My ID Challenge

Faith & Science Conversation
582

Hi Joe,

You’re begging the question. Sure, intelligent agents could have that capability. But you cannot prove that an intelligent agent actually disrupted the genetic machinery of life to produce them unless you can prove that the genetic machinery of life is simply incapable of that result by itself.*

And here we return, once again, to your strong resistance to reading the scientific literature. You are making a very strong assertion about what that literature (which you have never read) contains when you assert:

And yet…

And yet…

And yet, when I have provided links to a few articles that would take you an hour to read, tops, you actively resist.

…that you could have read the articles I linked to many times over in half the amount of time you have spent writing posts in this thread since I provided the links.

Cheers,

==================

  • I believe that God created the universe with the purpose of having genetic machinery that would yield the result of humanity, created in His image. Moreover, I affirm that God continually upholds all the physical mechanisms of the universe, from gravity to light to quantum behaviors to genetic machinery, through His providential care, and He can and does intervene miraculously as He sees fit. When I say the genetic machinery acts “by itself,” then, I mean that it is acting in accordance with the design that God purposed and continues to sustain.
1 Like
583

An excellent response, @Argon. I would phrase the VITG response slightly differently, though; I would say that the pseudogene provides evidence that humans and reptiles have a common ancestor. Moreover, the pseudogene provides excellent evidence that humans and other mammals that possess the pseudogene share a common ancestry.

@dcscccc - I was planning to respond to your question in basically the same way as our friend Argon.

584

said it before: “more then that- humans have genes for feathers development. do we need to conclude that human evolved from birds?”

i just call it a “feather genes” for the argument.

this is your belief. we actually dont have any scientific evidence for this claim (that mammals and reptiles share a commondescent)…

585

Since you reject the accepted way of interpreting the information, what explanation of the data do you propose?

586

OK. Fine for a shorthand.

The general argument remains specious. The homologous genes group humans and birds with reptiles in common ancestry. However, birds are not the ancestor of mammals nor are mammals ancestors of birds. Instead, additional data reveals that both birds and mammals are separate lineages derived from reptiles.

this is your belief. we actually dont have any scientific evidence for this claim (that mammals and reptiles share a commondescent)…

This is the sort of comment that leads many commenters here and at the other blogs you pass through (e.g. Sandwalk) to conclude any discussion is pointless. If you can’t cite one bit of evidence for the possible relationship between mammals and reptiles – whether you agree with the final conclusion or not – then you’re not participating in any discussion or debate.

587

I have yet to meet someone who believes that there is something with the appearance of randomness that is ALSO random to God.

Reply[quote=“gbrooks9, post:576, topic:4944, full:true”]

@pacificmaelstrom

I concur!

That is why it is so important for people to acknowledge THREE categories of events:

  1. Lawful behavior that is confidently seen as non-random.

  2. Appearance of randomness, but still guided by natural lawfulness.

  3. Appearance of randomness … but not random to God.

I have yet to meet someone who believes that there is something with the appearance of randomness that is ALSO random to God.
[/quote]

I would argue that our choices made with free will do in fact appear random from God’s perspective. Not because he can’t control them but because he chooses not to.

590

I didn’t say anything about intuition – mine or yours. I was responding to a claim that life provides solid evidence for a creator.

591

Because a) I know enough about watches to know that humans design and manufacture them, and b) they resemble in many ways other things that humans design and manufacture. The latter permits me to distinguish watches from things that don’t look like they were designed or manufactured by humans, like rocks, galaxies and turtles.

3 Likes
592

Can some one please explain to me why we should argue science with @deliberateresult and @dcscccc?

It is very clear, to me at least, that they approach science with entirely different rules than scientists. Of course, then, they will come to different conclusions. In fact, they pick the rules so they can arrive at the predetermined outcome. Everyone is just talking past one another. Some people (nameless) seem to intentionally misrepresenting the opposing side.

