Supernatural information supplier

quote:

---

Why then are Dawkins, Gould, Kauffman and Prigogine, Eigen, and Francis Crick not convinced that mutation and natural selection are sufficent to produce the full diversity of living forms?

---

Prigogine was a Physicist, not an Evolutionary Biologist.Eigen was a Chemist, not an Evolutionary Biologist.Kauffman is a Biologist, but looking briefly through his publication list there seems to be nothing to suggest that he advocates supernatural causes for the diversity of life on Earth.Crick is a Biochemist, is constantly misquoted by Creationists. He is an ardent Naturalist and fully supports evolution. HE muses about panspermia being the origin of life on Earth, but never advocates any supernatural agnecy.Dawkins? Are you seriously suggesting that DAWKINS thinks that the supernatural is responsible for anything?Gould is an Evolutionary Biologist who fully accepts that mutation and natural selection are responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. He suggests that the PACE of this process is not always gradual. He is misquoted VERY frequently by Creationists.Now, I have a suggestion for you.I suggest you stop going to Creationist websites to find these feeble dihonest misquotes to argue with, since they will always make you look as dishonest and feeble as the people constructing the websites.I also suggest that if you want to know what Gould, Dawkins, or any other Evolutionary Scientist thinks about Evolution, you might want to read a book or a paper written by them instead of a misleading quote taken out of context and found on a religiously biased propaganda website.

quote:

---

Then why the scurry amongst some scientists to come up with a mechanism beyond mutation and natural selection that explains biodiversity?

---

What are you talking about?What other mechanism have scientists suggested?

quote:

---

I could easliy see an object or system that has evolved testing positive for design. This could just simply mean the object or system evolved under the direction of a designer or the initial object or system was the direct product of a designer who incorporated the evolutionary process into it. But it does seem that evolutionary theory has come up against some walls that ID could help to penetrate; the origins questions, the mechanism driving evolution beyond random mutation and natural selection that Gould and others are looking for.

---

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and2) do not have the intelligence or resources to ever understand?

I also have a neutral mutation.I have a mutation that caused my lower wisdom teeth to never form.Since wisdom teeth don't appear until the late teens/early twenties, if I had been having children since I reached reproductive maturity at age 13, any problems with my teeth would have been irrelevant as I would have already borne my offspring and passed on my genes long before they emerged.

Hi Shraff. Ofcourse - I am forced to choose 2, but I am not 1.However, if I can remember (I can't) - then I was arguing that to say the natural causes have no God behind them would be arrogant/dismissive. I know what you're thinking Ellie, "Occams razor" right?

quote:

---

Yes, I think you have a point. But the difference comes in when you have a Chinese farmer running around claiming to have the fossil remains of some missing link and the press taking the claim at face value and putting stories out that are premature at best.

---

Couldn't agree more.

quote:

---

For scientists, at least there is the check and balance system of prestige, recognition, tenure, etc,

---

Actually, a scientist who would propagate unverified information like that would be putting his or her entire career in serious jeopardy. Forget about "prestige, recognition, or tenure", he or she would be in real danger of becoming unhirable at any respected research university.

quote:

---

(even though I think it is heavily weighted in favor of Darwinists,

---

I assume you mean The Common Synthesis?Anyway, what other scientific theory of biodiversity is there that has also survived repeated tests?Lamarkism is scientific but has been shown to be wrong through testing.I don't know of any other.

quote:

---

but then that would tend to keep scientists who have some prestige or reputation to protect from making any claims in the ID camp, thus making it harder to explain the proliferation of such writings).

---

Evidence, dshortt.Science proceeds from the evidence.Claims need to be supported by evidence.If scientists had evidence, they would publish it in professional peer-reviewed journals.If the evidence existed, there would be no choice but for scientists to accept it.Science proceeds from the evidence.Claims need to be supported by evidence that anyone, performing the same experiment, can replicate.Where is the evidence?

quote:

---

However, if I can remember (I can't) - then I was arguing that to say the natural causes have no God behind them would be arrogant/dismissive. I know what you're thinking Ellie, "Occams razor" right?

---

Sure.I could then ask you, if you believe God is behind all natural causes, then which God is it? There are hundreds of thousands of gods conceived by humans, probably more.Maybe there is a separate god responsible for each and every one of the tiniest particles of matter?Also, if there is no discernable difference between natural causes and God-caused, then why invoke God at all?

