Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this because it seems that if the neo-Darwinist hypothesis was true, it would still be true. In other words, we'd still be witnessing the effects with mutations on some macro degree, but we're not. Species are becoming extinct, not becoming more abundant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're misunderstanding evolutionary theory. Why do you expect species to continuously become more numerous? Why is extinction a mark against our theory of evolution? And what kind of time frame are you thinking of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with evolution, it's "how" it happened I'm curious about.

However, after extensive research on the subject, I can say without doubt, that I am 100% certain I don't know how it happened. I figure we'll sort the whole thing out sooner or later.

[daman123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Regardless of if you think evolution is true or not, you clearly do not understand the theory of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You, too, should hand in your mind reader's certificate.


[/ QUOTE ]

you demonstrated your lack of understanding of evolution in the following post

[ QUOTE ]
As long as Darwinians insist on pushing the idea of no God, random chance, no designer, however you want to express it, they have departed from scientific enquiry by definition and will always meet resistance from people who notice their attempt to sneak atheism in by the back door.

[/ QUOTE ]

as another poster before explained, evolution, the view of Darwinism did not occur by random chance. it's amazing how many people (not necessarily religious) do not understand this. again, i suggest the blind watchmaker.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you demonstrated your lack of understanding of evolution in the following post


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on whether the evolutionist knows he's talking to a theist. If he is, chance is limited. If he isn't chance is magically transformed to absolute.

If you will say that whatever concept of chance you pick doesn't exclude the possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, absolute, personal God you're welcome to it.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are most patently wrong, if this is what you are claiming. Randomness exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
or it doesn't. You couldn't possibly tell, I'll even explain why if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]Please do.

I'd be very interested to learn the proof for the total determinism of everything!

[ QUOTE ]
Though none of this has anything to do with god.


[/ QUOTE ] It has everything to do with the question of God! (I.e. whether a Creator exists or not.)

If randomness does not exist in the universe, then the probability of the existence of a creator/designer of the universe goes up insanely.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Randomness exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Randomness in nature exists for us in the sense that we don't know in advance what will be the outcome. It can't exist for God if He's omniscient.

[/ QUOTE ]This is where the Christian concept of free will and of Man's ability to choose between Good and Evil breaks down. If God is omniscient, He knows that what He creates will choose G or E. In fact, He knows every outcome until the end of time! (This is one fella you shouldn't be taking to the movies with you.)

Therefore, the question arises as to the purpose behind creating humans. Why would God want to create little creatures whose course of action seems to be individually and arbitrarily chosen (separately by every human), but is actually totally predicated?

It's as if we have a toy robot which can "walk", and does indeed go about in seemingly random movements, and we are amazed and delighted with the toy having a "mind" -- while the creator of the program knows exactly what course our toy will follow until its battery runs out!

Why, then?

Only a sadist or someone supremely bored would wind us up like that.

Mickey Brausch

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why, then?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the question, of course. There are many ways of expressing the difficulty and many ways of formulating an answer. In Genesis there is a repetition each time God creates which says that God saw it as good. That's the best I can do. Orthodox Christian theism does not believe that God's sovereignty precludes man's responsibiity. God's foreknowledge doesn't relieve man of guilt. But there is no complete answer that I've found. I posted sometime ago what I think may be the case concerning man's will, tied to the fact that we are created in His image, which would include a relative power, analogous to God's, of creativity. In a small way we can do what God does in a big way - bring something new into the universe. And without diminishing God's soverignty. But that is speculation. I can only go on what the Bible says: The creation is good, God is sovereign, man is responsible.

If God isn't the answer to the question why then there is no answer. There isn't even a question.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are most patently wrong, if this is what you are claiming. Randomness exists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


or it doesn't. You couldn't possibly tell, I'll even explain why if you like.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do.

I'd be very interested to learn the proof for the total determinism of everything!

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the reason you are wrong to claim you can tell if X exists is not a proof that X doesn't exist. I think that's obvious but I can explain if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
Though none of this has anything to do with god.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has everything to do with the question of God! (I.e. whether a Creator exists or not.)

If randomness does not exist in the universe, then the probability of the existence of a creator/designer of the universe goes up insanely.


[/ QUOTE ] Sounds unlikely but some proofs that randomness exists would prove god didn't exist (sadly such a proof cannot exist even if randomness does). You can see why.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
In Genesis there is a repetition each time God creates which says that God saw it as good. That's the best I can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And every time I look at any aspect of creation, as that is what it is purported to be, in detail, without blinkers, I see it as bad.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the best I can do. Orthodox Christian theism does not believe that God's sovereignty precludes man's responsibiity. God's foreknowledge doesn't relieve man of guilt. But there is no complete answer that I've found.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I ran into the same problem…

[ QUOTE ]
…tied to the fact that we are created in His image, which would include a relative power, analogous to God's, of creativity. In a small way we can do what God does in a big way - bring something new into the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

…and came to the same conclusion.


