|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dinosaurs: a question for ID advocates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
emr Junior Member (Idle past 4999 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
Hello, new member here. Not here to insult anyone, just interested in how people think on these topics. My question is fairly straightforward...
What do intelligent design advocates make of dinosaurs? Is it their view that each group of dinosaurs (define 'group' whichever way you wish) was created individually, with no ancestors? Or that an intelligent agent played some part in their development? If so, then what do id advocates believe dinosaurs were 'for'? Surely an intelligent agent smart enough to create individual dinosaurs would be able to foresee their eventual demise? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Did the upper case letters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
So I'm going to put some pre-promotion comments/questions in first. Otherwise I anticipate great masses of snark happening.
What do intelligent design advocates make of dinosaurs? Unfortunately, every stripe of creationist from young Earth creationist (YEC) to old Earth theistic evolutionist likes to grab onto "intelligent design" as part of their position. As I understand it (and I may be wrong), the hard core "intelligent design" proponents of the Discovery Institute (CSC division) are theistic evolutionists. But they are reluctant to make their position clear least they alienate such as the YEC crowd.
Is it their view that each group of dinosaurs (define 'group' whichever way you wish) was created individually, with no ancestors? The YEC end of ID would seem to.
Or that an intelligent agent played some part in their development? That would be the essential item for any variety of IDer.
If so, then what do id advocates believe dinosaurs were 'for'? Why would dinosaurs need to have a specific purpose? Maybe they were just some experiment of the designer.
Surely an intelligent agent smart enough to create individual dinosaurs would be able to foresee their eventual demise? Maybe they were a failed experiment in the pursuit of some goal. Comments back? Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
emr Junior Member (Idle past 4999 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
Dinosaurs were a failed experiment? This would imply serious lack of foresight on the part of the designer - which would also conflict with the idea of the designer being omniscient.
I'm also not sure in what sense dinosaurs could 'go wrong'. If a designer created them to hunt, feed, rear their offspring etc, and they do just that, then in what sense could they be deficient? Did their populations get out of control? An omniscient designer would surely foresee that, and also know from the outset they would ultimately be destroyed. Do we conclude that the designer is not omniscient? So there is no dominant view amongst ID folk when it comes to the chronology of living things? What about the people on this forum? Do you accept established chronologies (for example fish>amphibians>reptiles>etc), only stating that a designer stepped in to help the process along, or do you invoke special acts of creation? In either case, it still leaves the same question hanging: why would a designer create dinosaurs? What were they 'for'? Edited by emr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Dinosaurs: a question for ID advocates thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If one is a dyed in the wool young earth creationist then you do get dinosaurs but they where co existant in time with people and were wiped out (or hyper evolved into modern reptiles) at or about the time of the flud.
ID is creationism wrapped in psuedo science but is not specifically young earth so I soppose logically an IDer would either have to go with flud death or 'the designer moves in mysterious ways' for an explanation of dinosaurs. But it is a good question: what was Yahweh thinking when he deved up dinosaurs? As you say an omniscient god would know they were on a hiding to nothing so why bother?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If one is a dyed in the wool young earth creationist then you do get dinosaurs but they where co existant in time with people and were wiped out (or hyper evolved into modern reptiles) at or about the time of the flud. Or they're hiding.
But it is a good question: what was Yahweh thinking when he deved up dinosaurs? Mysterious ways, remember?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Mysterious ways, remember? Hoist by my own petard!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
emr Junior Member (Idle past 4999 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
The 'mysterious ways' defence is almost always the equivalent of saying 'we just don't know.' Nothing wrong with saying, 'don't know', but I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a positive argument for the existence of dinosaurs (and for that matter, all other extinct life forms) when they played no part in the lineage that led up to the existence of humans.
Edited by emr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Dinosaurs were a failed experiment? This would imply serious lack of foresight on the part of the designer - which would also conflict with the idea of the designer being omniscient. The dinosaurs did have a highly successful multi-million year run. Perhaps that is all the designer/experimenter was shooting for. And who says the designer was or would even want to be omniscient? Seems that it would be mighty boring to pre-know all of eternal history.
I'm also not sure in what sense dinosaurs could 'go wrong'. The designer allowed (self implemented or otherwise) an environmental change for which the old design was now longer as good?
So there is no dominant view amongst ID folk when it comes to the chronology of living things? Like I said back in message 2, my impression is that the "hard core" of the ID movement are theistic evolutionists that accept the mainstream old Earth and the geologic record of what happened. But they pretty much refuse to come out and clearly say such. That gives such as the young Earth creationists (YEC) an opening to grasp onto ID, even though it may well give no real support to their YEC position. We have seen that YEC's are often willing grasp onto anything they perceive to be in any way anti-evolution.
...only stating that a designer stepped in to help the process along...? The designer could easily step in an tweak the process without leaving any trace.
