1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ten arguments for intelligent design

Discussion in 'Christianity & Science Forum' started by rockytopva, Jul 13, 2019.

  1. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    His lack of faith in the Creator is why he has adopted the faith of people who say the "designer" might be "a space alien."

    Many designers. Pythagoras, Zeno, al-Kwharizimi, Newton, etc. The reality which the man-made system of mathematics describes was created, not designed.

    In science, "intelligent design" means "unorthodox religious belief." The Wedge Document, accidentally released by the Discovery Institute, makes that quite clear. Its admission that the goal of ID is to establish a religious doctrine was the primary evidence that wrecked their plans in the Dover "Panda Trial", described as a "train wreck for ID" by their founder:

    On December 20, 2005, Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate requiring the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional. The ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science, and permanently barred the board from "maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."
    Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

    It didn't help that Of Pandas and People, presented as an ID textbook was shown to be merely a recycled creationist book, with "creationist" replaced in every case by "design proponent"; in two cases, they botched the job and:


    The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
    Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

    This, along with the Wedge Document, showed that ID is merely an unorthodox religious doctrine. IDers themselves admitted it in that document. Some of them know that God is no mere "designer", much less a "space alien." He's the omniscient Creator.

    They just hate to call Him that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  2. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999, by Tim Rhodes,[17] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[18] Meyer once claimed that the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.[19]

    Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the Institute as the source of the document.[19][20] The Institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document".[21] The Institute also portrays the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia."[22] Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the Discovery Institute chose to use an image of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam.[23]
    Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

    Do you not ever wonder why so few IDers are biologists, and so many biologists are theists and evolutionists? Indeed, the only biologists who are fellows of the Discovery Institute are evolutionists. Behe admits the fact of evolution,only insisting that God could not have created a system that would work without Him having to tinker with it from time to time. And Denton...

    t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

    In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.

    Michael J. Denton. 1998. Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe

    (my emphasis)
     
  3. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Even IDers who understand biology, admit that this came about by evolution. See above.
     
  4. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    "Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being."
    Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165

    Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?


    A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.


    Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?


    A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.


    Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?


    A Yes.


    Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?


    A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.


    Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?


    A That is correct.


    Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

    A Yes, that's correct.
    Michael Behe, explaining why he thinks astrology and ID are scientific theories, in his testimony in the Dover trial. (Kitzmiller vs.Dover)

    Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe

    This is why ID founder Philip Johnson described the trial as a "train wreck" for the ID movement.
     
  5. GodsGrace

    GodsGrace Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,277
    Likes Received:
    5,124
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Italy
    I don't know Y,,,I can't debate this.
    The persons I know are only two...Meyers and Tours.
    They DO NOT believe in evolution and speak against it.
    If they're not telling the truth--well, so be it; there's no way for me to know that.
    Jesus did say that a house divided against itself will fall.

    Intelligent Design if OK with me.
    The question is: WHO designed everything....
    It's the answer that's important.
     
  6. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Who designed a thunderstorm? No one. It is a consequence of God's creation, not design. God, being omniscient, has no need to figure out things.

    The answer says whether to put your faith in "Possible candidates for the role of designer" including "an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being" or to simply accept that the universe was not "designed", but created by an all-powerful Creator.

    It seems to me that Christianity is the answer, not a"space alien."

    By trying to mix religious beliefs with science, ID ends up being not science, but a rather confused and self-contradictory religion.
     
  7. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    His dietary laws say that you shouldn't mix dairy products and baloney.
     
  8. achristian1985

    achristian1985 Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.



    ...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. 128


    Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields have consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.


    Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

    Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130



    The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.


    Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.

    The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):

    1. In the past decade (1990's) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.

    2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).

    3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.

    4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.

    “Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.
     
  9. achristian1985

    achristian1985 Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.


    The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132


    The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.


    I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133

    (These are Charles Darwin's own words here)



    The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.


    Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.


    Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.


    The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!



    For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

    Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139


    Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140


    To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
     
  10. aspen

    aspen “"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

    Messages:
    14,153
    Likes Received:
    4,789
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Yep. The Discovery Institute is a think tank that relies on consequentialism to ram God into school science curriculum. Stephen Meyer, one of the founding members of the Discovery Institute was one of my college professors, who ironically taught philosophy and ethics! Now he spends his time trying to use every backdoor possible to pass intelligent design as science, including exploiting friendships

    Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design
     
  11. achristian1985

    achristian1985 Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    4
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    thanks for refreshing the info of Dover, et. all. And also that the fundies involved also committed perjury.
     
    aspen likes this.
  12. Timtofly

    Timtofly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,387
    Likes Received:
    220
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The whole concept of current understanding is based on abstract math. Thus science is technically a virtual reality project. Human observations stopped being real before Christ. The "church" ended up pushing this concept further than any one as part of it's departure from the truth.

    Any attempt to change the hearts and minds of higher science like creationism and ID, and especially the new theo-evolutionists, is doomed to fail. This is for one reason only. It is based on the thought that current science is reality. It is not, it is only virtual. The only success would be to tear down the whole thought system of the last 2500 years and start over.
     
  13. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hey, Darwin was only a theology student. What matters is getting it right. Which is what Meyers often has trouble with.

    Boy, did I miss this one... sorry. Here's the Wedge Document:
    The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education

    It's a bit long to post. It was meant to be "eyes only" , but someone accidentally sent it out to a printer, and someone leaked it to the public after that. It was a very important piece of evidence in the Dover Trial where ID was ruled to be a religious doctrine.
     
  14. Yehren

    Yehren Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,011
    Likes Received:
    1,481
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Some of it is. The remarkable thing about reality is how well, it fits mathematically.

    ID and creationism are religious beliefs, because they are based on faith, not evidence.

    From the Wedge Document:

    "Governing Goals


    • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
    Hence this is a religion, not a science.
     
  15. Grailhunter

    Grailhunter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,579
    Likes Received:
    2,711
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain's memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes).
     
    Prayer Warrior and rockytopva like this.
Loading...