|
The Bible says that the "heavens declare [God's] handiwork." Does the complexity and order of the universe bring us closer to accepting the reality of God?
"You contain a trillion copies of a large, textual document written in a highly accurate, digital code, each copy as voluminous as a substantial book," explains renowned scientist Richard Dawkins, commenting on our DNA makeup. As Dawkins himself would admit, any minor adjustment in this "textual document" would have dramatic consequences.
Yet, Dawkins doesn't believe this complex DNA bears the imprint of a divine, supernatural power. According to Dawkins, science itself "offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain."
The explanation for the existence and complexities of the universe, including conscious life, that atheists such as Dawkins prefer is naturalism. Dawkins' most recent book The God Delusion is a literary declaration of war against religion and proponents of Intelligent Design. Rather, argues Dawkins, Darwin's theory of natural selection is more than sufficient to explain such wonders as our voluminous DNA makeup.
Is Dawkins' dismissal of theism and Intelligent Design justified?
What is "Intelligent Design"?
For years, the leading alternative theory to evolution was creationism, typically understood according to the biblical book of Genesis (although many within the various faith groups differed as to the interpretive details of the Genesis account). By the 1960s and 70s, naturalism had, for all intents and purposes, completely displaced biblical creationism in the scientific community and mainstream academia.
The decisive victory of naturalism was made possible by the fact that creationism was primarily a religious explanation. And, beginning in the 1960s, religion was ruled out of the classroom and seriously restricted in the public square by an exuberant Supreme Court.
Then came Intelligent Design. According to the Intelligent Design Network, the theory of Intelligent Design (or "ID" for short) represents a "scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." It is a disagreement fiercely unwelcome by the mainstream scientific community.
ID is not synonomous with biblical creationism. While biblical creationism would arguably fit within the large ID umbrella, there are many (and perhaps a majority of) ID proponents who reject Creationism. Nevertheless, one does not have to believe the Bible is inerrant or embrace a six-day Creationist model in order to respect the ID position.
So what is it? Dr. Stephen Meyer, one of the architects of ID and a leader of the Discovery Institute, explains that the "theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause."
According to the Intelligent Design Network, ID claims that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."
Thus, ID is more in keeping with philosopher William Paley than with Genesis. Paley, an Enlightenment-era religious philosopher, developed the most famous argument for a divine designer in his landmark book Natural Theology. In its pages, Paley lays out his famous watchmaker analogy as follows:
. . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.
Naturalistic evolution is a direct challenge to Paley's watchmaker theory, in that it holds that the complex universe and the reality of conscious life came about by natural selection - a grand, cosmic progression committed to the survival and continuance. Where theists argue that it is highly improbable, if not impossible, for a complex world to evolve from chance, naturalists counter that incremental, evolutionary progression can get the job done just fine.
Dawkins is a huge proponent, of course, of natural selection. "[N]atural selection is a cumulative process which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces," explains Dawkins in his latest book. "Each of the small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so. When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very, very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be beyond the reach of chance." Beyond the "reach of chance," that is, if the end product were expected to come all at once.
Boiled down to its essentials, Dawkins and other atheists argue that incrementalism (small steps in evolutionary progress) make natural selection the most compelling scientific explanation for the universe. The credibility of this evolutionary arguments rests, of course, on its plausibility. And that is something the author of Origin of the Species himself recognized.
Charles Darwin once wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." In other words, according to its founder, the theory of evolution rests on the possibility of complex organs evolving to their present form through successive modifications or mutations.
Never mind the self-serving audacity of Darwin here. He puts the burden of proof on his critics, rather than accepting it for himself. He, after all, was the one proposing a new theory. But never mind that. The point is that, if Darwin's standard is at all meaningful, evolution has been disproven. You read that right. If the standard is fair, Darwin and Dawkins have long been proven wrong.
Biochemist Michael Behe, one of the most influential proponents of ID, examined various complex organisms, including the human eye and even the flagellum. He found these organisms to be intricate, detailed, and "irreducible." This creates an insurmountable problem for Darwin - one that, by his own standard, decimates his theory. Behe explains: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." And a nonfunctional system would never survive in an extended timeline where "survival of the fittest" was the rule.
The complexity of the universe, the nature of life, and the "irreducible complexity" of numerous basic organisms all point to the work of a designer, according to ID theorists. Says the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center: "...we use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed." Accordingly, the ID theory derives solely from "applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more."
Intelligent Design Criticized
The leading classical response to the "design" argument for a God of some kind came from the pen of philosopher David Hume. In his Dialogues on Natural Religion, Hume critically weighs the design argument through fictional characters. Through his fictitious skeptic, Philo, Hume seeks to pick apart Haley's 19th century intelligent design argument.
He dismisses as unconvincing any claim that human planning on earth might resemble divine planning of the cosmos. He also points out that proving the existence of a divine designer, in no way, sheds light on that God's attributes. Hume also argued that the world was "faulty and imperfect," and this therefore undermines the concept of a perfect, flawless designer. According to Hume's Philo, "you must acknowledge that it is impossible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this system [or creator] contains any great faults or deserves any considerable praise."
Hume's responses to Haley are strong enough to limit the distance one can go with ID. Hume does a good job of proving that ID doesn't get you to the God of the Bible, and that ID still leaves a lot of questions to be answered in its own right. However, aside from those accomplishments, Hume's argument fails to displace ID.
