10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)

Evangelical Outpost ^ | 08/03/2006 | Joe Carter

[metmom]

In reality, most creation myths start with a deity on the scene. Few have an explanation about how it got there.

That goes for science's creation myth. Science just doesn't begin with a deity, it begins simply with matter that *existed*. It doesn't explain how it got there either. *In the beginning there was singularity.....*

So where'd singularity come from? What was holding it together? How long was it like that? If it was being held together, what caused it to expand?

Science can't get past singularity; it has nothing better to offer than religion does with God did it. If anything, at least religion offers a cause, something science can't deal with.

[fishtank]

Unless it's a question about global warming.....

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In reality, most creation myths start with a deity on the scene. Few have an explanation about how it got there.

Yeah, who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[metmom]

The only clear evidence of change in form in the Bible and God did it.

[RobRoy]

A cookbook does not cover the nuances of botany or ranching, nor the schematic of the oven. It does not mean that it is wrong if it says celery is a vegetable and too high a temperature will burn the sauce

[RobRoy]

>.Not really. My personal opinion is that the whole universe is a natural phenomenon, brought about by the laws of physics. <<

Then maybe the laws of physics can explain the human consciousness, or at least measure it...

[sauron]

That said, the same can be said about some of the other creation myths. It's just a matter of explaining their allegories in a way that works. The general order of things is: 1. There was nothing. (a blank slate on which to write) 2. The deity (of whatever nature) appears or already exists 3. The deity speaks or waves or whatever, and things appear, although the order is sometimes different. Earth, Sun, Moon, Water, etc. 4. Somewhere in the process, human beings appear, generally after the animals, because there has to be something for the humans to eat.

WRONG.

Your #1, #2 are entirely wrong.

Other religions have their deity using pre-existing matter to concoct the elements around us.

A key distinction of the Judeo-Christian belief is that, as the Penteteuch tells us, God pre-existed the material "stuff" of the universe. It did not create Him, He created it.

In addition to that, I have studied other creation accounts. The Judaic one is remarkable, and distinct from the others. Cf. North American, South American, African, East Asian, Pacific Islander, Norse, Celtic (pre-Christian), and other accounts.

You mentioned turtles. There are also serpents, eggs, etc. Some of them are quite silly. The Judaic one is remarkable in that it just about gets it right, and close to the right order, at that.

Sauron

[Thrusher]

In reality, most creation myths start with a deity on the scene. Few have an explanation about how it got there.

You have to know just where to stop asking questions to believe in a religion!

That's an interesting but, I think, fallacious argument.

Where do your questions stop? At "science hasn't discovered that yet"? Do you believe that someday science will discover "all" of the answers to "all" of the questions?

Or do you believe in infinite questions? How can science reconcile infinity? What scientific proof exists of infinity?

How does science explain existence? It "just is"? If that is what you have to accept to believe in science, then, by your own definition, isn't science is just another religion?

[sauron]

Go in a time machine to the land of your ancestors, about 1000 years ago. Stand in a crowd there. You will find, if you are typical, that you are head and shoulders above that crowd. Height is a positive attribute. It is selected for by the environment. In just 1000 years, the average human being is considerably taller than its ancestors. Remarkable.

Wrong. (I can't leave a blanket statements such as that unchallenged.)

My ancestors of A.D. 1000 had the same genetic height potential as I do.

They suffered from nutritional deficiencies. Cf. 1940's Japanese vs. today's generation: A 7" height increase in some cases. Look at today's American kids. Same with French. Romans, too--modern ones are tall due to better nutrition.

Our genetic code doesn't change that quickly.

And as for the blanket statement that height is a positive attribute:

Forest deer are shorter than Elk. Why? They have to navigate undergrowth.

Pygmies are shorter than Watusies. Why? They live in dense jungles, and have to navigate undergrowth.

Height is a selective adaptational advantage only if you life in a savanna world. Else: It's a way to die young, without progeny.

