Why Intelligent Design is Completely Bogus

Originally Posted By RC Collins

I fail to see what is wrong with presenting in, say a high school biology class, several systems that appear to have irreducible complexity, and nothing that some scientists consider the most likely explanation for these systems is something outside of the materials themselves, some sort of intelligence that designed the system. That is not pushing religion. That intelligence could be anything. It is certainly as scientific as asking students to believe that "chance" mutations brought the systems about.


By the way, for those of you who don't know, "irreducible complexity" refers, in this case, to biological systems composed of several interdependent components in which if one component is missing, the system is completely ineffective or even countereffective. With these systems, naturalistic macroevolutionists believe that the components arose through "chance" mutations. For some systems, that would require that the components be passed along to dominating offspring even though they are not giving the organism any advantage yet. For other systems, that means that all components had to arise by mutiple "chance" mutations simultaneously, or the organism wouldn't live long enough to reproduce and pass long the traits.

I put chance in quotes because chance is a nonentity. It does not create anything. Chance is simply our description of events to complex to describe. When you flip a coin, there are several factors that determine, from the moment you flip it, whether it will be heads or tails. Since we're not privy to knowing all of them so quickly, we say the outcome is up to "chance." So, "chance" does not *cause* mutations.

There was an excellent book written about this years ago by R.C. Sproul called _Not A Chance_.

 

Originally Posted By RC Collins

For crying out loud... "nothing" should read "noting."

 

Originally Posted By JohnS1

Someone mentioned earlier the error of
"cafeteria style religion" where one goes through the bible and decides what he wants and what he doesn't want to believe.

Two factors are important here:
1) The bible we read today was not always the bible others read. Many chapters/books were eliminated/altered thousands of years ago, so not only did those who eliminate them do so "cafeteria style" but they actually eliminated many items from the menu altogether!
2) Part of deciding what to believe and not to believe in the bible is not a matter of discounting something in the book, but more a matter of deciding what your interpretation is. That's not a decision to disbelieve something in the bible, but a decision as to which of many interpretations you believe is accurate. You wouldn't think the US Constitution was oblique - but look at all the different interpretations people make of that document. So it's no surprise that the same is true of the bible, a much more complex and oblique book in many places!

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>You wouldn't think the US Constitution was oblique - but look at all the different interpretations people make of that document. So it's no surprise that the same is true of the bible, a much more complex and oblique book in many places!<<

EXCELLENT point!

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

Some parts of the Constitution are vague. Other parts are clear and straightforward, like how the president needs to be 35 years old. To come to the conclusion that the president can be an 18 year old requires major twisting of the Constitution. The same is true with the Bible. While some things are vague and hard to understand, some things are clear and straightforward. The amount of time God created the world is one of those clear and straightforward things.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>The amount of time God created the world is one of those clear and straightforward things.<<

Not when you throw this little tidbit into the mix:

2 Peter 3:8
"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day."

*rubs chin*

Makes one go: Hmmmmm.

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

Nice verse taken out of context.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

Considering you have no authority from which to make that determination...like that which Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors in the Church (you know...the pillar and ground of truth), I don't know whatever you could mean.

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

That verse was in the context of Peter enplaning why it is taking Jesus so long to come back. Peter was not trying to make any point about the creation account.

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

In case Geneses was not clear enough for you Exodus also confirms the 6 day creation.

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. “

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<In case Geneses was not clear enough for you Exodus also confirms the 6 day creation.>>

I don't care how many verses you come up with. While I believe God is responsible for creation; a six day timeframe between creation of the universe and the appearance of man is verifiably IMPOSSIBLE. Nothing but fiction. World is flat kind of stuff.

If that casts doubt on the validity of the entire Bible, so be it.

(Although personally, I don't think it does.)

 

Originally Posted By schoolsinger

>>>While I believe God is responsible for creation; a six day timeframe between creation of the universe and the appearance of man is verifiably IMPOSSIBLE.<<<

Are you saying God is powerful enough the make the Universe, not powerful enough to do it quickly? So where did you get this divine knowledge of God’s limits?

 

Originally Posted By jdub

Everything I know about Curious George I learned from the original H.A. & Margaret Rey texts.

Everything in the cartoon versions was meddled-with interpretation, and thus not sacrosanct.

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

I love it.

Christians are arguing against cafeteria-style Christianity here while defending why what they choose to disregard is valid.

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<So where did you get this divine knowledge of God’s limits?>>

From scientists who can prove to a reasonable certainty that the earth was here millions of years before man.

So where did YOU get this divine knowledge of God's timeframe? Why would you be so bold as to presume that the day of the almighty God has exactly the same span as the day of a lowly human?

 

Originally Posted By jdub

>>Christians are arguing against cafeteria-style Christianity here while defending why what they choose to disregard is valid.<<

But, I-5--
Isn't it GOOD that they are defending their personal choices?
How does a political analogy work for you. Let's say, for instance, that you are registered w/the Democratic party. Election time comes around, and you get those party-sponsored postcards telling you exactly who & what to vote for -- the WHOLE SLATE. But, being a real, rational person, you investigate the issues & backgrounds, & make your OWN choices--which don't always match the official party line.
Right?

OR, you could carry the postcard to the ballot box with you, & make your vote match precisely without any thought at all, the defense being that's what your party dictates.

Just being argumentative; love & air hugs.
j

 

Originally Posted By inlandemporer

"That's not a decision to disbelieve something in the bible, but a decision as to which of many interpretations you believe is accurate. You wouldn't think the US Constitution was oblique - but look at all the different interpretations people make of that document. So it's no surprise that the same is true of the bible, a much more complex and oblique book in many places!"

This really is an excellent point.

And the constitution was written only 220 years ago, by known authors, in English, i.e. not subject to translation, which is always in itself an interpretation.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>Christians are arguing against cafeteria-style Christianity here while defending why what they choose to disregard is valid.<<

Not as such. The question of "how long it took God to create the universe" is actually a legitimate question that does not fall into the category of dogma. That's the point I've been trying to get across.

That God DID create the universe out of nothing by the power of His word IS dogma. How God did it and how long it took Him is NOT dogma.

That God creates each human soul IS dogma. How God does it is not a dogmatic question.

That the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by God IS dogma. That Apostolic Tradition is also inspired and protected by God the Holy Spirit is also dogma, but the protestants have a hissy fit and say that it means that the Catholic Church can teach whatever it wants when that comes up. It's not true, of course. You can go back to the times of the Apostles and find just about all the teachings of the Catholic Church in some form or another.

But I digress. I think we're missing the important question? Did God create the universe by the power of His word? Absolutely! Do we know exactly how He did it? No. Are there important theological lessons to be learned from Genesis 1? Oooooh, yes! VERY important lessons. Are those lessons about things larger than the question of "how God did it?" THAT'S the key question and the answer is a resounding YES!

 

Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder

Who or what created God? And who or what created whatever created God? Et cetera....

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>>Who or what created God? And who or what created whatever created God? Et cetera....<<

If someone created God, then, by definition, God wouldn't be God, would He?