However, over time, naturalists began to see Paley's analogy of a watch as supportive of naturalistic evolution. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: "[Paley's] idea of a complex, perfected organism dropping suddenly amidst foreign surroundings, as illustrated by the finding of a watch, was the dogmatic externalism the rebound from which gave birth to the subsequent hypotheses of natural selection and adaptation to environment and the theory of evolution as a whole."
Another line of criticism of ID is that it is merely a "theory of the gaps." Does ID merely "fill in the gaps" of Darwinian naturalism? Yes, answers Dawkins. In The God Delusion, he writes: "Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it.
Chris Toumay, writing for the American Anthropological Association, declares: "The core of intelligent design theory is the belief that, because we do not know the entire natural history of a complex phenomenon, it must be a miracle."
John Andrews, president of the American Phytopathological Society, agrees: "There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design, nor can there be because it is essentially a belief-based concept." No evidence?
Judging the merits of this critique rests on a more fundamental question: What evidence is admissible in the court of science?
According to the Intelligent Design Network, "ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings" (emphasis theirs). In other words, ID is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, because it appeals to the supernatural. And that is a big no-no.
Mainstream science today rests on the premise of naturalism. Steeped in modernism and now sprinkled with postmodernism, these scientists utterly reject the possibility of the supernatural. Miracles are out. Speculation is in, but only if it involves testable, natural explanations.
But what if the scientific evidence points to supernatural possibilities? What if that evidence is stronger for a supernatural explanation than for a natural one? ID is more than a "theory of the gaps." It's about observations. According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center:
Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.
Darwin loyalists counter that ID's assessment of these observations amounts to a philosophical or religious conclusion. But is this any different than evolution? Didn't Darwin base his work on observation? Why is analysis of our observations okay for evolutionists but not for proponents of ID?
The answer: Naturalists only admit theories, analyses, or evidence that corroborates a naturalistic (indeed atheistic) hypothesis or conclusion. No other possibilities need apply.
Consequently, the logical, natural outcome of any study of the universe - any study, that is, based on such biased and restrictive policies - is naturalistic evolution. Biology professor Robert Durit lays it out clearly: "Biological order and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer." In other words, it was an accident. If you rule out any consideration of a supernatural possibility, this is your only option.
But is it fair to allow mainstream, modern science to get away with this? The effect of this naturalist-only position is to bar any question about a designer. So, if the universe appears designed, we are not even allowed to consider the possibility of a designer? Is that science?
And if modern science remains firmly naturalistic and closes all doors to investigating the possibility of an external, supernatural intelligent force, then it must restrict itself in its conclusive assertions. In other words, science has no right to claim that naturalistic evolution is factually correct, only that it is the best naturalistic explanation for the universe and all life.
Conclusion
Few argue with the fact that, overall, the universe and all life evince some design and systematic order. You, the reader, have a choice in explaining this condition. Either this came about by accident or it was deliberate. Atheists like Dawkins may sneer at the word "chance," but whether it's a sudden "pop" or a gradual climb, the underlying assumption of an atheistic view of evolution comes ultimately down to chance. Natural selection, if not guided by an intelligent, external force, is an accident of nature. So, in explaining the universe, it's either accident or design. There is no other alternative, Dawkins' protestations notwithstanding.
This article cannot prove Intelligent Design, not as a stand-alone. However, previous articles have shown the extreme likelihood that there is some supernatural cause to the universe. The theory of evolution, in fact, strengthens the case for a divine cause of some sort. Something, after all, had to initiate evolution.
If we accept the likelihood of a divine cause at the origin of the universe, then the theory of ID enjoys instant credibility. Weighing the evidence and arguments cumulatively, one can see that it is logical - even reasonable - to conclude that the universe was initiated and designed by a divine and intelligent cosmic force. While this does not bring us to the God of the Bible, it does get us one very important step closer.
The copyright of the article Intelligent Design - Part Two in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Intelligent Design - Part Two in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Oct 30, 2006 5:26 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
That was good. You didn't attack anyone's beliefs, and fairly looked at
both sides of the argument, but mainly looked at ID and presented some good
evidence for it.
Do you mind if I save it so I can use it for
future references?:)
Oct 30, 2006 6:08 PM
Pink :
.
Nice try, Brian.
.
It looks like you may have put out some
misrepresentations regarding Dawkins' and Darwin's positions. But, I'm not
going to run off on your comments until after I've given your paper a good
critical reading. It looks like I might have misunderstood you in a couple
of places as some of what you wrote is hard to grasp on the first
reading.
.
At least you are putting some strong effort into being
objective and you've certainly covered a lot of ground. I'll try to be
clear when I do respond.
.
I hope we can get some others to read
the book so they can comment intelligently on what is being written
here.
.
One of the main things we're going to be dealing with
here is the long standing belief regarding Creationism and Evolution.
.
Oct 30, 2006 7:41 PM
Brian Tubbs :
In fairness to Mr. Dawkins, I do plan to finish reading his book. If upon
doing so, I discover that I have mischaracterized his position, I will
publish a correction - and it wont' be one of those small-print (no one can
see) type corrections. :-)
I don't want to be guilty of
attacking strawmen. I'm really trying to be fair, which is why I appreciate
your feedback.
