Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

Long ago we believed: We now understand that the actual causes of such things are Natural.Natural Selection is as well.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Even if true, where is the problem in that and what does it have to do with Natural Selection?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Even if "The Shadow knows" you are not helping any of us understand.What does even one of your posts so far have to do with evolution, Natural Selection or even a single example of Godly guidance?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well, you are failing miserably them.We can observe the natural conditions and processes. In fact almost anyone can. For natural selection we can look and see the different environments, conditions, changes, the filters. We can observe the processes involved in mutation.There is a model that explains the world we see.Way back in Message 14 I posted:

quote:

---

Long ago we believed:

​

that if someone got sick, it was because that was the will of God.
that if lightning struck, it was because that was the will of God.
that if there were storms, it was because that was the will of God.
that if crops failed, it was because that was the will of God.
that if weeds grew in the fields, it was because that was the will of God.
that if there was a drought, it was because that was the will of God.

​

We now understand that the actual causes of such things are Natural.

​

Natural Selection is as well.

---

Now it's fine if you want to claim such things actually created by God, it really tells us nothing of value, leaves us as ignorant as we were before.Unless you can present the model of how your God interacts, influences the natural processes or mechanisms it is simply a worthless complication of a model that works.Bring your God in, plop it on the lab table and lets test it.Present the model that explains how your God or Designer actually does something. Then it can be tested.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How can ID be a historical look at the origin of life?What is the ID model?How does the designer actually manipulate things?Even if there were a designer, why would it be of any importance or interest beyond a historical footnote or in cases of product liability suits?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You have things in the wrong order there.It is not the person that meets standards, not the SOURCE that is relevant, but rather what is being advocated, the CONTENT.The issue is that Intelligent Design does not meet the standards of Science regardless of the individual advocating design.Further, even if it were true, no one has ever shown why some designer has any relevance or importance beyond being a historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits.Intelligent Design might someday meet the standards of science if and when the advocates present a model that can be tested.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I don't believe that is correct. However it is also off topic but if you would like to start yet another thread on the subject it might prove to be a somewhat different point of biew.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Are you under the impression that Francis Collins supports Intelligent Design? BBC Interview with Francis Collins

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then I suggest that you read the link I provided.From the link I provided:

quote:

---

Carlson: What do you think of this statement read to the Dover, Pennsylvania public school children that the theory is just a theory and explaining briefly intelligent design? Is that that be read to kids?

​

Collins: It sounds as if it's a good idea to suggest anybody listening to a discussion about science to keep your mind open and to be sure that facts are actually backed up by data. But, of course, that statement is full of a lot more than scientific facts and data and concerns about them. It is a statement that reflects a battle that's going on right now. And in my view, an unnecessary battle. So let me explain why I say that. As somebody who has watched our own D.N.A. sequence emerge, our own instruction book over the course of the last few years, all three billion letters of our code, and watched how it compares with that of other species, the evidence that comes out of that kind of analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of a single origin of life from which various forms were then derived by a process which seems entirely consistent with Darwin's view of natural selection. By saying that, some people listening to my words will immediately conclude that I must therefore be opposed to any role for god in the process that's not true. But I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, either.

​

Carlson: Why?

​

Collins: Intelligent design is a fairly recent arrival on the scene. Been around 15 years or so. It argues that there are certain constructs in biology, certain particular features that can't be explained by evolution because they have irreducible complexity. Take the eye, for instance. How do you develop something as complicated as the eye by a process of natural selection. It doesn't seem like that would fit with the slow gradual process where small changes get selected for. You'd never get there. The problem with that argument is biology actually is identifying multiple intermediate steps from the simplest single light-sensitive cell to something as complicated as the eye which clearly could have evolution acting upon them and result in a complicated structure. I worry about intelligent design, though I admire its advocates for wishing to put forward something in the way of a rebuttal to the idea that evolution says there's no god. And we'll come back to why I think that's an unfortunate argument. I think intelligent design sets up a god of the gaps kind of scenario. Well, you know, we haven't yet explained this particular feature of evolution, so god must be right there. If science ultimately proves that those gaps aren't gaps, after all, then where is god? We really ought not to ask people to do that.

​

Carlson: Does evolution even imply that there's no god?

​

Collins: Of course not. Evolution, although it's called a theory, in science a theory is a collection of observations that are pulled together into a consistent view of things. Electromagnetic theory, for instance. It doesn't mean it's still hypothetical and people don't think it's right. Biology makes almost no sense without evolution to undergird it. Saying as the opening statement did evolution is a theory, not a fact, that's not really quite an adequate explanation of the solidity of information we have that --

---

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

For most of the items listed yes we do know why they occurred, a few of them we are still learning about the reasons. Actually, none of the ones I've ever studied are that speculative. They are all based on things that we most certainly can observe. And, of course, you are factually wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life and even if it did, we are getting closer every day to creating life. Of course there is. It is called chemistry and physics. The information (and understand no one has ever described just what information they are talking about or how it would be measured) just seems to be chemical bonding.And so far the evidence shows that when there are things that we do not yet understand, the proper place to put those questions is in a "Not explained yet" folder, not in a "Goddidit" folder.And you still avoid the two really big questions.Even if there was some designer, what is the value or merit to knowing that beyond the two areas I mention, as a historical footnote or in the case of Product Liability suits?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Not at all.The key point is that the natural processes are not a matter of belief, but rather actual observable and testable events.Even if there was some designer, even if what you believe is true, it's just not very important.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!