Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.
This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.
The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.
Starman,
"If indeed the arrowhead argument is refuted as easily as you claim why not simply post the refutation?" All ya hadda do is ask!
The Watch/Arrowhead in the Desert
OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some Great Designer. The mere existence of well-designed watches and animals is all the proof we should need that both were created by someone with infinitely more wisdom than the creations. Both, by their existence alone, imply the existence of a great designer or creator. Watches don't "just evolve," and neither do animals (or people); ergo, evolution is logically absurd (and, by extension, anyone who believes in it is an illogical idiot).
Anyway, that's sort of how the analogy usually goes. And it looks pretty good at first glance. I imagine a few evolution-minded folks have been taken aback by this one, the first time they heard it, not knowing quite how to answer it at the time. I'll also bet that some creationists see this as an irrefutable gem of logic that utterly destroys evolution and all its works.
Hold on a minute, though. Since this argument is presented in the form of an analogy, let's hold the creationist to his own logic, and see if the analogy holds up. For an analogy to make any logical sense at all, the two things being compared have to have a LOT in common, not just one salient feature. For instance, when we're considering the functioning of a living thing (like a person), an analogy is often drawn with a complex machine of some sort (like a watch, but a car works even better). Both need fuel, both produce heat and waste products, both wear out eventually, both turn chemical energy into mechanical energy, both have many small but critical parts, etc. But the watch-in-the-desert analogy is not about how the things work. It's about where they came from--or really, how they came to be. And when you think about that, you come to some interesting conclusions. Remember, it's supposed to work this way: because a watch doesn't spontaneously assemble and has to have a maker who made it just the way it is, therefore an animal can't spontaneously assemble either, and it, too, must have a maker who made it just the way it presently is.
Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved . The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils," then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here?
Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs , not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."
Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural). If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.
Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves," if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much.
"But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!" Well, that's half right, and here's where the analogy breaks down. Any analogy can only be stretched so far. The car stops being analogous to the human body when you start talking about thought or emotions. And watches stop being analogous to animals when you start talking about how the individual item is assembled. Watches, after all, never have little baby watches! An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves , quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves , and get rid of what we don't need.
OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of the simplest chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating , if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.
And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?
Here are examples of what evoltionists are capable of:
DARWINISM-WATCH.com - Responding Evolutionist Propaganda in the Media
A New Page in the History of Evolutionist Fraud. It has emerged that an evolutionist professor of anthropology has been providing false information regarding the age of some key fossils for the last 30 years. ... theory of evolution, but of evolutionist fraud. The dating and interpretation based ... www.darwinism-watch.com/new_page.php
The Ape-Men III
The interesting story of Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni), one of the shameful patchworks of evolutionists. ... Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni): an Evolutionist Fraud. Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) is one of the ... was only an artfully conceived fraud. The skull fragments belonged to a ... www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen3.html
More pages from cryingvoice.com
DARWINISM-WATCH.com - Responding Evolutionist Propaganda in the Media
... THE EVOLUTIONIST CLAIM OF A TRANSITION FROM WATER TO LAND IS A LIE ... A NEW PAGE IN THE HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONIST FRAUD ... www.darwinism-watch.com/articles.php
The Ape-Men II
... A good example of evolutionist fraud and deceit of the whole world is Eugene Dubois and his ape ... displays 22 stages of our ancestry. The German evolutionist G. H. R ... www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen2.html
Letters to the Editor North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News - NCTimes.com - ...
A daily newspaper with News, Business and Sports for San Diego and Riverside Counties. ... North County Times. Evolutionist fraud never corrected ... It was fraud that got that idea going, but I've never known an evolutionist who seemed interested in correcting it ... http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003...export8993.txt
Evolution - October 1998 by thread
... RE: Haeckel and N-rays: Fraud or self-deception ?Pim van Meurs ... RE: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals.Pim van Meurs ... www.asa3.org:16080/archive/evolution/199810
Evolution Fraud in School Scienfic Textbooks
Textbook Fraud. Evolutionists deliberately tolerate knowingly fraudulent pro-evolution evidence in School Textbooks. Students are deceived by fraudulent science textbooks. ... New Textbooks purchased by schools in the last year are full of fraud and lies to promote evolution ... at the idea that man evolved from monkeys! Evolutionist-Converter Video Lectures ... www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
What does this prove about the issues we are supposed to be discussing?