Oct 30, 2006 7:44 PM
Pink :
.
So, I reread the paper.
.
You're pretty good at achieving
your purpose with your rhetoric. I have to hand that to you.
.
Persons who have not read the book, and in particular the parts about
Irreducible Complexity, Chance, and Natural Selection will undoubtedly be
impressed by what you've written. You make it appear as though Dawkins has
not done a very thorough job of dealing with Intelligent Design. In fact,
he has done a very good job.
.
I thought I would go down the line
and make comments on the points it almost appears you might be making. I
think we need to get it straight from the beginning that ID is an aspect of
Creationism if we like it or not. At its core, ID says an intelligent force
created the design. It would be too long to take every point by point. The
reader should get the book and read it.
.
In your paragraph that
starts out "Naturalistic evolution is a direct challenge to Paley's
watchmaker theory", you seem to say that Natural Selection is chance
theory. In fact, it argues against chance. And, the idea of the Watchmaker
over simplifies the idea of the irreducilble complexity of the watch. The
watch wasn't invented from scratch. It is an invention that has evovled
more like Natural Selection evolves. In other words, the watch is a good
example of Natural Selection and how it works.
.
You claim
Charles Darwin is a self-serving and audacious person. How is that? I'm
certainly not his apologist; but, how is he either self-serviing or
audacious?
.
In your fifth paragraph from the bottom, you write,
<i>"But is it fair to allow mainstream, modern science to get
away with this?"</i>. Get away with what?
.
And your
conclusion is that Natural Selection comes ultimately down to chance. How
is that? The fact is, is is far from chance. I'd like you to zero in on
this statement of yours. I think we can clear it up if I'm not mistaken.
.
But, the question remains, no matter what.
.
If all that
is was created as the result of an intelligent designer, then, how did the
intelligent designer come to be as it is the prime example of the
irreducible complexity could not exist by chance. In the end, it all goes
back to Natural Selection, doesn't it? Even God must have evolved through
such a process.
.
.
Oct 30, 2006 8:48 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
Hey, not meaning to have a dig at Evolutionists, but I just have some
questions that I would like an Evolutionist to answer. It's just that I
heard these questions and I just want to know what they would have to say
about it:
1. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, how
could there have been a Big Bang?
2. You know the creature that
first walked on land? Did it have lungs or gills?
3. What came
first? The stomach acids or the acid resistance tissue lining the stomach?
Oct 31, 2006 5:28 AM
Boanerges :
<i>Weighing the evidence and arguments cumulatively, one can see that
it is logical - even reasonable - to conclude that the universe was
initiated and designed by a divine and intelligent cosmic
force</i>
Indeed.. a rational and logical conclusion..
What has taken place in the last 20yrs or so is to brainwash the coming
generations (public education = government schools) to believe otherwise,
using big words and white cloaked suits as evidence of their high
intellects! This will result in bringing forward a secular progressive
society that is determined to eliminate God at all costs. The goal is
totalitarian rule - and this battle involves much more than teaching
(brainwashing) the idiotic theory of evolution.
"God
created the heavens and earth" is as believable and creditable as it
gets:).
Oct 31, 2006 7:22 AM
Pink :
.
Natural Selection is a form of trial and error.
.
When I
was in the Marine Corps, one of my Military Occupational Specialites was as
a member of a mortar team. We learned how to use trial and error to strike
a target. Another way of saying it is, zeroing in. First, the leader
estimates the location of the target with information given by a spotter. A
round is dropped down the tube and it fires, travels and lands where it
explodes. The spotter then adjusts the target location accordingly. The
next round is fired off and it lands and explodes. Now, the spotter has two
locations so that he can adjust the target location more accurately. That
process continues until the target is destroyed.
.
The example
given regarding the eyeball is a good one to prove how Natural Selection
works. It is not an irreducible complexity. Eyes work even though they are
incomplete. The don't work as well; but, that's the point, isn't it? I
think we can get into a very infromative discussion about Natural Selection
if any one wants to understand how it works. Other than that, you probably
will continue on with your claims regarding Creationism.
.
Oct 31, 2006 9:25 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, I really do believe I understand both Darwin and Dawkins in terms of
their arguments for natural selection. It basically boils down to
this...
<i>Natural selection is not chance in that you
have no eyeball and, all of a suddent - 'poof,' now you have an eyeball.
Natural selection is not a huge, insurmountable transition from nothing to
something or even from a lower-order something to a high-order something.
Natural selection involves a long progression of small steps - steps made
via trial and error - to where the end product may appear complex and
irreducible, but in fact was arrived at through incremental
changes.</i>
Other than my reference to an 'end product'
(with Darwinian natural selection, there never really is an 'end' per se -
but I say 'end product' to give us a reference point), have I pretty well
stated natural selection?
Feel free to add, correct, or modify
what I've said if you think I'm mischaracterizing it.
Oct 31, 2006 1:18 PM
Pink :
.
<i>"You claim Charles Darwin is a self-serving and
audacious person. How is that? I'm certainly not his apologist; but, how is
he either self-serviing or audacious?"</i>
.
In my
last post to you above, I asked this. I'm hoping you will give an
answer.
..