[Sofa King]

"Where do your questions stop?"

They don't. That's what science is about; no matter how much it learns, it keeps asking questions to try to learn more.

Just because the answer is "I don't know yet" doesn't mean you're not asking questions.

[ml1954]

Desperate Placemarker

[sauron]

Ah, but what about DUALISM? What about the logical inconsistency that dualism presents? (E.g., Yin/Yang)

Read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity and see how he is able to knock down the concept of creational dualism. He makes an elegant argument, a convincing one, that MONISM is the only way, in the end. He cinches it.

...and once you are left with MONISM, you cut down 90% of the other creation accounts with one quick whack.

If you look at the various creation stories in their basic foundations, they are all pretty much the same. Some are animistic, with players like the Crow and the Coyote. Others are more oriented toward invisible beings. But the order is essentially the same.

Another blanket statement. You can't lump the "various creation stories" because, frankly, some of them are quite completely different and stand distinct from the others.

And you are also wrong about your last statement: The order is not essentially the same.

Study and compare them.

Sauron

[Thrusher]

"Where do your questions stop?"

They don't. That's what science is about; no matter how much it learns, it keeps asking questions to try to learn more.

Then your questions are infinite, are they not? What is more unscientific than infinity?

Tangentially, if I keep asking questions about God and trying to learn more about my religion, am I practicing science?

[ml1954]

What is more unscientific than infinity?

The mathematical concept of infinity is fundamental to science.

[sauron]

Which reminds me: We see no evidence of abiogenesis in action on this very richly warm, wet world. WHY IS THAT?

Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.

Yeah, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Couldn't create life. If they could have improved on the faltering results of Miller-Urey, they would have.

We've had decades. Don't you think they would have, if they could have? ;)

(Ever notice how quiet they are about the lack of progress on this front? We can't create long strands--there's a natural limitation to the length of strand we can create.)

Sauron

[Sofa King]

"What is more unscientific than infinity?"

I am not aware of infinity being considered unscientific.

"Tangentially, if I keep asking questions about God and trying to learn more about my religion, am I practicing science?"

Only if you are applying the scientific method to it.

[sauron]

Actually, IIRC, the Bible was unique in suggesting a beginning. In fact, science pooh-poohed the concept of a beginning until scientists proved there had to have been one. The Bible said it long ago. Science figured it out only recently. Shalom.

You are so RIGHT ON about that!

Astronomers bashed the Belgian astronmer Georges LeMaitre, who was the first to posit the Big Bang Theory.

Because he was also a priest, they attacked him, his idea, and loudly proclaimed it was "merely an attempt to put Genesis on scientific footing."

He knew that the properties of infinities prevented an infinitely old universe, and in fact, indicated a beginning to it.

What the readers here must understand is this: For 2,000 years, up until the 20th century even, scientists were wrong in holding that the universe was eternal in existence, and saying it had no beginning point.

Nowadays, LeMaitre is forgotten, and young Gen-Xer scientists ignorantly proclaim the Big Bang Theory, ignorant of the fact that they owe it to a Christian, and their predecessors fought tooth and nail against the very idea of a Big Bang.

My, how things turn around.

Sauron

[sauron]

Any rational mind knows the universe cannot be infinitely old. Be interesting to see your proof of same.

Fair enough: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554295/posts

[RobRoy]

>>A sparrow is not a mammal.<<

So, then, you believe that Sparrows and mammals have completely discrete evolutionary paths, going back to their very beginning root of "life from lifelessness"?

[RobRoy]

.Knowledge comes almost exclusively from education. Even the most basic of human functions must be taught, such as walking.Knowledge comes almost exclusively from education. Even the most basic of human functions must be taught, such as walking

True, but a complete formal education does not guarantee knowledge, nor does the lack of one guarantee the lack of knowledge. As proof of the former, I give you Ted Kennedy, for the latter, Bill Gates.