CDZ Questions About Creation

[I amso IR]

"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?

I amso IR responds: The OP asks for courteous exchange of thought, I second that.
Some thing that has bothered me for some time is, have there been more civilizations on planet earth? The earth has been habitable far longer than one can reason. If the earth is in fact 14/16 millions of years old then it stands to reason that at least there has been habitation on the planet at least 10% of that time or 1.4 million to 1.6 million years. Round that up to 2 million for the sake of ease. If earth has the ingredients to formulate life once then there is a good chance it can do it again and again. If you watch the program, Life after Humans, the theory that after 100,000 years no trace of civilization would exist or it would be buried deep below the surface. Volcano's, Tectonic Plate movement, earthquakes, floods. glaciers and a host of other events would wipe out traces of humanity. 2 millions of years would equal 20, one hundred thousand year periods, or more than enough time to regenerate humanity more than once, at least. So, back to my original question, has more than one human civilization occupied the earth and if so, what caused them to disappear? Maybe, there is a God who created all of this. Maybe, intelligent design is responsible or natures green goo is responsible. One thing is certain, the speed of light will not be denied, at least for now. So, if some alien from somewhere is responsible for this life on earth, it is long since dead on the trip back home and it's survivors are wondering, how in hell did we get stuck out here in the middle of no where, just like we do. Cheers all!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's be courteous.

One, creationism or ID is indeed a religious theory. The construct rests on the faith premise that certain life events that cannot be explained by current scientific process.

Two, evolution is not about the evolution of life, only about the evolution of species.

Three, "external influence in the development of life on Earth" ipso facto implies the nature of intelligent beings who created life.

Four, the sake of clarity, creationism and evolution have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[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?

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.

Likewise.

Seriously have you actually answered a single question in any of these three threads like an adult?

I have asked serious questions in this thread- and you have not answered one of them.

Why did you even start this thread if you aren't going to bother actually answering 'questions about creation'?

Once again- Is 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?

 

[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.

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.

THANK YOU! This is what I'm trying to accomplish here. Rather than the flame fest objectives of posters like Syriusly, I want to hear some independent thought, not a regurgitation of whatever our programmers program into us. Why should we limit ourselves to someone else's ideas that cannot be proven or even reasonably verified? Who is to say what intelligence there is out there? If man is so damn intelligent, why are we on the verge of making ourselves extinct through nuclear war? We can't even balance the federal budget, how can we be expected to unlock the mysteries of life?

Once again, petro, thank you for an intelligent and respectful post.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Likewise.

Seriously have you actually answered a single question in any of these three threads like an adult?

I have asked serious questions in this thread- and you have not answered one of them.

Why did you even start this thread if you aren't going to bother actually answering 'questions about creation'?

Once again- Is 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?

I answered your first question. You didn't like the answer so you responded with sarcasm and condescension. I'm done with you. Bye.

 

[petro]

I totally disagree with the viewpoint that ID is an extension of religious thinking. It is accepting the basic premise of the Drake Equation which puts a mathematical probability(speculation) on the number of intelligent species residing just within our galaxy alone, somewhere around 10,000. Would doubt that given that probability humankind is at the top of the list. Granted that the equation is just a theory, so is the thinking regarding the Big Bang as no one can deliver a proof as it is speculation based upon observation. All theories are subject to testing which last I heard is the job of scientific query and to not accept a theory as unproven fact, an act that would be itself a matter of faith.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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'm not attempting to force you into proving Creationism and when you ar unable to say, "See! You can't prove it!" My question was simply one I haven't heard posed to a creationist and I was curious what the answer was. I view debates not just as a way to challenge the perspective or position of someone else, but too learn and, mostly, to get them to challenge mine.

I listen to a podcast called Unbelievable. It is a British program on a Christian radio network that typically has a nonbeliever and a Christian debating, though sometimes it's Christian vs Christian or Muslim, etc. I highly recommend it. The moderator is an Evangelical and extremely good at moderating the debate, especially at keeping things civil and on topic. I don't listen because I want to hear atheists bash Christians, because that doesn't happen. I listen to hear new arguments and challenge my ways of thinking.

