Which explanation is better? Intelligent Design or Natural Processes

Yeah it’s fine for everyone to
Have an opinion. [content removed] Not all opinions are equal.

You can make claims but don’t confuse them for wisdom or science.

  1. I believe all life comes from life because I came from my parents. - Sure. But that’s not what abiogenesis is. That’s what reproduction is. You’re confusing reproduction for abiogenesis. That’s just as different as confusing birth for mitosis in our species.

  2. Look through a book on anatomy and physiology and it proves intelligent design. - that’s just not true. That’s a opinion about the preconceived interpretation. It’s not a scientific explanation or a historical one. Which organ is inexplainable by natural processes?

3 Likes

Any “magic” you think that is involved with organ evolution is far less crazy than the magic needed for supernaturally developed organs. Such as the eye. The eye is not that complex. Teeth is more complicated. Convergent evolution for eyes has occurred many times.

Yes sir.

I “get it”.

You have left me speechless. [content removed]

As nothing in nature requires a non-natural explanation by definition, it cannot be bettered. Looking at an eye muscle and every other wonder, each in statistical isolation and ignoring billions of years of natural selection of mutation certainly isn’t better.

My only request and final comment to you: please give any extra pearls that you have to the poor who may need food, clothing, housing, or medical care.

All I’m saying is that often you see these arguments being used of “‘well let’s agree to disagree” or “ we all have different opinions” which is fine. But the problem is when someone uses that as a shield to subconsciously give themselves permission to not follow their reasoning all the way through.

When it comes to ID and other forms of YEC/OEC one thing they constantly do is ignore all the holes and giant gaps in their argument and then point out the few in the theory of evolution over some specific things like a eye and that’s all they focus on.

The eyeball is one that is touted the most because someone who wrote some book brought it up and it’s just recycled a lot. Within ID it’s very common for people to not read counter arguments from scientists addressing there claims by theologians.

When we look at the world now we see tons of different types of eyeballs. Some even more complex than ours. Many less complex.

https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2017226

We can see how single celled organisms can use vision.

Because eyes have evolved multiple times isolated from one s other. By that I mean the eye as independently evolved in many lineages, and for a fact as caves have shown us some
Species have even evolved their eyes away. But it leaves us with a lot of data that we can trace. We don’t have to have our whole eyes to see. We can lose parts of our eyes and still see. We can lose parts all the way to the point to where we can just detect enough light to determine if a showdown is moving across us. Some animals have eyes that can only detect that.

1 Like

You mean you expected me to say the same thing back at you that you were intending for me……so if I reuse the same thing and that’s what you expected someone like me to say does that mean you and I are alike…… did you also expect yourself
To say the same thing…

See my point about following through with your own logic instead of stopping it part ways and using it as this scapegoat to avoid countering something….

1 Like

Then we shouldn’t pretend that things like the heart work better than they do.

I don’t have the slightest idea where you are coming from.

I’m not pretending about anything. I am a physician and see hearts that work fine and those that don’t work so well.

You were talking about “blood pumping heart muscles that never miss a beat (at least not for too long), one way heart valves, etc. etc.” and then I pointed out that they don’t work as flawlessly as you imply.

So what would you say is the probability that a random genetic process could create new bones, complete with muscle attachments and joints?

1 Like

I am talking about abiogenesis, thru time, to the present day.

I would say probabilty of zero.

When I look at MRI scans every day, I see knee joints, hip joints, shoulder joints etc.
I see complex structures with specific functions.
Personally, and I am speaking for myself only, I don’t believe this all could have been the result of purely random naturalistic materialistic evolution. This is one of the reasons that I believe in God.

I’m talking about the probability of one of the steps along the way. How can you assess the probability of the entire chain without thinking about the probability of each step? (And I’m not talking about abiogenesis, which would be a different process than biological evolution.)

3 Likes

I honestly don’t know an exact number. But I feel the probability is low, even given an unlimited amount of time.

Mutant Zebrafish have been found that grow bones away from the body in a pattern similar to limbs.

“In this case, they discovered that mutations in the waslb and vav2 genes cause the fin phenotype. This was a surprising finding as these genes have not previously been known to play roles in patterning the body.

‘It was a big question as to how waslb and vav2 were changing fin patterning," said Hawkins. “These genes were not known to interact with any of the very well characterized pathways that guide limb development. However, we found that these mutations cause an increase in the expression of the gene hoxa11b. This gene is very exciting because the Hox genes are in part responsible for patterning the vertebral column as well as the regions of the limb. And the Hox11 genes in particular are required to make the forearm.’”

Fairly complex structures can originate out of mutations (this is just one example).

1 Like

If you think human intuition is the best tool for figuring things out, then that is your choice. Just remember that we invented the scientific method because human intuition is not that reliable.

3 Likes

Methodological naturalism says nothing about the supernatural. It is simply a method with simple requirements:

  1. Hypothesis. This is a set of predictions of what one should and should not observe if the hypothesis is true.

  2. Experiment. The design of the experiment should be capable of testing your predictions, both the predictions of what you should see and what you should not see. Proper controls are also a must.

If you can come up with a way of testing for the supernatural using an experiment then the supernatural can be included in methodological naturalism. In methodological naturalism, anything that can be tested and observed is considered to be natural for the purposes of the method.

3 Likes

I have been a physician (MD) for 38 years, and have read the scientific literature etc for years and years.

My current beliefs are a sum of past learning etc. They are certainly not based on my “human intuition” alone.

Yes, that was the study I had in mind.

Exactly the point I was going to make. If we went by intuition, we’d think that the sun orbits a fixed earth and that of course the speed of light depends on how fast you’re moving. Of course, ‘I don’t believe it’s possible’ is not a position that can be argued against.

2 Likes

One thing that often helps is to better see where people agree.

We all , except for the atheists, believes that God is real and that he’s plays some kind of role in creation and interacts with humanity.

So where we disagree is how he is involved. Concerning speciation, I guess I’m curious do you believe I evolution of species. Such as are humans and chimpanzees descendants of an earlier common ancestor? Or was everything created fully formed and there was no evolution.

Do you believe in guided evolution versus unguided evolution or no evolution at all?

“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.