To me, it seems almost certain:

  1. @dcscccc and @deliberateresult will not change their minds, nor will they even honestly represent the Evolutionary Creation point of view. Moroever, they seem to studiously avoid any engagement with honest answers to their questions. For example, I am saddened that @deliberateresult never seems to have considered my answer to his original question My ID Challenge - #534 by Swamidass and @dcscccc seems to have entirely ignored the substance of all responses to his questions. It seems like they have no interest in honestly understanding BioLogos or mainstream science (of course @dcscccc and @deliberateresult feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
  2. Even if @dcscccc or @deliberateresult were successful in changing any of our minds (they won’t be changing my mind), this will have absolutely zero effect on changing mainstream science. None of my colleagues even care to have a conversation with people who talk about science like this. Science, despite what some might hope, is not litigated on BioLogos’ forums.

This, therefore, seems like a totally pointless argument. I would urge everyone involved to consider whether or not it worth feeding or starving this beast. I think it might be time to let our disagreements lie unresolved.

As alternate way forward, I suggest articulating our common ground, and moving on from there. This is my contribution to this end:

@deliberateresult, I appreciate so much that you seem to be acknowledging through your posts that we are all Christians that know the same Jesus as you. So many times, people have persisted in calling me an atheist, just because I see evolution as God’s way of creating us. I do not see this absurdity from you, and appreciate your willingness to embrace us a part of the Church. Thank you. Even though ID was the first step back to faith, you also seem to find Jesus more compelling (now) in your life than scientific arguments. Bravo. I wish more people in your camp would be like you on this point.

@dcscccc, thank you for your emphasis on the necessity of God in understanding nature. I agree with you on so much. Without God, nothing we see in Nature would be possible. It all requires His initiating and sustaining influence. Thank you also for your deep desire to find a way that brings the Bible and our view of nature into concordance. Of course, we all hope to see the reality we find in science and theology converging into a single view. Your zealousness here is a meaningful reminder of the importance of this goal in Christian theology, going back to the beginning. I agree with you. As @Keith_Furman puts it, “NOTHING IN LIFE makes sense apart from the GOSPEL,” (I would add) including science. Though we imagine reality differently, agree with you in your hope for a single view of the world.

These affirmations are genuine and heartfelt. I hope you can receive them as such. I know you both disagree with us greatly. There is probably nothing more to be accomplished by arguing with us. It is probably time to end a pointless debate.

As Kepler might have said, now that you both have damned everything you please in mainstream science, evolution and BioLogos, let us raise our eyes together to Creation, and have our whole hearts burst forth in giving thanks and praising God the Creator, and Jesus through whom all was created and redeemed. You can be certain that you worship God no less than us theistic evolutionists, to whom God has granted the confidence to celebrate evolution as His creative work.

Whether you join us one day or not, we are united in our common worship of the Creator. You worship him no less than us.

Peace be with you in your pursuit of Him, the Risen One.

4 Likes
593

You argued that purely deterministic processes are devoid of purpose. I use purely deterministic processes to accomplish purposes. This fact, which you seem to agree is correct, demonstrates that your claim was wrong. Agreed?

Now you are offering a different argument, which is that purpose behind a process can be detected by examining the product of the process. There are several gaps in the argument as you’ve presented it here. First, the fact that purpose can often be detected in the results of human action does not imply that it can always be detected (and in fact it can’t always be detected). Second, that fact doesn’t tell us anything about whether nonhuman purpose can be detected, since we don’t know if there’s any analogy between human purpose and the purpose you’re talking about here. Third, even if we could in principle detect nonhuman purpose, you’ve given no reason to think that we have detected in living things.

Most importantly, though, your argument here seems to have nothing to do with your central claim about the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity. Even if we could detect purpose in the existence of living creatures, how would this rule out evolution as the means by which that purpose was achieved?

It doesn’t mitigate his previous statements; it contradicts them. He laid out an argument in order to reject it. Quoting that argument as if it were his actual opinion is a no-no. As for the earlier editions – yeah, lots of stupid things get said in textbooks, and scientists often make poorly informed statements about nonscientific issues. Concluding that Darwinian evolution implies philosophical materialism is poorly informed.

