Life’s irreducible structure—Part 2: naturalistic objections (materialist evolution impossible)

“That is acceptable for religion. It doesn’t work with science.” [excerpt]

Ah, a card trick!

The question I was replying to was “What’s your SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the origin of the creator?”

First you ask about the scientific origin of an entity that is outside of science, then you say that my response is fine for religion but not science.

Classic bait-n-switch.

Science is built on top of philosophy and your question about 'the origin of the creator' is a philosophical question.

My statement that your assumption of a beginning was false, is perfectly relevant to your question.

Speaking of, as you put it, 'scientific theory' concerning a creator, there is no such thing, nor will there every be.

A scientific theory represents something that is repeatably testable, and, among other things, predict a result or outcome.

A discussion about something that can neither be tested nor observed, is purely philosophical.

Or, as some would say, theoretical, but in the colloquial sense.

My POINT is if ID is science then you need a scientific explanation of the “creator”. If you are playing it as religion, it’s not a problem because you then just need to take it on faith. Thats the difference between science and religion.

Personally I believe in both evolution and a Creator. Evolution as a mechanism, the result of a Universe with learnable scientific principles crafted by a Creator.

“My POINT is if ID is science then you need a scientific explanation of the “creator”.” [excerpt]

ID does not postulate or infer a "creator".

Only a designer.

My understanding of ID is that it does not attempt to explain who or what the designer is, or how it turned its design into a creation, because that is beyond science.

Only that observable objects, for all practical purposes, appear to have design.

If there is a designer, it certainly begs the question of who, what, how, when, and where.

That however, is a question for the philosophers.

“Personally I believe in both evolution and a Creator. Evolution as a mechanism, the result of a Universe with learnable scientific principles crafted by a Creator.” [excerpt]

A Creator and Micro-evolution, aka, change within a kind, are fully compatible.

A Creator and Darwinian Evolution are forever at odds.

"Some believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight men or the Creator, or for the sake of mere variety, such doctrines, if true, would he absolutely fatal to my theory."

Know who wrote that?

Another snippet from the same article:

Mr. Huxley in his "Lay Sermons," writes as follows: "When I first read Mr. Darwin's, book, that which struck me most forcibly was, that Teleology (Design), as commonly understood, had received its death blow at Mr. Darwin's hands. For the teleological argument runs thus: 'An organ is fitted to perform a function or purpose, therefore it was specially constructed to perform that function.' This is precisely what Darwin denies with regard to plants and animals. If we apprehend the spirit of the Origin of Species rightly, then nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Design in Nature than the Darwinian hypothesis."

Design and Darwin
(They don't mix)

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.