CDZ Questions About Creation

[S.J.]

This thread is not intended to be a Creation vs Evolution debate but rather an opportunity to ask questions of those who believe in Intelligent Design or that a higher power (God) created life on Earth.

It is also an opportunity for those who believe in Intelligent Design to express that belief and the reason(s) for it. Anyone can ask and anyone can answer but please keep in mind that the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those with a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How does one make the distinction between actual design and apparent design with any type of scientific rigor?

 

[Syriusly]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

 

[Syriusly]

What is the Creationist explanation for the existence of the species known as Polar Bears?

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Creation" is pretty vague. I assume you're referring to creationism? Creationism is a political effort. An attempt to give religious beliefs a scientific legitimacy. Descartes tried that. It didn't work. Creationism works less well even than his Meditations on First Philosophy.

 

[jwoodie]

"Creation" is pretty vague. I assume you're referring to creationism? Creationism is a political effort. An attempt to give religious beliefs a scientific legitimacy. Descartes tried that. It didn't work. Creationism works less well even than his Meditations on First Philosophy.

This illustrates the reflexive attack mode adopted by Darwin's True Believers when face with questions they can't answer.

As to the OP, there are certain assumptions about "Intelligent Design" which need to be clarified. First, this is not a religious theory, but an alternative explanation for biological events that seem to have occurred outside of natural processes as we know them. Secondly, it does not purport to specify the nature of any intelligent being or beings who may exist. Instead, it acknowledges the possibility of some sort of external influence in the development of life on Earth.

This entire debate reminds me of the dissension that occurred after it was first postulated that the Sun was the center of our known universe. People who pointed out that the Moon and some stars didn't behave themselves according to this theory were condemned as heretic troglodytes until further discoveries were made. In the same way, Darwin's commendable, but simplistic, theory of how all life developed on Earth engenders hostility, rather than honest discussion, when challenged with contrary facts.

What we do know are these facts:

1. Earth seems to possess unique attributes regarding life which do not seem to be replicated in any part of the known universe (statisticians and Trekkies notwithstanding).

2. Pre- and post-life conditions on Earth do not provide answers as to what might have actually triggered the initial development of life on this planet.

3. The appearance of different life forms seems to have occurred en masse during discrete periods of the Earth's History.

4. The geologically recent appearance of human beings, possessing unique qualitative differences from all other animals, has yet to be understood, much less explained by natural occurrences.

Given what many perceive to be arrogant conjecture regarding these facts by the "scientific community," some have suggested that extraterrestrial forces may have played a role, While "intelligent design" suggests an intelligence greater than our own, it also contemplates the larger question of life itself: Are we anything more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

 

[S.J.]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

I don't know why they would only be found in two places, never really thought about it but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not they were created.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

I don't know why they would only be found in two places, never really thought about it but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not they were created.

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

 

[Syriusly]

What we do know are these facts:

1. Earth seems to possess unique attributes regarding life which do not seem to be replicated in any part of the known universe (statisticians and Trekkies notwithstanding).

2. Pre- and post-life conditions on Earth do not provide answers as to what might have actually triggered the initial development of life on this planet.

3. The appearance of different life forms seems to have occurred en masse during discrete periods of the Earth's History.

4. The geologically recent appearance of human beings, possessing unique qualitative differences from all other animals, has yet to be understood, much less explained by natural occurrences.

What are the unique qualitative differences of humans from all other animals?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Creationism have a theory on how and why there is life on Earth?

 

[Syriusly]

Does Creationism have a theory on how and why life is different and unique in different parts of the Earth.

Why are kangaroos only in Australia and New Guinea?
Why are Giant Tortoises found only in two island chains on earth?
Why are jaguars in the New World- and not in Africa?

 

[Elvis Obama]

"Creation" is pretty vague. I assume you're referring to creationism? Creationism is a political effort. An attempt to give religious beliefs a scientific legitimacy. Descartes tried that. It didn't work. Creationism works less well even than his Meditations on First Philosophy.

This illustrates the reflexive attack mode adopted by Darwin's True Believers when face with questions they can't answer.

As to the OP, there are certain assumptions about "Intelligent Design" which need to be clarified. First, this is not a religious theory, but an alternative explanation for biological events that seem to have occurred outside of natural processes as we know them. Secondly, it does not purport to specify the nature of any intelligent being or beings who may exist. Instead, it acknowledges the possibility of some sort of external influence in the development of life on Earth.