I think this is one of those instances PairTheBoard was referring to when in another thread he said:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think religious people would claim to have "knowledge" of these things, at least not in any ordinary sense of the word. They would say these are matters of "faith" which they "believe". If they did claim knowledge I think they would say it's "divinely revealed knowledge" and not mundane knowledge. Faith and belief are I think clearly subjective experiences. And divinely revealed knowledge is a concept outside the scope of science, just as God itself is. My point then, which I think is an interesting one, is that not only is what they are referring to, God, outside the scope of science. So is their connection to it.


Yes, they pick one set over another. They may claim their choice is a matter of faith or what they believe. But if they claim it is based on "knowledge" it's not knowledge in the ordinary sense of the word. The basis of their choice is at some point subjective. I think the Feedback phenomenon I brought up earlier, especially when working over a long period of time, ingrains in them a strong conviction that they've made the "right" choice. This conviction may prompt them to upgrade their language from, "I believe such and such" to "I know such and such". But this use of the word "know" is I think really just hyperbole for strong conviction.


I think this Feedback phenomenon I mentioned before is crucial. Experience prompts a search for an interpretation. An interpretation is encounted that "rings true" and resonates for the person. He begins to accept it. As he accepts the interpretation, forming a relationship to it, the relationship feeds back to his experience. It may alter his experience in many ways. As his experience alters, the interpretation resonates even stronger for him, providing him with greater and greater conviction of its "truth". Furthermore, it motivates him. I think Jesus recognized this phenomenon when he said, if you have faith only the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains.

[/ QUOTE ]


So here we have one of the most confusing and controversial questions regarding Christianity, as posed by Mickey Brausch…

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the question arises as to the purpose behind creating humans. Why would God want to create little creatures whose course of action seems to be individually and arbitrarily chosen (separately by every human), but is actually totally predicated?

[/ QUOTE ]

…and the Church and theology (objective reality) doesn't provide an adequate answer. So independently of each other, NR and I, unwittingly followed the biblical axiom of, "seek and ye shall find," and subjectively we both arrived at the same truth or knowledge.

As per PTB's theory, "I think this Feedback phenomenon I mentioned before is crucial. Experience prompts a search for an interpretation." So how do I interpret this? Random chance? No. Coincidence? Unlikely.

PTB continues, "An interpretation is encountered that "rings true" and resonates for the person." Logical necessity? Could be. Or maybe it was divine revelation.

Now I'm left with wondering if my knowledge came about through logical necessity or divine revelation. But for argument's sake, let's just say I rule out logical necessity. Obviously, a skeptic would eliminate the possibility of divine revelation, but I think this is in word only. Most of us have had the experience of an idea just "popping into our mind," and this is really no different with the exception of the believer who assigns cause to the occurrence.

For me at least PTB's ideas put this whole discussion and debate about God in different light than I've looked at it, and I thank him for that. I know I could seek out different reasons for reaching the conclusions I did in my example, and others could chime in with some, but that probably won't have a big impact in this case. And more to the point, it would have no impact at all, unless my experience was first opened up to interpretation.

So whether a believer calls it, "a deeper faith or knowledge of God," or a skeptic refers to it as a "feedback phenomenon," doesn't seem to matter too much. Once the idea or premise of God is accepted the process of deeper conviction inevitably and unerring follows, and I can testify to that from my own experience. So I guess my point would be that it's of no use questioning the consequences of the belief, they're inevitable. One can always counter with, "God works in mysterious ways."

What does at first glance appear relevant to debate is the question: does a person have a fundamental and unquestionable right to believe in a God of their choosing? Note I'm not asking if we do or do not have a right to question their definition of God, but does a person have a fundamental right to belief?

To me, "belief," is what this whole debate boils down to. At least from my perspective, I feel I have some rational grounds for making the assertion that God exists, and I'm fully aware that I have to make a leap beyond those rational grounds to a belief. But I feel that even though my reason can only carry me so far, I'm entitled as a somewhat rational being to make that leap beyond reason to the belief that God exists. In truth, I'd say I have a right to.

(sorry for the long and rambling post. I'm sure it did more to clarify my thoughts than anything else.)

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


If God isn't the answer to the question why then there is no answer.

[/ QUOTE ]There could be "answers" that do not involve a Christian God or any other God of the kind that has been handed down to us by our ancestors. Or any God at all. We could be giving all the meaning there is to this universe through our existence and self consciousness.

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't even a question.

[/ QUOTE ]Our existence by itself posits the question.


Mickey Brausch