Oct 31, 2006 1:58 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I will answer this question. I'm not ducking it. But, I want to make sure
I've accurately summed up "natural selection" to your
satisfaction.
If so, I would submit that a trial-and-error
incrementalism suggests an intelligent dynamic - either from a force
guiding the process from above OR from an <i>internal</i>
consciousness within the process itself. So, basically, you're left with
Theism or Pantheism. I don't see Atheism adequately explaining natural
selection, even on Darwin's own terms.
Oct 31, 2006 2:02 PM
Brian Tubbs :
The term "audacious" means, among other things, "highly
inventive." This is where I think the description fits Darwin. He
basically looked at intra-species variations or adaptations and
extrapolated inter-species transitionalism - but not just that, he posited
a macroevolutionary theory that would explain the very existence of the
universe and all of life. He well beyond the science he could observe. If
we understand science as that which is observable and testable, then
surely, one must conclude that Darwin was inventive or audacious in his
conclusions.
Oct 31, 2006 2:50 PM
Pink :
.
I'm by no means very knowledgeable about Natural Selection or
Evolution.
.
So, I don't know enough to have my knowledge
satsified. I have just recently begun to be interested. Dawkins is my first
introduction to the subject. I follow what he has to say quite easily.
.
To say that Natural Selection is guided by some higher
intelligence doesn't seem like a necessity. I know that in sociology which
is completely separate from biology there are some interesting papers on
deviance. Deviance can lead to growth and progress. I could think there may
be something similar in biology; but, I can't say one way or the other.
.
I heard that the genetic code of the human being shows that we are
only .1 per different in our make up from each other. But, that one tenth
of one percent adds up to millions of differences in numbers. The female
and male gametes begin the process in the womb and the specialized cells
apparently make "choices" as they divide. We're at the beginning
of our learning on these questions. It's too early to make definitive
comments one way or the other.
.
I will say this. In your paper
you seem to fault modern and post modern science as though they were some
kind of retardation. I think you have to admit that the miracles of modern
science are amazing when compared to the alternatives. I think that was
quite unfair of you to cast those aspersions on science. It hurts your case
more than it helps, except with the luddites who will believe whatever is
passed down by people using academic jargon. So, I think you should
reconsider your put down of science.
.
Oct 31, 2006 7:40 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I actually have great respect for science. And, frankly, I have no problem
with evolution insofar as it can be observed. What I "put down"
are the dogmatic naturalistic assumptions undergirding the
macroevolutionary natural selection theories of Darwin and, now, Dawkins.
But, even so...
I think I'm far kinder to even naturalistic
science than Dawkins is to religion.
Oct 31, 2006 10:44 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
<i>Dawkins is my first introduction to the subject. I follow what he
has to say quite easily.</i>
Check out Stephen J. Gould's
books. He's pretty much the best Evolutionist who ever lived. His books are
impossible to put down. The only thing is he often debated with Dawkins
over matters such as sociobiology.:)
Nov 1, 2006 4:18 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"I think I'm far kinder to even naturalistic science
than Dawkins is to religion. "</i>
.
I suppose you
are. Dawkins nearly devastates theism.
.
Have you read the
sub-section he titles, "Worshiping the Gap"?
.
Nov 2, 2006 9:54 AM
Pink :
.
The Worsip of Gaps starts on page 125 and continues through page
134.
.
Nov 2, 2006 10:27 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I believe I did read that section, but it was about a week and a half ago
at the bookstore. Before I comment on it, I'll need to go back and read it
again. I'm too cheap to actually buy the book. :-)
I will say
that I've heard and read atheists and agnostics make similar arguments. But
I'll give Dawkins the respect of hearing him out before I comment on his
views.
Nov 2, 2006 4:00 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>The goal is totalitarian rule - and this battle involves much more
than teaching (brainwashing) the idiotic theory of evolution.</i>
Are you suggesting that atheists, agnostics, or skeptics are
seeking to establish totalitarianism in the United States?
If
so, I find it interesting that you've often charged the Bush administration
as conspiring to achieve totalitarianism. And, yet, Mr. Bush is a Christian
and a Creationist.
Nov 2, 2006 6:50 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
<i>And, yet, Mr. Bush is a Christian and a Creationist. </i>
I have to disagree. The way I see it, Mr. Bush is only a Christian
by name. He's a Freemason, so he can't be a Christian and serve 2
masters.
If he's a Christian anything, he's a Christian
Religionist.
Nov 2, 2006 6:58 PM
Pink :
.
eegads!
.
Here we go again.
.
Free Masonry is
evil? Time to bring Craig back into the picture.
.
Me, a 32nd
degree Mason, A Knight of Malta, A Knight Templar, and a Shriner?
.
:)
.
Nov 3, 2006 6:27 AM
Brian Tubbs :
First, I know a lot of Christians who often get confused or distracted in
terms of serving "two masters."
Second, are you
suggesting that being in a fraternal organization or club constitutes
taking on a second master?
Third, I know several Freemasons who
profess a strong belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Are you going to
say they aren't Christians?
Fourth, I didn't know Bush was a
Freemason. Interesting.
Nov 3, 2006 9:43 AM
Pink :
.
You would have enjoyed Craig who claimed to be a faith healer. He
acted as though it was one of his main purposes in life to expose Masonry
as a spawn of evil.
