Intelligent Design Link...

[Wesley Smith]

A friend sent this link to us. Very interesting movie on its way soon.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

Friend,

Wes

[James Diggs]

A friend sent this link to us. Very interesting movie on its way soon.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

Friend,

Wes



Thanks We, I watched the clip.

Here are the problems I see in the intelligent design debate

The idea of intelligent design in a broad sense is philosophically sound and draws its conclusions from sound science- however it falls way short when it is presented as an "alternative" to evolution.

The first "straw man" ID proponents use in arguments against evolution is that evolution denies a creator. This simply isn't true. Though their certainly are some atheists who missuses science to say that it "proves there is no God or creator"; ultimately, the science of evolution can make no such claim.

The reality is that evolution does not even attempt to measure this because God is beyond our ability to measure in a scientific way. The use of the words "random" in science are often misinterpreted and not understood in their scientific context. The idea of "random" means strictly that there is no measurable factors in why a certain thing happens one way or the other. Unfortunately people on all sides of this debate sometimes use the word "random" in philosophical ways that go beyond the scope of the hard sciences.

The problem with the way ID is being pushed by many Christians is that it goes beyond the scope of hard science as well; and wants to use philosophical arguments based on science and present it as a hard science theory.

The problem is even worse because ID actually does nothing to challenge that idea of evolution at all and actually offers no actually scientific alternative. ID makes a strong philosophical metaphysical argument about God being behind the immeasurable "randomness" of creation, but fails to give any evidence for spontaneous existence or creation of species (which would be counter evolution). The issue is not just the creation of species from the beginning but how do new species appear in the world after other ones have died out? ID never answers these questions and just argues that God created it but there is no attempt to answer HOW this happens in the natural world.

Again- what is this alternative scientific theory? I don't see a scientific theory at all. ID would makes more sense as a philosophical position that goes along with evolution; this is all it can really do.

My problem with some of the arguments in the video is that it generally plays into the "world is out to get us" kind of arguments that are often common with Christians in the west today.

Stein says that no one is aloud to question Darwin. This simply isn't true, Evolutionary science has come along way since Darwin and has disproved a lot of his ideas on how evolution works. The problem is that ID has failed to really challenge Darwin and evolutionary science and talks about a "scientific alternative" without really ever giving one.

Again ID belongs in the field of metaphysics and not hard science. There is nothing wrong with that because hard science is not an all knowing epistemology. The philosophical conclusions and implications added to the "randomness" of evolution by atheist saying their is no God is also a philosophical and metaphysical argument.

It is unfortunate that ID is being so mishandled because I think a great term is being completely ruined. Instead of Christians entering into the discussion of ID in the realm of metaphysics where it belongs and having credible conversations about why we embrace a creator God, we are using ID as an excuse to push religious views of creation in public schools and try to pass it off as science. What a shameful witness from us who claim to be so concerned about truth.

[Wesley Smith]

James,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I am not a literal six-day-creationist, or a young-earther. It's necessary for me to say that simply because of what I think people think regarding the whole issue of spontaneous generation as opposed to intelligent design.

Your description of Darwinistic evolution is much more optimistic than mine. My personal impression is that hard-core Darwinianism is anti-God and that Intelligent Design has come along, not to refute evolution, but to posit that at some point upstream one will encounter a Designer. Though there is an amazing diversity of ID'ers, the ones who gain my respect are the ones who see science and God as mutually believable. Darwinian evolution is rarely, if ever that I know about, accompanied by disclaimers that state that beyond human understanding at its best there seems to be the involvement of Supreme Reason. Show me the textbook where such a statement exists. And, as I see it, that is exactly what has birthed ID. They are quite comfortable stating that at the end of our understanding is...a Designer. While I am skeptical of conspiracy theories, this one, from the strict evolutionary standpoint at least seems to me to be a conspiracy to omit God from the life-process.

I'm eager to see the movie, and, open to further my understanding of what I believe to be a foundational, fundamental life issue.

Friend,

Wes

[Wanda Van Winkle]

It is unfortunate that ID is being so mishandled because I think a great term is being completely ruined. Instead of Christians entering into the discussion of ID in the realm of metaphysics where it belongs and having credible conversations about why we embrace a creator God, we are using ID as an excuse to push religious views of creation in public schools and try to pass it off as science. What a shameful witness from us who claim to be so concerned about truth.

