paper against evolution, for intelligent design

But it isn't the scientifically inclined here that say this. It is the young-earth creationists who arrive at this point because they insist that while the universe, earth etc. look old they aren't. Sometimes they come right out and say "it just looks that way" but otherwise they just say that is an interpretation. Unfortunatly they never explain why there can be any other interpretation but that.You comments about fast sedimentation etc. etc. are all attempts at a different interpretation of course. However as you will find when you to to the appropriate theads, they all fall apart when examined in any detail or when evidence is asked for. As this happens only the trickster explanation is left.

Lol! Okay, thanks for all of those threads. That will help a ton.It seems to me that you are saying either that religion and science are completely separate realms, which if true, I would love to talk about the possibility of them not being so, or you are pointing to the fact that creationists have biases toward scripture. If this second option is true, let me remind you that everyone has biases that they bring to the table, and from what I have read, it seems to me that people on both sides of the table don't want to admit this! But why? If everyone has biases, and everyone does, then we should look beyond those at the evidence and logic supporting those biases.I haven't looked yet, but in the site you linked me to, does that explain the isotopes arguement? I don't think I have ever heard of it, but I am more than happy to give my thoughts on the matter once I learn about it. I am not afraid of any evidence that others can't contradict. I am willing to take a shot at it, for I am convinced of my side. Yet if this arguement is indeed unstoppable, I guess I will be forced to rethink my position. I don't believe that God can deceive, so I will do my best to explain why in that thread.

Lol, okay. I don't really have a problem with people saying the earth is really old, because the Bible doesn't give a very clear description of how old it may be. I personally lean toward the idea that the earth is much younger (the moon, for example, seems to be a proof for this "fact"). Maybe I will have to change my position. I don't have time currently to look into it, but I will do so when I have the chance. And Rei, thanks again for the threads.By the way, I would sooner accept an old earth explaination than say God is a prankster, though I do believe he has humor, and that quality was given to us humans as well.

Well I am glad you mentioned that point spencer. I had to argue once that the earth was round against a teacher, and he basically *proved from scripture* that the earth was flat! Well while he went on to show us how this was not the case, I learned an extremely important lesson: WHAT A WORK IMPLIES IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT TEACHES. Yes, the bible does imply that the world was flat - that was something that the writers thought back when the books were written. So in scripture, there is an implication that the sun orbits the earth, but this is because the writers did not have as full a concept of the heavens as we do today. Surely people in several millenniums from now would say the same about us.The number 10,000 years is an approximation due to the geneology in the book of genesis, chapter 4. You can look into that yourself, or I can explain it fuller later if you wish. A good way to find the passage is by going to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. and typing in Genesis 4. You may want to read the first 12 chapters or so, depending on how much time you have. Genesis means beginnings, and it is the account of creation, the fall, the flood, and much more. It would make an interesting read to you or others I am sure. Anyhow, I hope this helped.

It is because we recognize that everyone has biases that the process of science is used. Nothing important is decided by one experimental result, it takes confirmation and reconfirmation. Medical experiments especially are suspicious of anything that isn't just blind but double-blind because of the recognition of bias.When the evidence and logic are supporting a view then I'm not sure that "bias" is the correct word anymore. Everyone has biases, scientists included. They can be very stubborn in giving up a view point but in the end, over and over, the majority are biased in favour of the evidence. A couple of things to note:The old earth position and the occurance of evolution was forced on scientists who were creationists until faced with the evidence. For 200 years work has gone on and noone has managed to over turn what they were finally forced to conclude by the evidence.From the original origins of science as we know it in Galileo's day the religious scientists have understood the point that he made. If what we learn appears to be in conflict with scripture it is not scripture that is wrong but man's interpretation of it.If you are interpreting scripture as saying the earth is young and created in a week then your interpretation is wrong. That is all. God has not deceived.If you continue to insist that it is not your interpretation but it is actually what scripture is saying then you are saying scripture is wrong. That is unfortunate if you think that it's true message is therefore also wrong. However, many can understand that the Bible is not a geology or biology or astronomy text so it doesn't matter if it does happen to be based on a primative understanding of those areas. That is not what the Bible is really about.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

So in scripture, there is an implication that the sun orbits the earth, but this is because the writers did not have as full a concept of the heavens as we do today. Surely people in several millenniums from now would say the same about us.

---

But surely you are referrring to holy writ, not a collection of goatherders' myths and fables, aren't you? Surely the creator of the universe could inspire the scribe of the bible to accurately describe the reality of the solar system rather than repeat the false impression which one would obtain in the absence of scientific thinking.