This entire debate reminds me of the dissension that occurred after it was first postulated that the Sun was the center of our known universe. People who pointed out that the Moon and some stars didn't behave themselves according to this theory were condemned as heretic troglodytes until further discoveries were made. In the same way, Darwin's commendable, but simplistic, theory of how all life developed on Earth engenders hostility, rather than honest discussion, when challenged with contrary facts.

What we do know are these facts:

1. Earth seems to possess unique attributes regarding life which do not seem to be replicated in any part of the known universe (statisticians and Trekkies notwithstanding).

2. Pre- and post-life conditions on Earth do not provide answers as to what might have actually triggered the initial development of life on this planet.

3. The appearance of different life forms seems to have occurred en masse during discrete periods of the Earth's History.

4. The geologically recent appearance of human beings, possessing unique qualitative differences from all other animals, has yet to be understood, much less explained by natural occurrences.

Given what many perceive to be arrogant conjecture regarding these facts by the "scientific community," some have suggested that extraterrestrial forces may have played a role, While "intelligent design" suggests an intelligence greater than our own, it also contemplates the larger question of life itself: Are we anything more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

First of all, I'm not a "true believer" in Darwinism. "True believer" is a phrase that is compatible with religious thought, but has no place in science.

Secondly, the "scientific community" is the sole arbiter of what is and is not science. Period. Not a bunch of random posters on a forum board. The process is called peer review. You publish your paper and if all you hear is the mocking, dismissive laughter of scientists, you're screwed. Creationism and intelligent design tried to get in the scientist's club and were tossed out by the club's irresistible bouncer, rationality.

Third, you know what would be really amazing? Proving Darwin wrong. Coming up with fossil evidence that bolsters an entirely new theory. Everyone's mind would be blown. Headlines around the world. The new king of science would be crowned and worshiped. You know why? Because people want to know things. More than that, they need to know, have to know. Do we know? Hell no. Very frustrating. Tends to make many, many people claim they know things they don't really know. I have absolute certitude about nothing.

I have faith though. Faith that knowledge is the only true value that human beings create. Faith that science is the best tool available for the study of the physical universe. Faith that the good ship epistemology will take us to the heart of the universe, in time. Science is science, but epistemology is all knowledge, including religion, art, philosophy. It's all of value, but not all of it is science, and not all of it is fit for the classroom.

 

[S.J.]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

I don't know why they would only be found in two places, never really thought about it but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not they were created.

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

As I pointed out in the OP, the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those who have a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

I don't know why they would only be found in two places, never really thought about it but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not they were created.

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

As I pointed out in the OP, the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those who have a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

And where did I do any of those things? This is but one of the questions I have asked- and you have yet to actually answer with anything but the most vague response.

Is you Creationism theory that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

If not- what is your Creationist theory?

If you can't answer that question- why start the thread?

 

[320 Years of History]

Does Creationism have a theory on how and why life is different and unique in different parts of the Earth.

Why are kangaroos only in Australia and New Guinea?
Why are Giant Tortoises found only in two island chains on earth?
Why are jaguars in the New World- and not in Africa?

Creationism doesn't, AFAIK, have a thing to say about plate tectonics' role in the dispersion of various life forms across the planet. I'm not even aware that Creationism recognizes that the Earth's crust plates move.

 

[S.J.]

Okay- I will bite- from my question to you before:

What is your personal belief/theory regarding the diversity of life on earth?

As a specific example- what is your belief/theory regarding why kangaroos are found only in two places- Australia and New Guinea?

I don't know why they would only be found in two places, never really thought about it but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not they were created.

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

As I pointed out in the OP, the aim here is to have an adult conversation based on mutual respect and civility, not to insult those who have a different viewpoint. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks, ridicule, and name calling, please be courteous enough to not post anything.

And where did I do any of those things? This is but one of the questions I have asked- and you have yet to actually answer with anything but the most vague response.

Is you Creationism theory that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

If not- what is your Creationist theory?

If you can't answer that question- why start the thread?

So the limit to your 'creationism' theory is that by some mechanism every form of life on earth just poofed into existence at a single point of time in history?

Your comment is antagonistic, and your general tone is one of confrontation and condescension. I'm not going to be drawn into a flame war with you. If you can't communicate like an adult, I won't waste my time on you. Either change your attitude or expect to be ignored.

 

[S.J.]

How does one make the distinction between actual design and apparent design with any type of scientific rigor?