James, I appreciate your post. This last paragraph seems to be a main issue in this whole thing--to me. Not everybody who believes in a creator God also wants to push their religious views of creation in public schools and pass it off as science. Not every scientist who goes along with the majority truly believes there is no creator--some of them do, but in order to keep their jobs in their fields, they have to keep their mouths shut.

Hopefully, this part of the conflict is what the movie reflects. The clip seems to indicate that it puts the finger on the ability of scientists to do research when it does NOT go in the direction of Darwinism.

I like the premise of the movie and appreciate the link. I'm one of the people who does not get all hot and bothered about the whole big bang thing, and I still believe in a God who created it. I always just take the attitude, "In the end, it will be known."

And in the meantime, I hope it doesn't deflect people from knowing God on a personal basis. Some people feel if you take out that original God story that it makes it hard for people to believe in God at all. I respect that concern, and don't disrepect them for it. But like I said, I don't get too bothered, even though I am not in the majority. I also don't disrespect scientists for their need to stay in the field of their vocation, etc. When you're feeding your family from the a job in that field, it would be hard to speak out and be mocked, or lose that ability to feed your family.

[James Diggs]

Your description of Darwinistic evolution is much more optimistic than mine. My personal impression is that hard-core Darwinianism is anti-God and that Intelligent Design has come along, not to refute evolution, but to posit that at some point upstream one will encounter a Designer.

Thanks for the conversation Wes. I would say that I think your view of how ID is being spoken of and promoted is far more optimistic than the impression I have about it. The controversy surrounding ID is based on the fact that it is pitted against evolution for the purpose of refuting it; is is presented at an "alternative" to evolution. There is little or no controversy when ID is talked about in ways that are not meant to refute evolution or tries and understands that such arguments are metaphysically and mot measurably with hard science.

The science of evolution, even a "hard-core" view of evolution, is in no way "anti- God" no matter what some who may be "anit-God" may conclude philosophically based on evolution; including Darwin himself.

To clarify, I do believe the philosophically argument, and I think science supports such an argument, that "at some point upstream one will encounter a Designer". However, this view does not make a dent at all against the natural scientific theory of evolution and is a metaphysical position and not a natural science position.

Darwinian evolution is rarely, if ever that I know about, accompanied by disclaimers that state that beyond human understanding at its best there seems to be the involvement of Supreme Reason. Show me the textbook where such a statement exists.

This is because such a claim one way or the other is outside the scope of natural science and the hard sciences it is based on. The only thing I think we need to protest against in science education is when an atheists makes a metaphysical and philosophical argument in the other direction saying that evolution "says there is no creator". We should protest this in the science class not because we disagree with his conclusion but because the claim goes beyond the scope of natural science and evolutionary theory.

Our biggest problem in this whole area has to do with our ignorance of science and the scope of it's various fields. Your "disclaimer" would be as outside the scope of evolution as a disclaimer that said the opposite.

While I am skeptical of conspiracy theories, this one, from the strict evolutionary standpoint at least seems to me to be a conspiracy to omit God from the life-process.

If there is a conspiracy it is the one many Christians promote and that is to insert God into natural science and evolutionary theory which would go beyond it's scope.

What we need is to start teaching some foundations of philosophy of science and metaphysics at a younger age in addition to natural science and hard science; where all these different views could be looked at in the proper context and scope. This way we better educate our children about science and how we use it. But I am absolutely against the idea of inserting God into the scientific method as a hard science as if he is something we can isolate and measure in the scientific method.

It is the idea of inserting God into this scope of science because it can not be measured that the scientific community is so against. It is a matter of not adding to the ignorance of science that already exists and I support this.

I am not a literal six-day-creationist, or a young-earther. It's necessary for me to say that simply because of what I think people think regarding the whole issue of spontaneous generation as opposed to intelligent design.

I would love to see an actual theory of "spontaneous generation"- I don't think one even exists.

[James Diggs]

Not every scientist who goes along with the majority truly believes there is no creator--some of them do, but in order to keep their jobs in their fields, they have to keep their mouths shut.

Hopefully, this part of the conflict is what the movie reflects. The clip seems to indicate that it puts the finger on the ability of scientists to do research when it does NOT go in the direction of Darwinism.

I am not a scientist but I am in a family full of scientist. My father is a Physicist and my sister is a biologist. The idea that they have to keep their mouth shut about faith is as a whole absurd.