Hah. If you want to think of the Bible that way, then go ahead. It's wrong, but no one is stopping you. Sure God could have done it that way, but that would have meant he would have revealed scientific knowledge to the writer that was non-existant at the time. You need to remember that just because time or cultural distinctions are different, or in your opinion wrong, does not mean that the message is invalid, much less in any way flawwed by the implications that were taken as fact at the time.More later, I have to go to bed now.

*But surely you are referrring to holy writ, not a collection of goatherders' myths and fables, aren't you? Surely the creator of the universe could inspire the scribe of the bible to accurately describe the reality of the solar system rather than repeat the false impression which one would obtain in the absence of scientific thinking. *In Response [Servus Dei]..:*Hah. If you want to think of the Bible that way, then go ahead. It's wrong, but no one is stopping you. Sure God could have done it that way, but that would have meant he would have revealed scientific knowledge to the writer that was non-existant at the time. *It sounds as though you are insinuating that God passes knowledge through humans when He feels like it - when the time is right. If this is so, then why would God give us such scientific knowledge to create a theory of evolution? Or is he just being a trickster?

Yes, ID reasoning can make predictions, but it can make every prediction under the sun in any given situation. My example was that if a system was intelligently designed it should be perfect and shouldn't need a proof reading system. That is a teleological predicition that isn't true. A ateological prediction would observe that there are mistakes made in RNA transcription that do not show up in the protein, hence there must be a proofreading system. It is deductive in nature instead of inductive like ID predictions.My question to Mike Gene would be why he predicted there would be proof reading systems? Why did he make this predicition? He makes the claim that if you are translating from one language to an intermediary languange and to a final language you need checks at each point. My question is why isn't the first translation accurate if it is intelligently designed? In fact, it would seem counterproductive to have three languages involved, why not just one language? Why didn't he use his language argument to make the prediction that there is not an intermediary language (ie RNA).Teleological reasoning does not work because it makes predictions using logic that may not reflect the nature of the system in question. Ateological reasoning needs observations and mechanisms in order for the correct logic to be applied before it can make predictions. That is the way I see it anyway.

So what makes you think that they had a full grasp on genetics, biology, meteorology, and geology? Maybe we should look to the lessons taught in the Genesis stories and not take them as literal and scientific fact?

Welcome to The Forum Servus Dei:Wow, I go home for the evening and come back to find that I'm quite a few threads behind here, so pardon me if I cover some topics that have been addressed by others (Rei, Loudmouth, NosyNed...you "guys" are good at this!). You are probably correct in assuming that this is slightly off topic, but that was/is my fault. I only mentioned it to illustrate what I believe are serious flaws in Christian beliefs, which then, in turn, affect education. I cannot comprehend how any one faith can claim that their God is the one true God, and to not accept this (or in the case of Christains, further accept Jesus Christ as the Savior) condems you to some sort of Hell. It's truly pathetic, and is the root cause of almost every conflict that the World has ever seen. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But I digress, so to the moderator, I apologize and will try to get back on target. It's nice to know (or maybe it isn't) that the school is accredited. However, I have to be honest here, I find it sad that Matt is studying biology. Nothing personal against Matt by himself, but IMHO, to studying biology as a creationist is ridiculous. I mean, come on, you have to pretty much ignore virtually every biological concept. Sure, you can get a "degree", but you will have failed to grasp, or will have to purposely ignore, even the most basic ideas behind biology. Similarly, I suppose one could get a degree in physics, and not believe in gravity. I guess you could study chemistry and not believe in protons, electrons and those other tiny things. But what's the point? I'm sorry, but if you want to understand biology, then you have to accept the Theory of Evolution, otherwise, you are only fooling yourself. I have serious doubts about this statement. But my main point is this: In a biology class you should not be given both sides (actually, there are hundreds of "sides", but I'm sure the school ignores all but the Christian story). In a biology classroom ONLY science should be taught. Creationism is not now, nor was it in the past, nor will it ever be in the future, a science. Now, if the students are given creationist stories during their theology or philosophy classes, fine...as long as they're presented as stories, not facts. Yes, it is true that in science we cannot prove anything. Basically, in science we look at ALL of the available evidence and form theories and laws based on what this evidence tells us. We can, and do, however, falsify ideas if they do not have supportive evidence. By doing this, we continually narrow the realm of possibilities until we are left with the concepts that have not yet been falsified. And how do we do this? Through repeatable experimentation, an analyses.
You are confusing two concepts here. First you say we cannot prove anything. Then you say that because of this, the physical laws of the universe "are not set then". Why do you say this? One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. You go on to say that because of this, God can do whatever he wants. Please tell me you don't believe that teaching this in a science class is acceptable. To answer your first question...yes...it does. I'm not a rocket scientist (like I said before, that's my brother) but my understanding is that the very fact that the Law of Gravity (and the other physical laws of the universe) is universal and constant is why we are capable of space travel. We don't just point a space vehicle where we want it to go and light the candle. Basic (basic if you're Einstein I guess) equations let us predict how objects will behave in space. Understanding things like gravity, chaos theory, relativity, quantum physics, etc., is predicated on the laws being constant, and thus far we have seen nothing to indicated otherwise. Quite the contrary. We have done some pretty amazing things because have accepted (via the scientific method) that the physical laws of the universe are indeed constant.
To address the rest of this paragraph let me put it like this. The concept of a miracle falls outside the realm of science because it is simply not testable. I'm confused? What "type of stuff" will Matt and Ashley be including in their papers? How can they include the things that have been discussed at this forum in a paper that is against evolution or supportive of creationism? Are they gonna say something like: "Although there is overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the ToE, we know it is not true because it conflicts with our literal interpretation of our bible."? Or maybe they will include information such as: "While it it true that creationism has no hard science to back up its claims, we know that it must be true (and therefore a science) because of what is writtten in our bible."? I will agree with the first part of this statement only if you acknowledge that the allowance for your bible in school is only in regards to its theological information, and maybe some historical data, but certainly not any scientific information. Additionally, you need to understand that yours is only one of many deity based concepts, and that all of these should be given equal time, if this school is truly open-minded.
As for Matt proving that the bible is being used in schools, his sample size is only one, which is too small for any sort of statistical test...sorry.You know, I'm not nearly as good at articulating my thoughts in writing as some others are at this Forum, so please accept this apology for my verbosity. Like you, Sevus Dei, I am relatively new to this site and have not yet aquired the "Forum Knowledge" (linking to other threads...additional web pages...relevant postings...etc.) that many of the other individuals that post here possess. Quite a few of them have supplied a number of links to other insightful threads and web pages that address many of the questions and concepts you have raised. I notice that you have been visiting those other locations and are trying to comprehend what they're saying. Good for you. I guess what I want to say (finally) is that if you choose to belief in creationism, that's fine. It's just that you cannot turn it into a science by hyjacking a few scientific terms and/or using analogies to make it appear scientific. You can believe what ever you want, and as long as you keep creationism out of the science class and/or NEVER teach it as a science, I have no problems.