It focuses on people who made mistakes. But that doesn't affect the objective truth in one way or the other which remains unchanged regardless of such mistakes.
I am not trying to denigrate or attack your beliefs.
Cmon Starman! Then what is this all about? Hasn't just about every post from in this thread been an attempt show that the Theory of Evolution is false?
Lets look at this quote; "Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct." That seems to denigrate the intelligence of the majority of students. Yes they may have deen indoctrinaterd early on, but as they mature and go thru higher education, they do learn to think for themselves.
The irony here is that I believe in Intelligent Design, though probably not in the way you do. I believe that some intelligent force created the building blocks of our universe, setting up natural and physical "laws". I believe this force then sat back to see what would evolve from the foundation that was created.
OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some Great Designer....
Yes, you are missing the very important fact that via a serious discrepancy you are promulgating what is called a false analogy
by omitting the human intelligence that caused the watch to change with time. By redesigning it. It fact, you are providing the very evidence which you claim to reject.
Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."
Unfortunately, you are describing two completely different things--change guided by human intelligence and change taking place by blind chance. They are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural).
The natural process of being designed by human intelligence as opposed to blind chance!
Quote:
If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.
All natural processes are not the same. On the one hand you have what you claim to be the natural process of evolution. On the other hand you have what you call the natural process of design and change under human intelligence. They are as different as night and day since one involves a reasoning conscious purposeful guiding force while the other doesn't.
Quote:
Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves," if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much. "But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!"
Of course they assemple via the reproductive abilities given them by their creator. The issue is original life appearing on earth with the ability to replicate itself. Self replication is something that the creator of the watch if wise enough could have given it.
Quote:
....We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve.
That goes completely contrary to the law of entropy which is based on the observation that nattier tends toward disorganization.
Excerpt:
Entropy: Enemy of Evolution?
by Babu G. Ranganathan
27 May 2005
The natural tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder -- not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach.
Very few scientists have considered or pondered the implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution teaches that matter tends to evolve towards greater and greater complexity and order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, doesn't work the same way.
The simple fact is that the law of entropy precludes macro-evolution from ever occurring. Entropy is the measure of increasing disorder in a system. The natural (or spontaneous) tendency of matter and of all of energy is toward greater disorder -- not toward greater order or complexity as evolution would teach. This tendency towards disorder that exists in all matter can only be temporarily overcome if there exists an energy converting and directing mechanism to develop and maintain order.
When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.
There is a vast chasm between simple spontaneous chemical reactions and combinations on an atomic and molecular level with that required to produce the complex organisms we see all around us. That, my friend requires more that an inductive leap. it requires an insurmountable leap of faith based on what evolutionists think happened.http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKT...ziliducks.html
Quote:
we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur.
I understand that some would imagine God creating in the way you describe and if it were so then I would accept it. However, I find the evolution argument unconvincing. No, the watch in the desert example was and example you gave to prove that evolution occurs. The arrowhead example was an example showing how scientists apply the rules of intelligent design to the arrowhead but refuse to do the same when faced with far greater evidence in the form of organisms.
Quote:
Watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo ; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?
Once more, watches change under intelligent guidance, human forethought, a mind at work. That is not analogous to a supposed mindless organization of matter. They are actually at opposite extremes. The conclusion about the watch being a product of intelligent design is not unproven by the watch's changing in design over time. It merely reinforces it by showing the ones who designed it continued to work on it.
Also, why refer to God's works as magic? God has full command of natures forces and what might seem magical to us might be based on his deeper understanding of how nature works. What seemed like magic to mankind just a few decades ago is now taken for granted.
In any case, it was a nice discussion and thanx for your patient and decent participation. I think I will go to a less controversial subject at another forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Cmon Starman! Then what is this all about? Hasn't just about every post from in this thread been an attempt show that the Theory of Evolution is false?
Lets look at this quote; "Most are brainwashed in school at an early age and their impressionable minds are awed by authority figures until anything these authority figures say is considered sacrosanct." That seems to denigrate the intelligence of the majority of students. Yes, they may have been indoctrinated early on, but as they mature and go thru higher education, they do learn to think for themselves.