.
http://www.intercessionalive.westserve.org/
Nov 3, 2006 10:30 AM
Migisi :
.
Remember this miracle performed by Craig?
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/mindandsoul/110788/2088-2097#message
_2088
"I was ministering to a lady a few weeks ago who had been
abused by her father between the age of 4 & 9, and was now in her mid
50's. She had no sense of smell since she could rememember and we
delivered her from the curse of freemasonry, should have seen her choke
and splutter and the demon manifest when she renounced her father
freemasonry curses, especially when she pretended to take the tow rope of
her neck - actually I see this happen a lot, children and descendants of
FM's delivered from breathing difficulties such as Asthma."
.
During those discussions, it was interesting to discover so many reknown
and celebrated founding fathers and presidents were Masons. If I remember
right, without an established form of government in place yet, they used
Freemasonry principles as their guide for governing, right?
Nov 3, 2006 11:07 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"If I remember right, without an established form of
government in place yet, they used Freemasonry principles as their guide
for governing, right?"</i>
.
Principles as in
rules?
.
As I recall, most of the Masonry we hear about from our
founders was Master Masonry, ie., the third degree or so-called Blue Lodge
Masonry. Masons hardly ever refer to the craft as Free Masonry.
.
The craft is symbolic and all about building one's individual personal
relationships with life. It uses a log of sybolism regarding the building
of King Solomon's Temple and applies that to the individual and I don't
recall anything to do with applying the lessons to government. It's all
about fraternity and the obligation of helping younger men grow into
responsible men who care for and respect their families.
.
However, the Templars get religious and that's why I resigned as a
knight.
.
Nov 3, 2006 11:30 AM
Boanerges :
I have to say, brother Craig spoke blessing every time he posted here, and
it benefited me directly. In fact, he prayed for a certain friend of mine,
in a very specific way, and I watched as it unfolded as truth. Brother
Craig is a man of God and has many talents and gifts to share within the
Body of Christ. I am only one to be sure who has benefited from his
gifts....
It's been my pleasure to have him as my friend. He has
edified me in many, many ways, and has always been there for me, in time of
need and struggle.
Blessings to Brother Craig, and his family.
May God ~continue~ to do good works through him:). Amen!
Nov 3, 2006 11:57 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"It uses a <b>LOG</b> of sybolism
regarding the building of King Solomon's Temple..."</i> should
have read, <i>"It uses a <b>LOT</b> of sybolism
regarding the building of King Solomon's Temple ..."</i>
.
Sorry about that.
.
Nov 3, 2006 1:31 PM
Migisi :
.
<i>Principles as in rules?</i>
.
Not 'rules'
per se. The guiding principles e.g. point of view, mindset promoting
tolerance - hence equal rights insertions in the Constitution by its
Masonic framers. There were 13 Masonic signers of the Declaration of
Independence, and there have been 14 Masonic presidents. I'd suggest that
their Masonic affiliation/lifestyle had an impact on the foundation of our
government, no?
.
<i>However, the Templars get religious
and that's why I resigned as a knight.</i>
.
You would know
better than me... the Knights Templar is a Christian-oriented fraternal org
which is ~part~ of the Masons, right? Templars are Masons, but not all
Masons are Templars, correct?
.
From what I read, the DeMolay
Order for Boys was highly recommended by Rev. Billy Graham - whose own
status as a 33º Mason was documented at the 'Endtime Deception' web site.
So, I'm baffled why some would think that Masons are anti-Christs. That
would mean Billy Graham is?
Nov 3, 2006 2:18 PM
Pink :
.
There are a lot of Christians on the far right who have very little
respect for Billy Graham--you can be sure of that.
.
An argument
can be made quite well that Masonry is the child of the Kinghts of the
Temple. And, it seems the argument is well founded. When the knights fought
the Muslims they took stone masons along to build their new fortresses. It
doesn't take much imagination to put the pieces together.
.
Masonry is ALL ABOUT BUILDING the body and mind as a temple to God the
Creator who has many names; but only one being.
.
Masonry played
an important part in the American Revolution. One of the rituals tells a
story about Aaron Burr who was the traitor to the American cause.
.
Nov 4, 2006 9:14 AM
Pink :
Here's a post I made in the general forum.
.
One of
the main differences between ID Creationists and scientists has to do with
how they treat their ignorance.
.
With the Creationists,
ignorance is applauded as some sort of "proof" that God is in the
mix. Whereas, ignorance is applauded by scientists as the area needing
investigation. In other words, scientists want to remove ignorance while
Creationists depend on ignorance to make their arguments.
.
Let
me give you a quote from Dawkins' book. In the paragraph beginning on the
bottom of page 126 and ending at the top of page 127:
"There is,
then, an unfortunate hook-up between science's methodological need to seek
out areas of ignorance in order to target research, and ID's need to seek
out areas of ignorance3 in order to claim victory by default. It is
precisely the fact that ID has no evidence of its own, but thrives like a
weed in gaps left by scientific knowledge, that sits uneasily with
sciente's need to identify and proclaim the very same gaps as a prelude to
researching them. In this respect, science finds itself in alliance with
sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer, united against the common
enemies of naive, populist theology and the gap theology of intelligent
designe."
.
IF that doesn't help, then, we can discuss it
for more clarification.
