. It disputes the viability of evolution at the smallest scale: mutations whose effects are too close to neutral to move the needle of natural selection. Yet most YECs are adamant that microevolution is good science. It is Godās designed way to enable organisms to adapt to changing environments, particularly the catastrophic changes the post-Fall environments brought, all while remaining within their ākindā. If this argument were true, it would suggest a major shortcoming of this design. Apparently, microevolution only allows adaptation for a short time, while in the long term it draws each kind to extinction.
If that were the case, it would be especially alarming for organisms with much faster generation times. Mosquitoes churn through as many generations in 6,000 years as humans go through in 2 million. If this argument were true, they should be feeling genetically geriatric by now. The good news for mosquitoes ā and yeast, bacteria and countless others ā is that this argument is false, and their genomes remain quite virile. And, despite the stings, this turns out to be good news for the rest of us living on an old earth, too. It seems that evolution is not so flawed after all.
1 Like
You should look into epistasis:
Why would it need to? You havenāt shown that the accumulation of these nearly neutral deleterious mutations are a problem. In fact, comparative genomics demonstrate that they arenāt a problem, as shown by the 85% similarity between mouse and human exons and a 35% similarity between introns of the same species. Whatever slight deleterious effects they may have it isnāt a problem for life.
Denial isnāt much of a scientific argument.
A good place for them to start would be the chimp and human genomes. Perhaps they could point out which genetic differences they claim could not be achieved by known and observed natural processes.
1 Like
The path of gravitational bodies in a system of 3 or more bodies involves chaotic dynamics and thus quantum physics in which there are no hidden variables within the scientific worldview. Therefore there is ample room for divine manipulation without breaking any of the laws of nature.
ID claims that the theory of evolution does not work. This is wrong. The manipulation of external events doesnāt alter this any more than breeding plants and animals. The difference is between a designer who creates machines and a shepherd or farmer who is involved in the creation of living things.
What argument? What donāt you follow? Some things you say suggests you are imagining an argument I am not making.
Of course, people disagree on just about anything let alone something as poorly understood and defined as intelligence.
The point is that according to what has always looked like intelligence (ability to play strategy games well or to design devices well) computers can do better than we can simply by following programs with learning and evolutionary algorithms. We think we see intelligent design in living organisms but now we know they are a product of evolution. All this suggests to me that intelligence and intelligent design is not so remarkable or particularly human let alone indicative of divinity.
The evidence does not agree with such claims at all. I may believe that God had a role in the design of the universe and the laws of nature but the word ārequiresā is greatly overstating things. And I donāt think the nature of life is consistent with design at all.
That is the difference between living things and machines.
What mechanisms? If you mean the laws of nature then that is my belief also. If you mean that God conceived the idea of the life process and designed the universe to make that possible then I also agree. But life is a process of self-organization and evolution is an example of this ā not a mechanism but the learning process of life.
People like Meyer have given examples, but of course evolutionists have disagreed.
If such references exist it would make for great opening post in a new thread.
āThe path of gravitational bodies in a system of 3 or more bodies involves chaotic dynamics and thus quantum physics in which there are no hidden variables within the scientific worldview. Therefore there is ample room for divine manipulation without breaking any of the laws of nature.ā
Tbh im not sure what you mean by this. If you mean physicists fully understand the quantum world then that isnt true. The dead horse of string theory is still being beaten despite no real supporting evidence. Arguments continue. Noone really understands gravity. Time even less. Quantum mechanics seems to be based on probabilities. Are you saying its ok for God to, as it were, weight the dice to ensure a particular outcome? But he doesnt do the same with ālife processesā? You do realise that photosynthesis, one of the key processes/mechanisms of life on earth, is governed by quantum mechanics?
As for āmachinesā some would argue living organisms behave as machines at the molecular level. I tend to agree now that we can actually physically see the mechanisms involved.
'What mechanisms? ā
I was referring to those processes by which we are told evolution works.
āBut life is a process of self-organization and evolution is an example of this ā not a mechanism but the learning process of life.ā
ālearningā implies intelligence!
2 Likes
But if God used it for the development of life, with humans being apparently the pinacle of that development, does that in itself not show purpose? Did He not ensure that we would be a result?
2 Likes
And yet you believe God created evolution. Is that simply a faith statement? Or is there evidence for it?
1 Like
Yes, it is a faith statement. I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God, or his involvement and direction in nature. That doesnāt mean I think there isnāt evidence for it ā just not evidence that would be admissible in the scientific process.
3 Likes
Im slightly confused. If there is evidence for His working in nature but it is not scientifically admissible, could you list the main elements of that evidence?
1 Like
Those may vary from person to person, but I believe the world was designed by God because of what I see around me, and the way that humans search for meaning and hope, as well as by what is communicated to us through scripture. I consider that āevidenceā in the sense that itās convincing to me, but it wouldnāt be something I could use as scientific proof.
3 Likes
Ok, but surely āwhat I see around meā is the physical world which is subject to scientific investigation? What you seem to be saying is that the world has the appearance of design rather than purely random processes, hence your belief that it has a Designer. But there must be specific reasons why you see such design in the physical earth. Im just trying to understand the consistency of yours and othersā views.
1 Like
What @Laura says makes sense to me. Scientific evidence is a very specific type of evidence and is a subset of all possible evidence. It is entirely possible for someone to have personal and subjective evidence that convinces them that something is true without having scientific evidence to support that conclusion. People are convinced by different types of evidence, and thatās ok. I may not be convinced by subjective or personal evidence, but it is entirely human to be convinced by that type of evidence. All that we can ask is that people be honest about the type of evidence they are using, which is exactly what Laura is doing.
3 Likes
We are probably talking about two different things. The purpose lies with God, not with evolution. Evolution is just a tool. Now, the question I see is whether God intervenes in evolution. ID would say yes. I donāt know. I think perhaps there are some barriers God had to push us over, but maybe not. Maybe it is like a roller coaster. The track is engineered and built, energy is added to get to the top, then it runs to arrive at the loading platform after ups and downs and twists and turns.
Iām not sure what you mean by this. If you mean Christians fully understand God or the Bible then that isnāt true. You do realize that the ink used to print Bibles is not always the same chemical formula.
Yes!!! The difference between living organisms and machines is not what they are made of but how they come about. Machines are a product of design and construction. Living things are a product of such self-organizing processes as growth, learning, and evolution. We are rapidly approaching the time when we will make things using the same stuff that living organisms are made of and the result will not be living organisms, but machines.
Computer programs can learn and do it so well they end up teaching us how to do better on things we have been working on for centuries. Intelligence is not a signpost to humanity let alone divinity. It is basic, and for this reason the intelligent design we see in living organisms do not point to God but to basic processes in nature which we have learned to imitate in our computer programs.
Evolution is just one of the self-organizing processes of life. Living organisms choose their own purpose. Life is the antithesis of design and control. Godās creation of life shows that God chose love and freedom over power and control. We are not tools made for an end, but children made as an end in itself.
1 Like
Yeah, @T_aquaticus explained it well ā some evidence that we experience is more personal and not subject to scientific investigation, but that doesnāt mean it isnāt real or isnāt used as evidence for many people. I just donāt want to make it sound like belief in God is somehow completely devoid of evidence ā it is there, but it is not really in the realm of what can be investigated scientifically.
2 Likes