1 Like
594

we also know that human design genomes:

the flagellum also resemble a human made motor:

so according to your own criteria we need to conclude that nature was made by a designer.

595

that both reptiles and mammal was designed separately.

596

if mammals and reptiles dont have a commondescent, what we will need to find then? i have a lot of counter evidence that mammals and reptiles share a commondescent. do you open to hear them and may change your mind about this?

dr joshua.

you are claiming that you are going by the mainstream science. but are you aware that you actually dont go by the scientific consensus because you believe in a guided evolution? so i confuse. and of course, what kind of evidence will change your mind dr joshua? i actually open to change my mind. you said before that :

and i a sk you back: “so if we will found a gene that shared between far species but lack in the species between them, evolution will be in a big problem?”

so do you agree with this or not?

thanks.

597

No George, I am not kidding. Obviously you believe that the evidence supports the TOE. As I understand your answer to my question, you also believe that there is no way to distinguish God’s activity. Do I have this right?

598

Not sure what you are getting at here. The TOE teaches that life is the result of purely natural processes; that there is no teleological aspect. This is a direct contradiction of what the Bible teaches.

599

No, we really don’t. We can copy existing genomes and we can tinker with them. The guys “designing” this genome don’t even know what a lot of it does.

No, if it genuinely looks like something designed and manufactured by humans (it doesn’t), we should conclude that it was made by humans.

600

Close enough: it provides a purely natural explanation for life, since that’s the kind of explanation all scientific theories provide.

That’s the part that you’re adding, and that’s completely wrong. The elements of the evolutionary process don’t possess teleology themselves, any more than the gears of a watch possess teleology. Science, however, has nothing to say about whether there is ultimately a purpose behind the process it describes, since that is not a hypothesis that science can test.

3 Likes
601

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the inference I am getting here is that you believe that, having set things in motion, God no longer actively intervenes at all?

I don’t think you understand ID at all. The whole point of ID is that life (among other things) is best explained as having been Created.

You know Bill, Scripture assures us that the things which God Created bear his signature and that we can discern this signature. In other words, at least in some instances, we can distinguished physical effects that have been produced by purely natural processes from physical effects that have been produced by a designing intelligence. Life bears the signature of design in spades. And whether you believe in evolution or special Creation or anything in between, it is this signature of intelligent agency that makes God’s Creation of life undeniable.

I am not accusing you or anyone else in this forum of atheism. What I am saying is that ideas have consequences. And frankly, an idea that is one of the crucial pillars of metaphysical materialism, if embraced, tends to lead one, unsurprisingly, to adapt that metaphysic.

So, no, I do not accuse you of atheism. But when you say you believe in God, then embrace this pillar of atheism without acknowledging the evidence of a Creator, what I am accusing you of is being part of the problem. And that problem is that darwin turns believers into atheists.[quote=“Bill_II, post:460, topic:4944”]
To me evolution is the same type of God Directed Natural Process as rain or casting lots.
[/quote]

And that is exactly the problem! Life is not the same process as rain. Life is the product of functional, prescriptive information. Information is formal and immaterial. Rain is a purely natural process, wholly explainable by the four fundamental forces. Life cannot be explained in the same way as rain can. Life requires a formal, not a material explanation. And this is great news for Christians. This is evidence to be celebrated. This is evidence that has the power to turn skeptics and unbelievers into believers. And it is evidence that will not be overturned by some unknown future law of nature. Advanced data processing will always be a clear signature of intelligent agency.

602

I can sympathize with that statement, but it highlights the problem of YEC, and to some extent ID, in that it makes faith dependent on the evidence, and thus it is on shaky ground if the evidence changes. Not a good place to be. I think the issue for some of us is more making faith reasonable and consistent with rational thought, even though there may be no physical evidence. It is inconsistencies that bother me most when I look at life and faith.

1 Like
603

:slight_smile:

3 Likes