Nov 4, 2006 3:22 PM
Brian Tubbs :
This just reflects how the understandable naturalist presuppositions of
modern science are extrapolated out further than what they should be.
Proponents of ID and atheist evolutionists look at the SAME
evidence. But they draw different conclusions based on different
interpretations. Why is the atheist interpretation considered valid science
and the ID interpretation considered superstitious, ignorant, and
illegimate?
And then you have the cosmology argument. Pink,
saying that the universe must have a cause greater than itself is a
principle of LOGIC. That's not a worship of ignorance, it's a statement
based on sound reason. But....the fact that it leads to a supernatural
answer automatically indicts it (in the mind of atheists like Dawkins and
it would appear YOU) as being out of bounds, illegitimate, crazy, etc.
In my honest opinion, atheists like Dawkins have as much an agenda
and an axe to grind as the most controversial theists.
Nov 4, 2006 4:07 PM
Pink :
.
<i>"Proponents of ID and atheist evolutionists look at
the SAME evidence."</i>
.
#1. As regards ID, what
might that evidence be?
.
<i>"In my honest opinion,
atheists like Dawkins have as much an agenda and an axe to grind as the
most controversial theists."</i>
.
#2. Certainly they
do. Why wouldn't they? There is an article in the latest issue of
<b>Wired</b> magazine that might interest you. I think its
title is "The New Atheism". When I was at Barnes & Noble this
afternoon, I read it over coffee. Check it out. Dawkins, Harris, and
Dennett. are proponents involved. Here's some links
.
http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
.
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/10/the-new-atheists-fight-back.html.
http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1
.
#3. I'm reading an article about E.O.Wilson with whom you
might be familiar. I read his book, Consilience, a couple of years ago.
Are you familiar with him?
.
Nov 4, 2006 6:30 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>#1. As regards ID, what might that evidence be?</i>
This is a classic example of what I'm talking about. The evidence is the
same that ALL scientists are looking at -- DNA, RNA, the complexity of
human physiology, the fossil record, etc., etc., etc. ID proponents see
those things as evidence of a designer. Naturalists see them as evidence
for natural selection. Same evidence. Different interpretations.
<i>There is an article in the latest issue of Wired magazine that
might interest you.</i>
Yup - saw it. Read it. It
definitely interested me.
<i>Are you familiar with [E.O.
Wilson]?</i>
Well, I looked him up just now. Can't say
that I was familiar with him. I assume you recommend his book?
To be honest, my forte is history. I taught it in high school for four
years, and am generally a History Channel junkie and avid history book
reader. I'll read anything that's history. And I was raised by a history
buff dad. And his dad (my granddad) was just as passionate about history.
So, I was hooked on history from a very early age.
In the last
couple of years, I've expanded more into philosophy and science. So, I'm
still catching up with you in those areas.
Nov 5, 2006 8:02 AM
Pink :
.
<i>"So, I'm still catching up with you in those
areas."</i>
.
Not much to catch up to unless you're
talking about age. :)
.
<i>"This is a classic example
of what I'm talking about. The evidence is the same that ALL scientists are
looking at -- DNA, RNA, the complexity of human physiology, the fossil
record, etc., etc., etc. ID proponents see those things as evidence of a
designer. Naturalists see them as evidence for natural selection. Same
evidence. Different interpretations."</i>
.
ID
creationists looking at DNA, RNA, and the complexity of human physiology,
fossil recors, etc., and seeing them as evidence of a designer is an
interesting point of view. What do you mean by "designer" might
be more telling. Is the designer Natural Selection? Can you allow for that
or must it be a personal god who knows your every thought and takes a
personal interest in you? After all is said and done, that IS the point of
ID, is it not? In other words, if you accept the idea of an intelligent
designer, who might that designer be?
.
What history did you
teach in high school? In what school system did you teach, public or
private?
.
I regret that I didn't become a teacher. I had a few
good ones.
.
One was named, Carl Moeller. I want to memorialize
him. I was in the ninth grade and just beginning to open my mind. The ninth
grade was an important one for me. I had taken Metal Shop as an elective in
prepartion for growing up in an industrialized state. Mr. Moeller was a
young man who resembled the Mr. Peepers of 1950s t-v fame. He took me aside
in a personal effort to show me how to work metal on a one on one basis. He
led me to a bench with a vice and showed me how to make a nut and a steel
ring for my finger. It took a couple of sessions. He taught me to research
about the diesel engine and its inventor. I drew illustrations and gave a
talk to the class. I always thought I was slightly retarded and I was
treated as such by some people close to me. Mr. Moeller told me I had a
very good mind and that I could grow intellectually.
.
Thank
you, Mr. Moeller. I will always treasure your memory.
.
:)
.
Nov 5, 2006 7:33 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I taught four years at a private Christian school, but we taught our core
subjects more or less according to the Virginia Standards of Learning -
same as the public schools.
The main difference is that our
kids had, in addition to their core classes, a weekly chapel service and a
daily Bible class.
The other difference is that the parents paid
our salaries. :-)
Subjects I taught included Geography, World
History, US History, and American Government. And, then, since I'm a
pastor, I also taught a Bible class and spoke frequently in the chapel
services.
Prior to joining the Christian school, I subbed a
little in the public school system in Fairfax County, Virginia.
Teaching is one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had. I
wouldn't trade that experience for anything.