The irony here is that I believe in Intelligent Design, though probably not in the way you do. I believe that some intelligent force created the building blocks of our universe, setting up natural and physical "laws." I believe this force then sat back to see what would evolve from the foundation that was created.
I apologize for hurting your feelings. That was not my intention.
Kids aren't taught to think for themselves either in grade, or high school. When they get to college, if they get to college, they are not required by most course curriculums to learn to think for themselves.
Your timing on this is not good. My daughter is working on her Masters in Education. She is currently taking a course in Philosophy of Education. So this issue was part of the discussions in her class. I won't dispute that the American Education system has many problems. But its not as bad as you paint it. The conclusions she reached from this course was to teach students to think for themselves. So there is hope.
I went thru my secondary and college education more than 30 years ago. I don't recall being especially brainwashed and indoctrinated. I very strongly believe that I am a free thinker. That I arrive at conclusions based on factual evidence and logical considerations.
One of the problems I perceive in your arguments is that you seem to consider only extremes. Things are either one way or another. That just isn't always the case.
Starman,
"Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it"
Whoa!! Back the truck up. Your entire package is about a Creator/ Intellect Designer who just said "poof" and there we were. And now you say it's not germane to this debate? Let's stop copying and pasting up articals both pro and con. I can find as many as you can but it's nonproductive since we don't believe each other anyway.
Let's focus instead on the issues.
This is not about whether evolution happened. Of course it happened. We're here aren't we. This is about HOW evoluation happened. Your claim is that it happened by Intelligent Design. Mine is that it happened by natural selection.
You claim intelligent Design. That requires a designer. Trot him out! Who is he? Does he have a name and what is it? If you can't produce or even name a Designer then how can you argue that it even took place. If you have no evidence and the only thing you can do is attempt to discredit Evolution or trot out old tired Creation arguements then you're outta gas. But I'm a fair guy. I'll back off and let you prove your case. If you have no evidence or proof to back up your claim then this debate is over and I'll get back to the plumbing page where i belong. It's been fun. For me it's been a case of "daja Vue" (sp.)
I debated for years, both in religious chat rooms and in the street at the clinic, and this gave me a little stroll through the "faded yellow pages of yesterday". Starman, Take it from me. In those years I heard just about all the arguments that there were to hear. You haven't surprised me with anything different. Just as I could never win out there so can I never win in here. As can you. Unless you have some dramatic proof to put forth let's just agree to disagree. You're a fine debater and a challange, plus a lot of fun to debate but I don't think Ben should have ever started this thread. It's just too emotional a subject. And your thoughts? Regards, om
Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.
This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.
The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.
Now I am looking for some reasoned arguments here NOT just opinionated mudslinging
As I see it with the limited knowledge that man has there is on thing thats obvious. NO BODY KNOWS the true facts of how we came to be. I think it would be a hoot if we found out that we where all wrong and way off base. AS it stands in the big picture one does not contradict the other nor does it go very far at all in contradicting the bible or any other of the great books. I think the main problem is that we humans are so full of ourselves that we cannot imagine not knowing something! Why can't we just tell our kids the truth, that we just don't know!!!
I know this may be a risky thing to stick out there with all the really impressively great posting going on here but why do we have to settle for an either/or set up on this? Why can't there be a third choice that embodies both areas well enough, a kind of strange gap filler? I know a great many of the writers I have enjoyed reading fall somewhere between science and faith themselves. They would be the first to propose another bookcase labeled.... ummmm, SCIAITH or FAIENCE.... to house their tomes?
I know this may be a risky thing to stick out there with all the really impressively great posting going on here but why do we have to settle for an either/or set up on this? Why can't there be a third choice that embodies both areas well enough, a kind of strange gap filler? I know a great many of the writers I have enjoyed reading fall somewhere between science and faith themselves. They would be the first to propose another bookcase labeled.... ummmm, SCIAITH or FAIENCE.... to house their tomes?
I know, I warned you it was kinda silly!
I have said in several posts here that I don't believe that evolution and belief in the bible are mutually exclusive. Unless one believes only in a strict, literal acceptance of the bible rather than a allegorical one, one can believe in both.
Linear Mode
