Have you ever read the Bible? If so, are you very familiar w Christian theology? Are you a Christian? Atheist? Have you ever taken any courses related the the philosophy of science?
Have you ever weighed the options beyond what philosopical naturalism allows to explain the development of complex bio structures? Or do you ignore these because your science teacher fraudulently declared that naturalism is objective. ID weighs the options. To ignore all possibilities is the true basis of ignorance. You might tell me that Intelligence cannot be detected in science. I completely disagree. Science is providing a case for the existence and works of Intelligence more and more as we unpack the world of genetics to view the wonder of incredible complexity that screams at the top of its lungs, “Consider this as a case for your Creator” yet many in their godless philosophical naturalistic narrow minded ignorance and feel good philosophy of sciencism ignore this…such self puffing idenities are as if developing self-gods and makers of their own destiny. According to the Bible which you may have no clue about, this is the essence of what is called sin.
And the Bible says that the basis of ones assessment and judgements will be equally applied upon their judgement by Him. No God allowed in one’s scientific endeavors for determining the history of life? God seems to have no insecurity in this affront. If He is not allowed by them then this is exactly what one gets in return.
Yes, this is a primary reason why I am an atheist. The Bible is filled with ancient atrocities, injustice and intolerance to people. It is not a book of moral guidance for modern society.
This is total rubbish and evangelical nonsense.
Yes, many times. I was raised a Southern Baptist. Anyone who thinks the Bible is a science textbook is seriously uneducated.
Yes I’ve weighed the options. I accept the one with an overwhelming amount of consilient scientific positive evidence. ID has zero scientific positive evidence. It’s all one big argument from ignorance based personal incredulity.
ID offers nothing but science free propaganda to ignorant laymen. To ignore the options which offer no evidence is both rational and sensible. Do you accept magic gravity fairies as an option for what holds the planets in their orbits?
I disagree too. Intelligence can be detected; in the “design” of biological life it just hasn’t been.
1 Like
Why do you think so many Bible-affirming Christ-followers (like me) reject “ID theory”? And a great many of the those Christians who reject the idea of ID as science are professional scientists. Why do you suppose that is?
Greg, I’m very interested in reading your answers to these two questions.
1 Like
I would be interested to hear how someone could do science without using methodological naturalism. How would this work?
It always fascinates me when creationists use the word “faith” as a term of derision. It indicates to me that creationists believe science is superior to religion, so in order to take people down a notch they have to make it look like they have religious faith instead of scientific conclusions.
3 Likes
How can we scientifically test those options?
Testing those possibilities using empirical observations is the basis of science.
1 Like
Me too! Nevertheless, it is a very common theme among the major origins ministry entrepreneurs (e.g., Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind.)
3 Likes
Until one actually looks at genes including many pseudogenes:
From the article’s conclusion:
Why would the Creator design humans, rhinos, tigers and other mammals that never or almost never eat insects with remnants of insect-digesting genes? Is it just a coincidence that the earliest mammal fossils, found alongside dinosaurs, appear to have been insect eaters, and modern herbivores and carnivores have remnants of insect-digesting genes? For those that believe that all animals were plant-eaters in the Garden of Eden, why do so many herbivores have remnants of insect-eating genes? If mammals were created in the last 10,000–6,000 years, how could they evolve from insect-eaters to herbivores and carnivores so quickly, modifying their teeth, jaws, intestinal tracts, etc. to be optimized for their new diets?
4 Likes
Hey, thanks for the site link! I’m gonna check it out later.
Why do you think that scientists are getting on board w ID? Because neo darwinianism hypothesizing that a population selecting from a body of genetic mistakes in a necessary sequence to create multi faceted irreducibly complex bio machines is intellectual suicide.
Jeanson and wise are harvard educated proponents of ID. Dr. Behe a proponent of ID.
Why do you? And I mean that in the sense of “what makes you think that’s true?”
No, they’re creationists. Wise is even a YEC. I thought ID had nothing to do with creationism.
That at least is true. So from this you conclude that scientists are getting on board with ID? Tell me, how many of those scientists are named Steve?
4 Likes
You forget that if you state this, then the measure you use MUST cause you to also conclude that historical science has also not detected that naturalism and non intellihence is responsible for complex life either. It seems that you have a fork in the road: choose mainstream philosophic naturalism which is proving more and more statistically unlikely for explaining irreducible complexity or choose to allow ID as an option next to the natural.
Semantics here. A proponent of ID may not be a creationist, but all creationists are proponents of ID logically.
However, nobody becomes a creationist because of the scientific evidence. Nobody does for ID either, but they do manage to pretend, while creationists don’t even bother.
1 Like
No. I’m a Christian creationist and yet I reject ID.
What is your definition of ID? Do you understand that ID is not just the claim that an intelligent designer created everything? It is the claim that one can use the Scientific Method to detect and measure the role of an intelligent agent in the design of the universe and biological life. To date I have seen no compelling evidence which supports that claim.
2 Likes
I do not think “that scientists are getting on board w ID.”
Indeed, only a tiny percentage of scientists have indicated getting on board with ID theory.
Now I have a question for you: Do you understand why even the vast majority of Christians in the biological sciences reject ID theory? (Why are you ignoring the vast majority of scientists who reject ID theory? Are you cherry-picking those you choose to cite?)
2 Likes
You might be introducing a new point here but not refuting mine despite quoting it.
Anyways a common blueprint, as a option, would account for likeness in genes etc.
Why not?
I am first a Christian. God said He created and i believe Him. But i was intrigued w arguments by Venema w Biologos yrs ago about God creating via universal common decent evolution and began to look at all of the pieces…scientific, philosophical, statistical and theological. My conclusion was that this theistic evolutionary theory was an abismal failure in all 4 categories. It fails philosophically because it demands that truth about complex life is mainly discoverable via the sciences (scientism) It fails as science because peering into the nature of genetic mutations does not offer statistical sense that these be the vehicle that drives sequenced selection for the development of bio machines. It fails Christian theology profoundly. Dr. Kurt Wise took scissors and cut all passages of the bible out in the case that darwinian macro evolution were true, and the skeleton left of the book hardly held together when handled. And naturalism is not a worthy god to revere anyway and sure does not mesh with the God i know of Scripture.
Mico evolution is acceptable and i believe a fact The macro version in mainstream is pretend.