CMM, I'm not trying to prove creation. Even if I was, I could not do it scientifically. The methods one uses that leads them to a belief in evolution are not the same methods that would lead one to believe we were created. Creation (at least for me) is based on logic as well as faith.

When I observe the complexity of life, the human body, the mind, the senses, etc. I'm led to believe this was not just random chance. That, and the undeniable fact that there is order in the universe. Those are very strong indications of a creator. Just because we can't produce him/her/it in the physical form, does not mean there is none.

I'm often amused by those who dismiss the idea of a creator, especially those who claim to be of a scientific mind. They violate the basic rule of science, which is to consider all possibilities. In the vastness of space and time, what makes us think there is no higher intelligence than man, or that there couldn't possibly be a higher power that could create life as we know it? That is the height of arrogance. In that respect, I'm more scientific than they are because I consider all possibilities, not just what I can see in physical form.

 

[320 Years of History]

CMM, I'm not trying to prove creation. Even if I was, I could not do it scientifically. The methods one uses that leads them to a belief in evolution are not the same methods that would lead one to believe we were created. Creation (at least for me) is based on logic as well as faith.

When I observe the complexity of life, the human body, the mind, the senses, etc. I'm led to believe this was not just random chance. That, and the undeniable fact that there is order in the universe. Those are very strong indications of a creator. Just because we can't produce him/her/it in the physical form, does not mean there is none.

I'm often amused by those who dismiss the idea of a creator, especially those who claim to be of a scientific mind. They violate the basic rule of science, which is to consider all possibilities. In the vastness of space and time, what makes us think there is no higher intelligence than man, or that there couldn't possibly be a higher power that could create life as we know it? That is the height of arrogance. In that respect, I'm more scientific than they are because I consider all possibilities, not just what I can see in physical form.

S.J., out of sheer curiosity, are you a member of the Society of Jesus?

 

[S.J.]

CMM, I'm not trying to prove creation. Even if I was, I could not do it scientifically. The methods one uses that leads them to a belief in evolution are not the same methods that would lead one to believe we were created. Creation (at least for me) is based on logic as well as faith.

When I observe the complexity of life, the human body, the mind, the senses, etc. I'm led to believe this was not just random chance. That, and the undeniable fact that there is order in the universe. Those are very strong indications of a creator. Just because we can't produce him/her/it in the physical form, does not mean there is none.

I'm often amused by those who dismiss the idea of a creator, especially those who claim to be of a scientific mind. They violate the basic rule of science, which is to consider all possibilities. In the vastness of space and time, what makes us think there is no higher intelligence than man, or that there couldn't possibly be a higher power that could create life as we know it? That is the height of arrogance. In that respect, I'm more scientific than they are because I consider all possibilities, not just what I can see in physical form.

S.J., out of sheer curiosity, are you a member of the Society of Jesus?

Never heard of it, why?

 

[petro]

How does one make the distinction between actual design and apparent design with any type of scientific rigor?

CMM, I'm not trying to prove creation. Even if I was, I could not do it scientifically. The methods one uses that leads them to a belief in evolution are not the same methods that would lead one to believe we were created. Creation (at least for me) is based on logic as well as faith.

When I observe the complexity of life, the human body, the mind, the senses, etc. I'm led to believe this was not just random chance. That, and the undeniable fact that there is order in the universe. Those are very strong indications of a creator. Just because we can't produce him/her/it in the physical form, does not mean there is none.

I'm often amused by those who dismiss the idea of a creator, especially those who claim to be of a scientific mind. They violate the basic rule of science, which is to consider all possibilities. In the vastness of space and time, what makes us think there is no higher intelligence than man, or that there couldn't possibly be a higher power that could create life as we know it? That is the height of arrogance. In that respect, I'm more scientific than they are because I consider all possibilities, not just what I can see in physical form.

I agree with the notion of arrogance displayed by those who dismiss or cannot fathom the idea that a higher intelligence could have evolved during the 13 billion years we believe that the universe has been in existence. We are a mere speck in that vastness and to automatically dismiss the idea that there may have been a design element is lacking a capability to think outside the box. Isn't it part of scientific query to think outside the box? If one takes evolution past our current state of being couldn't we ourselves evolve to that state of what we would call a higher being or intelligence? Are we not already dabbling with DNA and basically designing life already? While I personally lean to the design element I cannot state for certain that is correct. Given that statement, any intelligence or as some would call "God" would be a scientist based upon the structure of the universe we observe. As I stated in your other thread there may be a little truth to both "sides" of the debate.
There are still many in the scientific community who have spiritual/religious beliefs.