Posted on 04/20/2008 6:09:13 PM PDT by Soliton
Ben Stein was just on Fox News with Geraldo. He was asked If ID versus Evolution was a "left, right thing". He responded,"No, It's an atheist versus a non-believer thing". Stein inadvertantly admitted that ID is a religious argument, not science!
I agree with your reply and it was very well presented. However you said that Stein wasn't qualified to have an opinion on evolution. I think you may have meant that he does not have the qualifications to pass himself off as an authority on the subject.
‘This does seem to be a valid point—do creationists still use this argument? Am I missing something here?’
The Second Law can be stated in many different ways, e.g.:
* that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum (in simple terms, entropy is a measure of disorder)
* usable energy is running out
* information tends to get scrambled
* order tends towards disorder * a random jumble won’t organize itself
It also depends on the type of system:
* An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down— see If God created the universe, then who Created God? for what this implies.
* A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
* An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.
The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.
It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.
To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.
I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.
Care to name names?
Fichori,
There is no way to prove man has a soul, or to empirically prove the existence of God. This is where it ultimately comes down to faith; that is actually what we are called to have throughout all the Bible!
If we accept the Bible as the Word of God inspiring man and recorded by man, would that mean that it is a LITERAL, EXACT set of words like the Koran is supposed to be? Or that God chose to use stories to illustrate His relationship with us, and couched those stories and inspiration in terms that man - at that time, and for all time - could understand?
This is why ultimately, I believe the inerrancy of the Bible is about the teachings and truths within the Bible, not the actual WORDS of the Bible. The fundamental truth of the Creation story is that God created the universe, and made us like Him (in his image) so that we could relate to him.
If we start to accept the Bible as a LITERAL, word for word dictation from God, then is not ANY translation of the Bible a corruption of the Word of God because it will change the meaning from the original ancient Hebrew and Aramaic (neither of which is spoken)? Can we truly know the original words - all of them - of the very earliest written Bible? And what about the oral tradition of the Bible before that?
And what of the Protestant Bible? Sure that would be an abomination as it does not contain the original books as defined in the 4th century (the Catholic Bible). Which is also different from the Russian and Greek Orthodox Bible! Two versions must be incorrect and NOT “of God” if we’re to accept the Bible as a literal, word-for-word dictate (unless we were so presumptuous as to decide what to pick and choose from God’s words what we should record).
This is why I believe the story of Creation is simply an allegory - it stems from the consideration of the Bible not as a literal, word-for-word dictate from God, but as an inspired set of truths and writings (with history of His people recorded by His people as well) to explain who He is, and what our relationship has been and can be with Him.
I think this focus on evolution or not is a red herring. Biology is just an excuse used by the atheists to trying an impose their religion on as many fronts as possible. You are not allowed to believe in ANY god but no-god in order to be a professor in the major subjects, you have to believe in the no-god to be a government bureaucrat, you have to believe in the no-god to secure advancement in the teaching professions.
Refusing to see, or even consider, the hands of the architect in the stuff of life is akin to insisting on using a flash light to see grains of sand on the beach during a sunny day. (anyone who point out it is a sunny day will be executed)
This may be because of the deplorable state of public schools or the fact that the micro-evolution/macro-evolution devide is simply an artificial construct of the anti-Darwinists based on the "Clinton Operative Truth Theory" (COTT). COTT is a rhetorical device designed to admit only that which can be proven today. To evolutionists, there is no micro/macro devide. however, the experimental evidence for what IDer's call "Micro" is so overwhelming they can't deny it. The Blue Dress of denying "macro-evolution" has already been stained. The DNA tests are being performed. It is simply a matter of time before the IDer's are reduced to arguing what the definition of is is.
You're going to feel really stupid when Expelled wins best film for 08.
you are a wise one
A new KIND (no two people agree on what the word “species” means) of animal is an animal with new kinds of organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with other organs both old and new, and a new basic plan for life. Producing a new KIND of animal would be macroevolution, as opposed to microevolution. This stuff ain’t complicated and there is zero evidence on the planet to support the claim that macroevolution has ever occurred via any sort of a process which anybody could call ‘evolution’.
So you will choose to limit what God can do by saying macro evolution was not needed? You place limits on God? The theory of evolution says that higher life forms evolved from lower life forms, but by saying theory we admit it may not be correct. It's a good guess, and there is evidence for it, but it's not 100% certain.
Science is about observation, theorizing, and testing. Evolution - right or wrong - will go through this process. It seems to hold up for now, so it's addressed that way. But it is still just a theory, and still researched.
God designed the laws of the universe; who is to say He did not design the laws to operate with macro evolution? Would not setting up the laws that allow macro evolution to even occur (when so many seem to think it is not possible) point even stronger to the existence of a higher being?
I believe we should use the intellect and curiosity that God gave us to research ALL we can about nature and the universe; learning about His creation allows us to know more about the aspects of God.
It would seem to me that if we learned that macro-evolution WAS real, and we did evolve from an earlier ape-like ancestor, that would point even MORE strongly to the fact that God - through His laws of nature - created man as the ultimate expression of His creation! In fact, His entire creation worked towards the existence of man!