The problem is not that Darwin is challenged, because like I said, Darwin has been challenged and has lost in the scientific community repeatedly as evolutionary science has advanced. The consensus now is that Darwin had the basic premise right but was so wrong about a great many things.

So Challenging Darwin is not an issue- the issue is if you have something legitimate and substantial that challenges the premise of evolution at all on a natural scientific basis. Anything that brings God into the natural scientific discussion simply exceeds the scope of observable, and testable science so of course it is rejected. It should be rejected as exceeding the scope of the particular scientific discipline.

Again, my suggestion would be to expand our education of the various disciplines of science to include metaphysics at a younger age where such discussions about whether life could begin with or without God fit within the scope of philosophy of science.

Again if there is a legitimate natural scientific theory that goes completely again evolution than I would love to hear it- I never heard of such a thing. Of course such a theory would have to be stated within the scope of natural science and if it isn't it doesn't mean that it has no validity just that it isn't natural science.

I think those who are being told to keep their "mouths shut" are those who are not holding to the scope of their scientific discipline and field. This is not a "freedom of speech" issue as the Stein video claims, it is an issue about protecting and understanding the various disciplines of science within that community. When a scientist makes claims that go beyond the scope of the discipline they are claiming to use the scientific community will call them on it.

It is extremely damaging to twist this around to be about some kind of Christian persecution. It hurts both our Christian witness and continues to perpetuate an ignorant understanding of the scientific disciplines in our country.

[Charles W Christian]

I'm getting more interested in the "Random Design" arguments from Dr. Rick Colling at ONU.

Check out his site: www.randomdesigner.com

He argues for a Darwinistic approach, basically, but he is a theistic evolutionist who sees God's purposes and "design" behind the randomness -- only God could make such use of the apparent randomness of Darwinian evolution, etc.

So, here is a well-trained microbiologist who embraces what the majority of science says, while still giving some argument for God's purpose, etc. Anyway, I'm intrigued, and I think there are some good illustrations he uses to explain it to non-science types like me! :-)

Kent Dunnington on the WTS Annual Meeting website has a paper called "God is Not an Intelligent Designer" that gives some good reasons (in my view) why a lot of the ID "camp" falls into some of the same struggles as the Darwinists in their arugments and in their scientific endeavors. Anyway, that paper is worth your time, in my view....

Blessings,
Charles

[Wanda Van Winkle]

I do not intend to argue the validity of either position. My point is that there are some scientists who do face this problem.

I know a well respected scientist who seems to be on the "side" of evolution, as it were, who also knows of this dilemma and has written on it.

Pretending the problem doesn't exist is just as foolish as pretending the findings of microevolution and such do not exist.

Both religious people trying to discredit good scientists and scientists refusing to acknowledge that some scientists do not agree with the status quo perpetuate the problem.

Again, I don't get all heated on either side, so I don't have to run to the defense of either side. I know and respect scientists, but they can have an arrogant attitude in the work (again, a respected scientist even admitted this). I also know and respect people who do not believe it's as simple as a big bang, without a creator.

Each side gets so stupidly defensive, at points, that as a neutral party, I find it on the one hand, silly for them, and on the other hand, rather funny, considering each thinks they are so smart :)

Sadly, they are, and sadly, their minds often overcome their concern for humanity, which would include each other.

[Jim Franklin]

As a Geographer/Earth Scientist it seems to me that those who hold strictly to the Darwinian Evolution Theory are so skeptical of their own belief that they feel threatened by those who would question that they feel forced to be totalitarian in their efforts to over rule the questioning of their position. Since Darwin was not present at the creation it has to remain a THEORY and only a theory and neither were the proponents of Intelligent Design. One takes a leap of faith in Darwin's thought processes and research and the other takes a leap of faith that the one who wrote Genesis was Divinely inspired. I have read and heard that it just takes an in depth study of the human eye to recognize that something like 2 million segments working together to produce vision is enough for most people to believe in Intelligent Design including my own ophlamologist.

I remember well in a graduate seminar in Geography I disputed the theory by posing that randomness could pose the idea that if an expensive watch were taken apart and placed in a small box and that on a given number of shakes the watch would come back together in running order. One of my fellow students said, "You mean you don't think that is possible." To which I said, "No, the friction would render the substances within just a bunch of metallic dust." To which he responded, "I guess that would have to be the logical conclusion."