That's why I (usually) remain civil on these forums. I want to hear the other side and being a dick shuts down the conversation.

I will and do call out my fellow nonbelievers when they make stupid arguments or misundstand science, philosophy, or debate.

I want you to feel as though you can freely and openly answer my questions not so I can lure you into a trap, but to actually hear the argument. I have no delusions that you'll suddenly change your point of view. I just want to know if I should change mine.

 

[pinqy]

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.

In what ways do you think creationism/intelligent design helps understand biology better than evolution?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"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?

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

To the numbered points above:

1. Does the fact that we only know of life on this planet only under these conditions, mean that life can only exist under these conditions?

3. How does intellgent design explain the appearance of these life forms? Why do you think evolution does not explain these appearances of new species?

4. What makes human beings different from other animals, mammals, and primates in any way beyond just qualitatively? Evolutionary theory does posit an evidence-based explanation as to why humans have developed a currently greater intelligence than other organisms.

Even if we are designed, why would that necessarily make us more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

 

[jwoodie]

1. Does the fact that we only know of life on this planet only under these conditions, mean that life can only exist under these conditions?

Life as we understand it.

3. How does intellgent design explain the appearance of these life forms? Why do you think evolution does not explain these appearances of new species?

"Evolution" is based on adaptation through random mutation. It is unlikely that widespread random mutations would occur simultaneously without external causation.

4. What makes human beings different from other animals, mammals, and primates in any way beyond just qualitatively? Evolutionary theory does posit an evidence-based explanation as to why humans have developed a currently greater intelligence than other organisms.

The human body belongs to the animal kingdom, but the human mind possesses qualities (such as conscience) that cannot be explained as a random mutation.

Even if we are designed, why would that necessarily make us more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

See above.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

1. Does the fact that we only know of life on this planet only under these conditions, mean that life can only exist under these conditions?

Life as we understand it.

3. How does intellgent design explain the appearance of these life forms? Why do you think evolution does not explain these appearances of new species?

4. What makes human beings different from other animals, mammals, and primates in any way beyond just qualitatively? Evolutionary theory does posit an evidence-based explanation as to why humans have developed a currently greater intelligence than other organisms.

Even if we are designed, why would that necessarily make us more than just a curious collection of chemicals?

See above.

How does one make a scientific distinction between actual design and apparent design?

Evolution" is based on adaptation through random mutation. It is unlikely that widespread random mutations would occur simultaneously without external causation.

Mutations are random, but occur both due to internal copying errors and external factors such as radiation, oxidization, and viral infections. Evolution through natural selection is not based solely on random mutations, but also through environmental pressures: random mutations which are "selected" for through environmental pressure. By external causation do you mean an intelligent agent or something more like a catastrophic event?

The human body belongs to the animal kingdom, but the human mind possesses qualities (such as conscience) that cannot be explained as a random mutation.

That is not a scientific distinction but a philosophical one. Animals appear to experience consciousness. Consciousness is not sufficiently well understood to make an unsubstantiated assertion that it cannot be explained as a random mutation. There are evidenced-based theoretical explanations for consciousness. There hasn't yet been enough work done to rule-out a naturalistic explanation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is why creationism/ID can never have a place in a science class: "Why should we limit ourselves to someone else's ideas that cannot be proven or even reasonably verified? Who is to say what intelligence there is out there?"

If you want to make an argument that celestial aliens made us, please do so.

But don't pretend that has anything to do with scientific biology other than supposition.

 

[jwoodie]

How does one make a scientific distinction between actual design and apparent design?

Depends on the definition of "design." Some intermediate mutations are beneficial; others are not. Natural selection tends to weed out non-beneficial mutations.