That - to me - says that God is not just all powerful, but truly does consider us as the final expression of His creation.
I imagine that your life would be much sweeter if you stayed with a positive message instead of responding to a negative message.
I have an Atheist friend that once told me, with casual calmness, that when you die you just cease to exist. It sent chills up my spine. My mind can't even imagine that possibility. I wonder how anyone could ever think that.
“There are those who believe something, and therefore will tolerate nothing; and on the other hand, those who tolerate everything, because they believe nothing” - Robert Browning
OK, so how is that inconsistent with evolution? Directed evolution - intelligent design - with a framework and method of operation set up that allows for evolution?
Fundamentally, ID will always come back to faith, and that makes it untestable, and thus not science. It can be philosophy, which IS important to keep in mind when doing science, but it is not science. I don't simply pray my circuits into working...:)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch more snow fall (damn Global Warming all over us this weekend!).
Please explain the existence of biology, chemistry, medical, and nursing schools at multiple solidly-Christian universities.
A new KIND (no two people agree on what the word “species” means) of animal is an animal with new kinds of organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with other organs both old and new, and a new basic plan for life.
Then how are we different from the apes? For we both have two eyes, a single heart, a single liver, dual lungs, a stomach, and so on... Show me where we have difference.
For that matter, how are our organs different from a horse? Or a cat? Or a whale? Show me where we are different species based upon your insistence on different organs.
The continual need to provide scientific "proof" for Christianity, or to attempt to "destroy" what is perceived as opposed to Christianity strikes me as the sign of a weak faith - if your faith cannot exist in the face of apparent differences from what you originally believed, then it is not faith!
Christianity - like all religions - ultimately is about faith and philosophy. It is not about science. It is about the spiritual, not physical world. To think that our Bible is a science textbook is to do a great disservice to God who inspired the stories, and to the thousands of scribes who recorded those stories.
Christ Himself taught by parable and example; should we not, as Christians emulate the same? It seemed to work for Paul and the Disciples!
You are correct. "Not qualified to have an opinion" is a phrase my father used as a shorthand. For instance, if I haven't seen Ben's movie, I might write a review but my opinion isn't worth much.
Ben Stein has written some great stuff over the years. I own one of his books. But laymen, including many who are posting here, do not seem to comprehend the effort and training it takes merely to understand scientific literature much less contribute to it. To brush off 150 years of research and debate by thousands of highly trained people as some kind of atheistic conspiracy is tinfoil hat, black helicopter, wacko.
Science does not claim to be infallible. And, contrary to the folks at expelledexposed.com, big government funding of science may introduce research bias that doesn't self-correct quickly. Global Warming is an example. But, 150 years of research ain't chopped liver.
Biologists use evolution to explain observations. If someone thinks they are wrong then someone should provide a different explanation that can be proved or disproved. It's not enough to just find problems with the existing theory. You have to provide a substitute that can withstand scrutiny.
So if you propose "God did it" as an explanation, I might ask, "which one?" If you claim ID as an explanation, I would ask you to detail how that works.
I'm no expert on ID or evolution. That's another way of saying I'm "not qualified to have an opinion." But if ID means, "God did it," I fear that would shut down all scientific inquiry. Why did my baby die? God did it. Why is the sky blue? God wants it that way. Why do I believe in evolution? God...nevermind.
But, if ID just means there are structures we cannot explain so some kind of "intelligence" intervened, then I have to ask how to prove that, or measure that, or how did the intervention occur? Was it radio waves, mind waves, gravity? Can I block the intervention with the appropriate use of metal shielding, such as a tinfoil hat? Is there just one "intelligence" or are there two, three, a thousand? Was God the intelligence that did it or was it His wife?
If you believe in evolution you should be prepared to be grilled ruthlessly by people who expect you to prove your claims.
If you believe in ID, you should be prepared to be grilled ruthlessly by people who expect you to prove your claims. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And defending your belief by claiming that science is based on faith too, is, I think, a cop out.
No, not really. Just an observation of seeing countless evo/cre threads over many years here at Free Republic.
Spend any time on threads in the Religion forum?
The same can be said of evolution...it is a faith statement. It is not testable. Evolution is a metaphysical statement about the origin of species. It is not science!
You examine various species of animals today, and try to guess where they actually came from...but there is no known mechanism for new species arising through random mutations and natural selection.
God is power is unlimited and thus there is no reason that macro-evolution is needed. Evolutionists need to argue that higher life forms arose out of lower life forms because without that central claim, they would have to confront the truth about the existence of a Creator.
Man is the only living being with a soul and an inborn sense of right and wrong. How could that possibly have "evolved"? Why is there no continuity in evolution? If evolution was true, there would be far more species than exist today and many very similar to man and all the know animals that exist today. There is no way evolution can account for the vast gaps that exist between all species and forms of life. Even honest evolutionists will admit there are no transitional species.
Clearly, belief in evolution takes a lot more faith than a belief in ID/Creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.