First of all - don't forget, Percy said that we first attributed the inexplicable to God supernatural. That is - us believers.And now - those things have been explained naturally. But does that mean we invoke God when we now mention him? Or does the natural mean that God is no longer allowed to be mentioned?The true and valid position that we take - is that God created all things. Nor do we limit him to any way in which he could do those things. So all I'm saying is that God isn't pushed out, though maybe he is in your mind. But rather - you should push him back if you want to remain objective. Because you full well know, that God can still work through natural causes. As with the Exodus.So if we are guilty of assuming God - then how are we invoking him? Is it not you who are removing him?

True, but adding functionality is not the same as adding information which it seems to me would entail the adding of code in the genome along with an increased functionality of the machinery.

You originally said:

quote:

---

Function would be adding a body part or some structure that enhances the creature at some level. Sorry I haven't been around long enough to have seen any of these examples.

---

Then I replied: Then you now replied:

quote:

---

True, but adding functionality is not the same as adding information which it seems to me would entail the adding of code in the genome along with an increased functionality of the machinery.

---

...which has nothing to do with your original claim.You seemed to be saying that the only way species could evolve was to add function, but this is not the case, as I showed. Removal of function can increse reproductive success.

quote:

---

The true and valid position that we take - is that God created all things.

---

It is true and valid only as a philosophy or belief.It is not true and valid as science.

quote:

---

Nor do we limit him to any way in which he could do those things.

---

Sure you do, or, at least, many Creationists do.

quote:

---

So all I'm saying is that God isn't pushed out, though maybe he is in your mind.

---

Show me evidence of this God. Don't have any?How can I "push out" of science that for which there is no evidence?

quote:

---

But rather - you should push him back if you want to remain objective.

---

I do wish to remain objective.Show me the emperical evidence of God and I will consider it.

quote:

---

Because you full well know, that God can still work through natural causes. As with the Exodus.

---

There is no evidence of the Exodus, AFAIK. Where is this evidence?God may work entirely through natural causes.Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, please.(nod to Hambre)

quote:

---

So if we are guilty of assuming God - then how are we invoking him?

---

Which god?

quote:

---

Is it not you who are removing him?

---

If God working appears exactly the same as no God working, tell me again why I need to include god?It is not useful in any way to learning or discovery.

Science? I didn't mention science. I'm talking about what people have accepted in the past - and comparing it to now.Are you saying that science used to conclude God, pertaining to the previously inexplicable?....I was not talking about science when I said; Now - I said "we" - as in people. We as people.I see you use the shield of science when necessary - in order to make it look like you're holding an objective position. But you have said that we have invoked God. Not so - we were before science, and we concluded God then. Are you saying that science means that God does not exist, and therefore - all natural things are accounted for without God, therefore science has found out that God doesn't exist? I agree. So this must mean that science doesn't remove God - nor is it objective to follow this position. Agree? That's funny. Have you any evidence God caused those natural things?Recently we prayed for those who were sick - that God would heal them, as Christ did. Now Christ didn't cast out God - he cast out the enemy. I've explained the biblical position many times concerning this, ass Hambre's deaf ears. You just have;" Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, ".Apparently you think God causes bad and evil things - but doesn't heal anyone. You call it spontaneous remission when someone is healed - and when someone gets a disease - you say God done it.Now we know God has worked if he says he is going to. If God says he will bring his people out of Egypt, or we precedingly ask for something in prayer - and it comes to pass. Then we know that either supernaturally/naturally - God has worked.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-27-2004 12:26 AM

Mike the Wiz sez,

quote:

---

The true and valid position that we take - is that God created all things.

---

But then he sez,

quote:

---

Schraf: Tell me what work God is doing when he causes birth defects, cancer, crib death, and tapeworms, please.

​

Mike: That's funny. Have you any evidence God caused those natural things?

---

regards,
Esteban Hambre

Yes but I can't prove my position. Unless a good solid conditional implication is in order. .How do you know that I pronounce "says" like "sez"? R u skitting me becoz I'm from Liverpool?

If we exist then there is a God.The contra-positive is that no God = no existence. Yay!