Nov 6, 2006 4:18 AM
Pink :
.
My daughter teaches in a private Christian school.
.
Nov 9, 2006 8:09 AM
Boanerges :
(note: aside from the claim that humans evolved, the article is quite
interesting)
Why Eyes are So Alluring
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20061108/sc_livescience/whyeyesaresoa
lluring
Nov 9, 2006 8:46 AM
Pink :
.
This area of the eyes is an important aspect of evolution.
.
You might want to do some further research in the area. The eye has been
given as an excellent example of irreducible complexity.
.
Check
it out, Wendell. You might be able to refute the evolutionist's claim.
.
Nov 9, 2006 9:16 AM
Boanerges :
<i>You might be able to refute the evolutionist's claim.</i>
oh.. no doubt about that.. but this subject has been very well
documented and well argued. No need to rehash it all over again here, until
kingdom come!
As for me, I simply state that "God created
man" as a matter of fact and show why this is truth. Most people I
have come across cannot answer the gapping evolution problems, which makes
it quite easy to reveal to them the Gospel truth..... People seek truth
because they have lost hope in the promise that humanity is capable of
bringing about true peace and safety - which of course, is Humanisms'
greatest achievment.. ~despair and hopelessness~
God however,
brings promise, grace, mercy and redemption, which is a message of hope....
:)
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
1Cor:15:55 <b>O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory?</b>
Nov 9, 2006 9:33 AM
Migisi :
.
Hey Wendell. You mentioned you had some questions I hadn't answered
in another thread. Which thread was that?
.
Signed... Ol'
scatter-brained. Tee hee.
Nov 9, 2006 10:12 AM
Boanerges :
hey Migisi....
oh.. just "how ya doin..." and, hows the
flute playing coming.... uhmm.. lets see... oh yeah... did you like my
pics..... that kinda stuff... ...(~o)....
Nov 9, 2006 2:34 PM
Migisi :
.
Oh. Well, I think I answered the flute playing one - saying my hands
are pretty crippled from carpal tunnel. But I haven't stopped trying to
play. It just doesn't sound very good.
Nov 9, 2006 3:14 PM
Boanerges :
okie.... just checkin...
Mar 22, 2007 11:54 AM
Pink :
.
Reopened
Mar 23, 2007 4:38 AM
Pink :
.
I brought this back up for you so you could continue your comments
on my last post at the History Channel which was:
.
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/6699#message_55 :
.
Brian! I know that an educated person such as you is well aware of
the scientific method. I am not a member of the choir. With all due respect
for the differences people have in their ideas about creation, reason seems
the best policy to me.
.
You wrote, <i>"Evolution is a
scientific theory based on PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions."</i>
.
From Wikipedia:
.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
.
(You can
get much more at this link from which I took the information that follows
it.)
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
.
.
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
.
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
*
Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as
well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information
must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given
phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise
to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an
experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of
possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the
passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or
counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the
elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that
requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to
replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of
the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and
theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at
which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory,
yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and
a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results,
confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* Causal
explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that
concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact
well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread
conditions.[attribution needed] Under these conditions the following
requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific
understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification o
Mar 23, 2007 3:56 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Pink, I accept the scientific method. But, like a calculator, the data you
put in determines the result you get at the end of the process. Look, I'm
not finding fault with evolution as a naturalistic explanation for the
origns of the universe. Remove the possibility or any consideration of an
Intelligent Designer and naturalistic evolution IS your best
explanation.
Let me quickly say, however, Pink, that I am NOT
accusing ANYONE or saying that ANYONE is a 'demon-possessed nut.' You're
putting words in my mouth. Would you please discuss this with ME and not
some strawman you've created based on OTHER Christians you've spoken with?
Mar 23, 2007 5:09 PM
Pink :
.
It certainly seemed like you were saying that people who teach
evolution are trying to put their philosophical understandings of reality
across to anyone who didn't know better.
.
Actually, creationists
who believe that an intelligent being designed everything are the ones who
are trying to put a philosophical ideology across to the gullible.
.
The facts always boil down to the original question which is,
"From where did the intelligent desinger come?"
.
It is
amazing that we are here to experiece our own existence and it is fantastic
that we are learning about things that past generations never dreamed
exist. Looking at the photos from space of far distant galaxies strikes me
dumb with awe. If some single creator made it all, such a being cannot be
fathomed by any stretch of the imagination. It must be a force beyong
comprehension. Why do we have to put that entity in a bottle or a book or
any place else?
.
When I was a child I thought of childish
things. Now I am an adult.
.
.
Mar 24, 2007 9:05 AM
Brian Tubbs :
...is that people approach the origins question based on their
philosophical assumptions -- whether they are religious or not.
Still, YOU are the one that's injecting super-charged language into this
discussion -- twisting my words to say that I'm accusing people of being
demon-possessed nuts. You are the one who sees things in extremes, Pink.
Not me.
Mar 24, 2007 9:08 AM
Brian Tubbs :
The idea that belief in God or an Intelligent Designer is childish is right
out of the Sam Harris / Richard Dawkins school of thought. If that's your
position, I'm afraid there's very little constructive you and I can
accomplish in discussing this. I've already laid out some very strong
logical arguments for God. If you're rejecting those out of hand, then what
more can be said? We're just too far apart.