...or do you invoke special acts of creation? As best I recall, I have personally never encountered much detail about the old Earth creationist (OEC) position on the origin of the species. OEC Hugh Ross apparently does believe in special acts of creation.
Why would a designer create dinosaurs? What were they 'for'? For many millions of years worth of observation and entertainment? Minnemooseus Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed first link format by adding the "" at the end. I thought I had that right when I posted it - Did something happen since? Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The dinosaurs did have a highly successful multi-million year run. In news that has rocked the entertainment industry, JBC is to cancel its most popular show, The Dinosaurs, after a run of only three geological periods. We obtained a rare interview with Jay Hoover, the reclusive creator of The Dinosaurs, to ask why he was walking away from his biggest hit. "In the end, it was just getting stale", he explained. "We've been making them bigger and adding more spiky bits, but in the end we were trapped inside our own formula --- you know, a perforated acetabulum, an elongate deltopectoral crest, a tibia with a caudolateral flange, episode after episode. The viewers deserve better than that." The show was already losing its audience share after the extinction of some of its more popular stars, the Ceretopia, and, as Hoover explained, studio executives felt it was "time to pull the plug". But JBC is promising that The Dinosaurs will have a jaw-dropping season finale. "There'll be real fireworks," promises Hoover. "It'll be explosive". Popular spin-off series The Birds is expected to continue for at least one more geological period. Asked about his plans for the future, Hoover hinted that he had been working on a concept involving "mammary glands and viviparous reproduction", but refused to be drawn on the details. "Nothing is set in stone," he explained, "except the Archean, the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Permian, the Triassic, the Jurassic, and most of the Cretaceous".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Like I said back in message 2, my impression is that the "hard core" of the ID movement are theistic evolutionists that accept the mainstream old Earth and the geologic record of what happened.
I'm not so sure that's correct. It might apply to some in the ID movement. However, many of them seem to be dead set against any kind of evolution (including theistic evolution). I'll agree that they accept the geologic record. To illustrate my point, consider New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O’Leary slam Christian Darwinism in forthcoming book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
emr Junior Member (Idle past 4999 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
who says the designer was or would even want to be omniscient? In a word: Christians. ID is a Christian movement after all, and the Christian god is supposed to be omniscient. If IDers did not believe the designer to be an omniscient deity, the whole movement would never have got started in the first place.
seems that it would be mighty boring to pre-know all of eternal history. Indeed. That's what you get for being omniscient.
The designer allowed (self implemented or otherwise) an environmental change for which the old design was now longer as good? I refer back to the previous point: surely an omniscient designer would know in advance that this change would be implemented.
Like I said back in message 2, my impression is that the "hard core" of the ID movement are theistic evolutionists that accept the mainstream old Earth and the geologic record of what happened. But they pretty much refuse to come out and clearly say such. That gives such as the young Earth creationists (YEC) an opening to grasp onto ID, even though it may well give no real support to their YEC position. We have seen that YEC's are often willing grasp onto anything they perceive to be in any way anti-evolution. This is all very interesting. Thanks for the info.
The designer could easily step in an tweak the process without leaving any trace. I don't think that kind of rationalisation has ever helped humanity to understand the fabric of the universe.
(dinosaurs created for...) many millions of years worth of observation and entertainment? Whose entertainment? Ours? Edited by emr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
emr Junior Member (Idle past 4999 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
...many of them seem to be dead set against any kind of evolution (including theistic evolution). Surely that can't be true, since evolution by natural selection can be observed happening in a short space of time, albeit on a small scale - that's impossible to deny. If they are arguing something along the lines of 'species are immutable' then they have to ask the question: why would a designer create all these species that are now extinct?
To illustrate my point, consider New book announcement: William A. Dembski and Denyse O’Leary slam Christian Darwinism in forthcoming book. Very revealing. This just reiterates the point that ID is a uniquely Christian movement, with no space for any other 'designer' than the Christian god. Edited by emr, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
emr writes: Very revealing. This just reiterates the point that ID is a uniquely Christian movement, with no space for any other 'designer' than the Christian god. Not really. It simply shows that they see it as a "Their Version of Christianity" movement. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the Muslim equivalent of their position, the one held by Adnan Oktar. The only common ground seems to be that each opposes the Theory of Evolution. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
emr writes:
Well, yes, they usually admit to small scale evolution, which they call "micro evolution." But they deny that it has any creative power. They see it, and mutation, as processes of natural deterioration (something akin to rusting).Surely that can't be true, since evolution by natural selection can be observed happening in a short space of time, albeit on a small scale - that's impossible to deny. I guess if you have that point of view, and if you view the mythical Garden of Eden as an ideal, then whenever you see weeds taking over your own garden you see this natural deterioration in effect. It's an example of how one's prior attitudes and beliefs can distort one's observations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024