Certainly God has passed his Revelation through men. This is what we call Scripture, or the Bible. After your statement, you presented me with an question:why would God give us such scientific knowledge to create a theory of evolution? Or is he just being a trickster?I am not exactly sure how these are your only two options, and I don't really see how the second question is connected to the first. Forgive me if it seems that I am just ignorant, but would you please explain this?Why would God reveal his word to us? Why would God create us? Why would God send his Son to die for us? Why would God allow us to think rationally and form ideas that are against Him? These are all good questions, some of them mysteries. I would argue that since God has given man something called "free will", which allows us to think for ourselves. Which would you rather have, if you created a host of subordinates? Would you want robots who just do everything right, and echo back things that you have put in their minds? Or would you rather have these beings, who can think, and even if they go against you, they have the choice. I personally would rather have those beings with "free will", because if they were to choose to follow me, I would get more glory from it. Now stepping back from that example, which do you think God would rather have: creature that can think, even if it is against his existence or omnipotence, or creatures that unthinkingly follow what you have "programmed" them to think? I think God would rather the first one, and he gets more glory from it because he is not glorifying himself, but others are glorifying Him (even if they are subordinates).(And FliesOnly, thanks for the greeting - I will look at your points asap; I currently have a bunch I need to do.)

Loudmouth<< That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. For example, I could say that if DNA was created by a unicorn.>>By all means - make predictions about cell biology using the concept of the designer as a unicorn. Just make sure the predictions stem from the unicorness of the designer, as I hope it is clear that ID prediction stems from the consideration that the designer is an intelligent agent.

Intelligent but not very capable.

Hello Warren: You're kidding right? If not, then I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. All along, we have been telling you that ID is not a science, and you have (to your credit I guess) stuck to the notion that ID is a valid scientific field of study. However, this last statement by you only helps us prove our point. Loudmouth used his example to show the arbitrary nature of your ID arguments. If I correctly understand what you wrote, you basically support his idea then, by saying that his example is valid as long as his predictions are consistently based on the physiology and morphology of the unicorn. Really? And then you say that this somehow proves that your ID arguements have equal merit and scientific validity because they consistently show that intelligence (albeit low) is behind intelligent design. What the hell sort of twisted logic is that? Please, before you try anymore to expalin to us dummies how and why ID has just as much scientific evidence to support it claims as the ToE does, go out and at least attempt to learn a little about what makes something a science.Can you believe it? I actually wrote only a one paragraph reply![This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 12-17-2003]