Mar 24, 2007 9:43 AM
Pink :
.
Your post seems to ask, "What's our goal, here?".
.
It's not you and me; but, there are others who may want to join in
or just read what we say.
.
My quote about being an adult is
right out of the Bible.
.
I'm so happy we live in a secular
society with our protections against a state religion, limited speech,
publications(the press) and that we are free to associate with whomever we
like. I'm very happy Congress does not have a right to propose legislation
to the President on which he might otherwise act in these First Amendment
areas to limit our rights. Not only our present President and Congress;
but, every one for ever and ever as long as this government of, by, and for
the People shall not perish from the earth.
.
You do agree with
that, don't you?
.
Mar 24, 2007 1:25 PM
Brian Tubbs :
The quote about thinking once as a child is of course from Paul (I
Corinthians 13), and you are of course lifting the phrase out of context.
Be that as it may....
Why do you insinuate that I favor limited
individual rights and greater power to the state? Of course, I believe in
our Constitution. Probably more so than most people today in that I don't
believe it should be manipulated by activist judges (or for that matter by
activist Presidents either) for certain ends. The Constitution has
intrinsic meaning - defined by those who authored it (or who authored the
portions in focus). It is the job of the courts to take the actual words -
the actual TEXT - of the document and the basic, original understanding of
that text WHEN IT WAS PASSED - and then apply it to the present day WITH AS
LITTLE INTERFERENCE FROM THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS as possible! It is in THAT
SPIRIT that I am 100% committed to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
and ALL of our amendments since its inception.
Mar 24, 2007 2:26 PM
Pink :
.
You wrote, <i>It is the job of the courts to take the actual
words - the actual TEXT - of the document and the basic, original
understanding of that text WHEN IT WAS PASSED - and then apply it to the
present day WITH AS LITTLE INTERFERENCE FROM THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS as
possible!</i>
.
Is that so? Where did you find that fact?
Is it in the Constitution itself? Where you get those statement you have
capitalized?
.
Mar 26, 2007 3:53 PM
Brian Tubbs :
The Constitution discussion is being taken up in a different thread, so
bringing this back to the article...
I don't consider belief in
an Intelligent Designer to be childish in any way. It is a reasonable,
logical position, based on science and reason.
If you look at
something which evinces intricate complexity and design, you would
naturally conclude that it was fashioned by a designer. It is a logical,
rational inference.
Mar 26, 2007 4:10 PM
Pink :
.
Discussing the ideas of Intelligent Design brings up the ideas of
creation and evolution itself.
.
Intelligent design is, as best I
can figure, an alternative to evolution and the big bang theories.
.
What we're saying with Intelligent Design is that some entity with
superior capabilities must have been involved in the creation. But, does
the t\Theory of Evolution deny that a superior being was nvolved? No.
.
What is there about the Theory of Evolution that can be shown to
be an ongoing happening that you don't like?
.
.
.
Mar 26, 2007 5:02 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Intelligent design is, as best I can figure, an alternative to
evolution and the big bang theories.</i>
Intelligent Design
INCLUDES alternatives to evolution and the big bang theories, but it is NOT
limited to those alternatives. There are evolutionists (namely Deists
and/or Theistic Evolutionists) who are also ID adherents.
Jul 24, 2008 2:31 PM
Paul :
Dawkins wouldn't agree that any "minor adjustment" to DNA would
have "dramatic consequences". Dawkins is a gradualist who would
argue that minor adjustments can contribute minor differences to phenotype,
driving evolution by natural selection. Further, many mutations are not
expressed - different triplets can code for the same protein, for example.
Widely accepted genetic theory since the 70s has been than the majority of
mutations are neutral.
Onto ID:
1) The modern synthesis
(neodarwinism) is not the singular explanation of evolution, although most
scientists would argue that is has the most explanatory power. Hence, even
if a flaw in Darwinism disproved it (and you most certainly have not done
this) it does not disprove evolution - simply the Darwinian explanation of
it.
2) Darwin's theory has, of course, been developed over the
150 years since he first wrote Origin. Behe does not actually make a case
for why the eye is irreducible. If we imagine for a moment he had, the
standard Darwinian response would be that a precursor to a fully
functioning eye could have been used for a different purpose. Personally, I
find that answer a bit of a cop-out, by then I am not a hardline
neodarwinist.
3) Read some Brian Goodwin. He has alternative
explanations that move beyond the adaptionist view that every observed part
of an organism has a historical explanation.
If you understood
the depth of analysis and criticism that Darwinian evolution has undergone
since it was written, you might understand why concluding that it is no
different from ID is incorrect. It is indeed an enormous strength of
naturalism that it relies on what can be observed and tested rather leaping
to "supernatural" explanations for phenomena.
Quote:
"Intelligent design theory makes inferences based
upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the
action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be
produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed
by an intelligence or multiple intelligences."
This
statement makes a value judgement that natural processes cannot explain
complex phenomena due to their degree of complexity.
The point
of naturalism is that explanations must be grounded in what we can observe
and test. Supernatural explanations don't offer any explanatory power -
i.e. God did it so I don't have to explain it because he doesn't have to
follow the laws of nature. Hence, ID doesn't explain, it says don't look.
55 Comments
|