The study of anthropology has many indicators that evolution has take place ie. the lungs of the Andean Indians have by necessity evolved to a greater capacity because of the relative thinness of oxygen in their environment, and whereas the Inuit peoples' nostrils have much more restricted openings than their forebearers of Eastern Asia so that in their current colder climates the cold air does not freeze the lining of their lungs as they inhale, the Caucasians of the Indian subcontinent are much darker than their ancestors due to the activation over years of pigmentation to protect them from the more direct sunlight nearer the Equator.

[Billy Cox]

The study of anthropology has many indicators that evolution has take place ie. the lungs of the Andean Indians have by necessity evolved to a greater capacity because of the relative thinness of oxygen in their environment, and whereas the Inuit peoples' nostrils have much more restricted openings than their forebearers of Eastern Asia so that in their current colder climates the cold air does not freeze the lining of their lungs as they inhale, the Caucasians of the Indian subcontinent are much darker than their ancestors due to the activation over years of pigmentation to protect them from the more direct sunlight nearer the Equator.

These observations really have nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution. They do speak to adaptation, but not to whether these adaptations result in a change to genetic code.

[James Diggs]

Since Darwin was not present at the creation it has to remain a THEORY and only a theory and neither were the proponents of Intelligent Design. One takes a leap of faith in Darwin's thought processes and research and the other takes a leap of faith that the one who wrote Genesis was Divinely inspired.

Jim, this is a good example of our misuse of the word "theory" from a scientific context. Scientists do not "take a leap of faith" in the embrace of evolution because a scientific theory means that it involved testing controlled hypothesis with measurable results.

I have read and heard that it just takes an in depth study of the human eye to recognize that something like 2 million segments working together to produce vision is enough for most people to believe in Intelligent Design including my own ophlamologist.

Yes this does make a strong case for ID, but the argument is primarily a philosophical argument that only draws on scientific information as a launching point for a metaphysical case. Again this takes the argument beyond the scope of the scientific method and natural science.

The other thing that is important to note is that the argument is not anti evolution even though it is often used that way. Those who think it is an argument against evolution are arguing against their own misunderstanding of the word "random" in a scientific context.

Saying that evolution can not be true because nature could have never "randomly" constructed an eye is using the word "random" from a philosophical perspective when the theory of evolution uses the word in the context of the scientific method. Arguing against how evolution supposedly claims creation is a "galactic accident" is a straw argument because evolution can make no such philosophical claim.

Again this is important because ignorance of how science uses terms like "theory" and "random" is a significant factor in the controversy. We need to take the time to understand the context of these words because they mean something different in the world of science than they do in every day life. If we don't we will just sound like idiots who care more about being right than finding out what is true. This of course will damage our ability to to have any real credibility when proclaiming the truth of Jesus Christ to intelligent people who take the time to pay attention to the context of terms- scientific or otherwise.

[Billy Cox]

These observations really have nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution. They do speak to adaptation, but not to whether these adaptations result in a change to genetic code.

The first major scientist to posit a theory of evolution was Lamarck. He did theorize that one generation's adaptations were passed on to subsequent generations, but scientific experimentation refuted this theory.

Here is an article about Lamarck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck

If adaptation was inherited by subsequent generations, one could move an Inuit community to a warmer climate and observe a change in nasal structure over the course of several generations. Based on rudimentary genetics we know that such change could only occur by means of a recessive trait taking hold over time...not by environmental change.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I'm getting more interested in the "Random Design" arguments from Dr. Rick Colling at ONU.

Check out his site: www.randomdesigner.com



So were all the rumors about Dr. Colling losing his position over this false?

Wilson

[Charles W Christian]

So were all the rumors about Dr. Colling losing his position over this false?

Wilson

Dr Colling has not lost his job a ONU, although there is now an investigation by the accrediting body regarding whether or not ONU attempted to violate Dr. Colling's academic freedom in their approach to his work.

We should pray for all parties involved....

Blessings,
Charles

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Dr Colling has not lost his job a ONU, ....

Thanks for the response. I'm very glad to know that he is still on board!

Wilson

[Jim Franklin]

What I presented is what was presented by my graduate professors as a basis for the theory of evolution. I am sure they would have used adaptation and evolving of the species interchangeably.