When will ID learn we are pro-Design?!

@swamidass has just published the thread “So much to discuss!”

So Much to Discuss ]

In it he quotes Dr Gauger who is describing Joshua’s story about a tree one might imagine seeing just after the 6 days of creation:

Why would God create a tree that looks a hundred years old but that is really only a week old?…Swamidass would say, I think [says Dr. Gauger], “Why make life look evolved, if it isn’t?” A fair response would be, “Why make life looks designed, if it isn’t?"

I was already to pounce on this article for what i anticipated would be a failed refutation of her comment!

But first i would finish the article. And to my pleasure and delight, Dr. Swamidass makes a perfect Christian response: “It looks designed because it IS designed!”

There is no better answer if your faith already establishes who is in charge of creation - - and if you also believe God can create by either miraculous means OR natural means (namely mutations and natural selection).

But if we glance again at the title of this thread… when will Creationist and/or ID supporters stop treating “Genealogical Adam” adherents like we are atheists?

After the number of discussions Dr. Gauger has joined right here at PeacefulScience.Org, to read her associating an implied accusation of atheism to Joshua is a rather stunning indication of how difficult it is to understand how different Genealogical Adam is from all the other scenarios!


I oppose scientific arguments for divine design for two reason:

  1. They are usually in scientific error.
  2. Science is supposed to be silent on God.

At the same time I believe that God created us, and in this sense he designed us all.


This is precisely what I don’t get about this forum. Why the dogma about science being silent about God? This dogma seems to lead to a number of faulty arguments. Besides, science is supposed to be the dogma free zone. Isn’t that what the atheists keep telling us is so great about science triumphing over dogmatic religion?

I’m happy to explain when you are ready to understand it as something other than dogma. There is good reason for this. Perhaps read about the 100 year old tree:

Even if we disagree on this, I can still take your arguments seriously, and I have. So no one is using this to exclude you.

It is not dogma, MN is the way science is done.

1 Like

I’d be very interested to hear how you propose to do science without relying 100% on methodological naturalism. How would you develop a new vaccine when Loki God can make it effective one day and be a deadly poison the next? How could you trust any of your results would be repeatable?

1 Like

The main reason is that what you call MN is actually inconsistent, and parasitic on intelligent design. If you want to be consistent, then the law of information non growth implies all that we see is the result of complete randomness. In other words, it is exactly the same sort of sequence we get by flipping a fair coin. As we know, regardless of any pattern or consistency you see in the history of flips, this tells you absolutely nothing about anything that comes next.

However, science believes that we can indeed learn things about reality and make accurate predictions, and use this ability to craft very useful medicines and technologies. If MN were true, then this would be completely impossible.

The only way to justify an orderly universe in which science works is with the presupposition of intelligent design. This can be mathematically formalized with Solomonoff induction.

You must be one of those ID-Creationists. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Please stop attempting to instigate fights by misrepresenting me.


I guess the dogma comes from the inability of anyone to disprove the hypothesis!

Here is the logical underpinning:

1] Some events called Miracles are events that appear to defy natural law.

2] Science works by controlling variables in a way that makes it possible to define natural lawful activity.

3] How do you redesign the scientific method to be able to describe or predict miraculous activity?

Seems your three points provide an answer. If we can define natural law, then we can identify deviations from it…

Yes… and it would be logical to think so if we knew for sure what a miracle was.

We can tell how to make a black hole… and we can describe what goes on right up to the event horizon…
but we cant ever know what is on the other side of the event horizon.

1 Like

Thanks for the empty verbiage and usual ID vacuous talking points but you didn’t answer the question. Here, I’ll rephrase:

How do you propose to do science if you have to allow for undetectable supernatural tinkering with the results?

Please no word salad this time, just an answer to the question asked.

1 Like

We can’t do science if arbitrary tinkering is allowed.

1 Like

Then why are you complaining because science doesn’t allow for supernatural effects due to any God or Gods?

1 Like

Perhaps because your portrayal is a strawman of my position?

1 Like


Science is not equipped to assess miraculous activities or events.

1 Like

So someone hijacked your account and posted this under your name?

Oops again!

1 Like

Dr. Swamidass is an MD, tenured professor, working scientist, researcher, husband, father, and a Christian.
He is not in anyway an ID-Creationist. He would be welcomed in any secular school or college to talk about his science because he keeps the science neutral on the question of God or no God. Those who question his Christianity are being divisive and violating his freedom of religious expression.


Finally, he has found wisdom.

1 Like