Evolution" is based on adaptation through random mutation. It is unlikely that widespread random mutations would occur simultaneously without external causation.

Mutations are random, but occur both due to internal copying errors and external factors such as radiation, oxidization, and viral infections. Evolution through natural selection is not based solely on random mutations, but also through environmental pressures: random mutations which are "selected" for through environmental pressure. By external causation do you mean an intelligent agent or something more like a catastrophic event?

Could be either or both. I do not dismiss these possibilities just because they might have a religious connotation.

The human body belongs to the animal kingdom, but the human mind possesses qualities (such as conscience) that cannot be explained as a random mutation.

That is not a scientific distinction but a philosophical one. Animals appear to experience consciousness. Consciousness is not sufficiently well understood to make an unsubstantiated assertion that it cannot be explained as a random mutation. There are evidenced-based theoretical explanations for consciousness. There hasn't yet been enough work done to rule-out a naturalistic explanation.

I was referring to "conscience," not "consciousness."

 

[jwoodie]

This is why creationism/ID can never have a place in a science class: "Why should we limit ourselves to someone else's ideas that cannot be proven or even reasonably verified? Who is to say what intelligence there is out there?"

If you want to make an argument that celestial aliens made us, please do so.

But don't pretend that has anything to do with scientific biology other than supposition.

1. Do you allow for the possibility of life outside of Earth? If not, why not?

2. If yes, do you allow for the possibility that such life might possess an intelligence superior to that of humans? If not, why not?

3. If yes, does that not contradict your definition of "scientific?"

 

[320 Years of History]

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

Never heard of it, why?

Red:
Only because of your ID and the inherent scholarship and intellectualism the thread topic requires in order to have any sort of good discussion about it.

• Jesuit formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By universal canon law, every candidate for priestly ordination must complete four years in the study of theology, though part of this requirement may have been met in the first period studies. This will include the attainment of a first degree in theology (such as the Bachelor of Sacred Theology), and usually a second (masters level) degree in a specialized area related to theology. (As such, it is not uncommon for a Jesuit to hold a master's level degree in Theology, and, as mentioned above, a second master's or a doctorate in a completely different field.)​

• The Jesuit Model of Education

Blue:
Astounding....

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2013/03/economist-explains-who-are-jesuits-exactly

 

[2aguy]

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

Easy...God created life on earth and created all the mechanisms that govern them.....when we die I hope we will finally see how and why it all works...and the idea behind it all...

 

[2aguy]

"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.

Secondly, the "scientific community" is the sole arbiter of what is and is not science

Except that they are human and prone to human weakness....so money, fame and jealousy can also infect the peer review process........that and the various hoaxes that "scientists" have pushed..........

 

[jwoodie]

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

Never heard of it, why?

Red:
Only because of your ID.

• Jesuit formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By universal canon law, every candidate for priestly ordination must complete four years in the study of theology, though part of this requirement may have been met in the first period studies. This will include the attainment of a first degree in theology (such as the Bachelor of Sacred Theology), and usually a second (masters level) degree in a specialized area related to theology. (As such, it is not uncommon for a Jesuit to hold a master's level degree in Theology, and, as mentioned above, a second master's or a doctorate in a completely different field.)​

• The Jesuit Model of Education

Blue:
Astounding....

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2013/03/economist-explains-who-are-jesuits-exactly

Feeling left out? Why not start a new thread on this subject?

 

[320 Years of History]

Feeling left out? Why not start a new thread on this subject?

I some months ago started a thread on the aspect of the topic that I wanted to entreat folks to discuss. No members apparently have the will to engage in a comprehensive/scholarly discussion on the matter seeing as not one person has responded with a rigorously developed and presented reply.

Edit:
Sorry. I failed to answer your first question. No, I'm not feeling left out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure, life could exist beyond our world.

Sure, such life could be superior to ours.

No, it does not contradict "scientific" as a definition, because your supposition is not testable.

And your philosophical inquiry does not invalidate evolution at all.