I would consider myself a Linguistic-Scientist and enjoy the microevolution of human languages and speech patterns. I do not intend to offend any of you for your belief in Theistic Evolution; on the contrary, God could have used any method to create the universe. However, after much study I have come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design Creationism. I do not believe in common ancestry or macroevolution. I have never seen a human being give birth to a monkey, or a cat become a dog. In my opinion,what Charles Darwin saw was what I would call creationist microevolution. Microevolution resulted in the various races in the human species. I believe in Adam and Eve even though it is possible that our Lord Jesus created other humans at the same time. The finches that Darwin observed in the islands in the Pacific Ocean were examples of microevolution. None of them became eagles or bats. I am not trying to belittle your science. This field has done many great things in the world, and I respect it. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes, I do. God the Father gave the command and Jesus created all things through this method. But just as I respect your views of science, I feel that others should be respected too. Is the universe old? Yes, I think so. Is it young? No, but I respect those who believe that. Adam and Eve were supposed to be created as adults; they were never children in the physical sense. Could God have created a young universe with signs of age? Even though I believe in an ancient universe, I accept that Elohim could have created a young universe that seems to be old. He may have done it with people; therefore, why not with our universal home. Easter will be coming soon. I wish each of you eternal life in the God/man who rose from the tomb by the power of the Father of us all.
Yes God could do so. He could also have created the universe last Thursday with a complete history. So once you accept that God has lied to us in creation what else do we have to worry about as being a lie?
Hi, Edward, and welcome to the forum in case you haven’t been welcomed before. It looks like you’ve been on for a week or two, but this looks kind of like an opening post.
As you may have figured out, a pretty diverse group interacts here of all flavors of religion to non-religion. You can expect a bit of push-back here on pro-ID convictions, but there are some (fewer) here that are sympathetic to various forms of ID too.
As I’m sure you’re about to learn, this is a great place to get correction too, such as on some misunderstandings you have about evolution. You might be surprised to learn that scientists here totally agree with you that cats never turn into dogs or eagles into bats. That is a common misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Meanwhile, you can find much Christian fellowship here even in the midst of correction and/or disagreement. If you stick it out, we all benefit from your fellowship, and hopefully you do too. So, welcome!
If indeed those things did happen, evolution would certainly be incorrect. Evolution does not in any way predict that one species gives birth to another.
I can see your point; however, the hypothesis I propose does not make God into a teller of tails. In any case, I wish to thank you for your response.
You are a fine scholar and man of God. I look forward to our future contacts.
I respect your response. You are a knowledgeable fellow.
I must say that you make a good point. I believe you have written some very fine books. I will have to read those one day. It is good to make contact with fine scholars as I find here. If you ever come to Regent University for a science conference, please let me know. I have been to one and truly enjoyed it. Oh, there is a book called “The Basis of Progressive Evolution.” The Rev. Pat Robertson used that term once. Is that the same as Progressive Creationism with Common Ancestry. Dr. Haarsma mentions Progressive Creation with and without Common Ancestry in her book on Origins. Please tell her it was a fine book.
Thanks for your kind comments, Edward. If I ever come to Regent University I will be sure to let you know!
Hello, Edward, welcome to the forum! I do hope your find your time spent here fruitful. I consider myself somewhat sympathetic to the “Intelligent Design” argument since I believe in the ultimate Intelligent Designer. However, I am not a supporter of Intelligent Design as science. For the last 200 years or so, science has been conducted according to what we currently call the scientific method. Hypotheses are designed in such a way that they can be tested. I have not looked intently at all the work being done at Discovery Institute, but a review of their Bio-Complexity journal revealed to me that not a single article that they have published has done anything other than trying to refute evolution in one way or another. If Intelligent Design Creationism were a legitimate form of science, hypotheses designed to provide evidence for the existence of the Intelligent Designer would be the natural product. And I have seen no sign of any endeavor in this regard.
I wish to thank you, Curtis. I see your point and would have made Intelligent Design a philosophy. It would not be a real science. God bless you and your family. I hope we will be in contact again.
I think it might be worthwhile to explain why scientists do not think ID is science, or more precisely why it isn’t worth pursuing, at least for the moment.
What scientists are looking for is a theory that can scientifically explain the data they are looking at. ID utterly fails at doing this. One of the most basic observations in biology is the overwhelming phylogenetic signal found at every level, from the anatomy of living and fossil species to the distribution of physical characteristics to the very DNA found in the cells of all life. ID can’t explain that phylogenetic signal except to say that common ancestry produced it, which is what Michael Behe and other ID proponents often admit. Why do we see fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, but no fossils or living species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Why do orthologous exons share more sequence between species than orthologous introns?
At best, ID is a list of arguments that challenge evolution without giving us a theory to replace it with. It is just fine to challenge existing theories, and it is actually encouraged within science. However, ID proponents have yet to really challenge the theory. Almost all of their arguments boil down to “I can’t imagine how evolution could have produced that, so it must not have”. That’s not how science works. No theory in science is thrown out because it lacks fine detailed explanations for historical processes, or because the person challenging they theory lacks imagination. As an example, we haven’t thrown out our theories for solar system formation because we can’t give a blow by blow account of how a distant solar system formed.
To put it another way, I have yet to see a presentation or poster at any scientific meeting where someone argues against ID, and then when they feel they have fully falsified ID they claim that it must have evolved without any evidence for how something evolved. However, that is exactly how ID arguments work. They argue that it couldn’t evolve, and magico presto, it must have been an intelligent designer. That isn’t science.
So to sum up, ID isn’t science because there is nothing in Intelligent Design that scientists can use to do science. However, there is another theory that works extremely, extremely well in explaining the data we do have, and it also makes amazingly accurate predictions about new data that we discover. That theory is the theory of evolution.
There is always one big difference. We assume that Adam and Eve did not have false memories of their nonexistent childhood. If the universe was created to look old, it was created with false memories, for example images of exploding stars that never really existed.
As for intelligent design being a science, until it comes up with a doable experiment with a unique prediction, for me the answer will remain: No.
That is a good answer. It makes a great deal of sense and helps to think this through.
As a creationist, I have zero problem with evolution being taught in schools. My problem with evolution, is how it is being taught. There are discoveries in evolutionary science that have long been refuted and debunked as either bad science or dismissed as a hoax, and yet, some of these discoveries remain in text books.
Evolution is not being taught in an honest manner.
In my experience, those claims only exist in the echo chamber of young Earth creationism.
Does not mean, what I say is not true
Does not mean it is true, either. For example, I know of no modern textbook that teaches ontology perfectly recapitulates phylogeny, yet creationists will keep claiming that they do. I know of no modern textbook that uses Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man as legitimate transitional fossils, yet creationists will harp on these as well.
They could make a show and call it Piltdown Man instead of Batman. All the girls could chase after him.
You make a good point too.