Has science truly eliminated God as an intelligent cause.

[Bart007]

I dedicided it would be prudent to start a new topic since the old one was intended solely to flame scientists who happen to also be creationists.

Grumpy says. "I too do not know of any creation scientists since a scientist cannot study supernatural subjects and there is no evidence to support a supernatural creation."

OK, so atheism is your religion and your dogma includes the assumption that God does not exist. You need evolution in order to justify your adopted materialistic worldview.

However, science is a program by which we seek to understand the world around us. There are two kind of causes in this world. Natural causes and intelligent causes.

We observe Mt. St Helens blow its' top and we see nature in action and realize the blown top is the result of natural cause. We see the faces on Mt. Rushmore, and even though we may not have seen it done or know who did it, we clearly know that an intellgent cause brought this about. What seperates intelligent cause from natural cause is that intelligent places boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to produce a predetermined result. Thus we have a means by which to determine an intelligent cause, and if the intelligence is determined not to be that of any living creature, the evidence logically leads us elswhere, and it requires putting one's head in the sand to disqualify God from being the intelligent cause simply because your an atheist.

Grumpy says: "There are many scientist involved in the study of evolutionary sciences, it is not a matter of belief, simply acceptance of reality. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution as a fact with several valid theories explaining some of the processes involved. Faith in the existance of something is not required if evidence is readily available validating that existence, such is the case with evolution."

OK, per your statment, please provide me a few examples of the conclusive evidence you have that common ancestry solely by natural means is reality, as you so claim.


How does evolution explain the origin of the different classes of proteins? and, in particular, how did hemoglobin originate solely by natural causes?

Grumpy says: "And as a scientist I can tell you from experience you could not be more wrong about scientists not careing, they care very much indeed, more than your average person by a lot. After all nothing in biology makes any sense without evolution."

You have misunderstood, they are caring people, they care about there families, they care about their non-evolution science work, they care about civic matters, many believe in and care about God, but they just don't give a copper dam about evolution.

[steen]

One must differentiate between micro and macro-evolution. While the former, a better name for this is perhaps "variations within species", is observable and scientific, the latter is based on suppositions and, dare I say it, "faith"?

Utter nonsense. there is no difference in the mechanism between the two.

But while I got you here, how do you define "macro evolution" in a scientifically meaningful context? I keep asking creationists this, and they are never able to give a straight answer. So I am sure you can enlighten us so the discussion makes sense, right?

As for "variations within species" why is that not evolution?

Because you DO KNOW what Evolution is, right?

[Pyrrhonist]

steen

Macro-evolution is the term normally given to changes from one species to another, i.e. from fish to mammal or from reptile to bird and, the mother of all absurdities, from inorganic material to living organisms. This type is neither observable nor scientific. Hope this helps you.

[QED]

What seperates intelligent cause from natural cause is that intelligent places boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chance to produce a predetermined result. Thus we have a means by which to determine an intelligent cause, and if the intelligence is determined not to be that of any living creature, the evidence logically leads us elswhere, and it requires putting one's head in the sand to disqualify God from being the intelligent cause simply because your an atheist.

Unfortunately I don't recall you joining me in any debates about the various types of "design". I can see from the above quote that you are under the impression that there are three classes of design: natural, man-made, and supernatural. In which case it is very clear that there is plenty of scope for us being misled by appearances.

I'm not altogether confident that you would follow a link to another topic so I hope I'll be forgiven for duplicating the following images here. In the topic titled Whence came the order in the cosmos? I presented the this photograph of a pretty shell:


Which, being known to be a living creature, you would presumably say was designed by a supernatural intelligence. Yet in another picture:

We can see that the design of the shell's markings is highly suggestive of a cellular automata such as rule #110
Indeed, the pigmentation on the growing edge of the shell is following just such a rule and can be seen sweeping out the pattern as a consequence of its growth chemistry.

In every one of these "intelligent design debates" it seems to fall to me to introduce yet another creationist to a branch of engineering (that is now at least 15 years old) in which Darwin's theory of evolution has been successfully applied to the autonomous generation of design products. I apologize if the words sound clumsy -- the problem is that in conventional usage "design" implies a "designer" and most people naively assume that all "designers" must be sentient beings. Clearly then, the demonstration of any "non-sentient designer" defeats the naive argument that it requires sentience to produce design. Our language could do with a new word for design that captures the appearance of design by a sentient designer while being the product of a natural process emerging from the logical behaviour of materials.

This new word could then be applied to all the naturally occurring phenomena such as the Giant's causeway on the north coast of County Antrim:



It seems that Paley's logic would have led him into believing in giants while contemplating the design agency responsible for the execution of this stone causeway. Incredulity is the common reaction when we are confronted by seemingly intricate design, but now that highly complex products are being evolved (products that equal or exceed the capability of human designers to develop them) it is clearly wrong to make naive assumptions when studying natural objects. What Genetic Programming and nature clearly demonstrate to us is that there exist natural sources of "design" and that the principle of evolution is general and is one capable of producing functional things without recourse to any input from sentient beings.

It is a fact that Darwin was inspired to pen his theory by studying nature. Today we can see that the theory is general and works in principle (from Genetic Programming). But some people like to say "ah, but that doesn't prove that nature works that way". Well maybe it doesn't... but to me it simply beggars belief that he might have been inspired to draft a working principle by misreading nature. Notwithstanding this interpretation it has to be accepted that the atheist worldview is supported by a functional principle with the potential for the creation of design.

(Please see my discussion with Agnostika in The evolution of evolution topic for references regarding proof of the general applicability of evolution theory.)

[steen]

steen

Macro-evolution is the term normally given to changes from one species to another, i.e. from fish to mammal or from reptile to bird and, the mother of all absurdities, from inorganic material to living organisms. This type is neither observable nor scientific. Hope this helps you.

Your answer makes no sense to me. When you talk about species and then examples this with "fish to mammals," then you clearly are NOT talking about species, but rather Class4es and Orders.

This is why I alwys want to be clear on what the creationist actually means when making their claims.

And when talking about the " inorganic material to living organisms" then that ia Abiogenesis, which is Chemistry and not even Biology, and certainly has nothing to do with Evolution.

So it is still not clear what you mean with "macro evolution. Could you actually be SPECIFIC this time and put some effort into the answer so it makes sense? I DID ask for a SCIENTIFICALLY meaningful context. So when you then start talking about species and give examples that have nothing to do with species, and in the last example not even with Evolution at all, then your use of the term seems purely nonsensical.

And could you also address the part you skipped, the part about why variations within species is not evolution?

[Pyrrhonist]

steen,
Haven't got the time at present to engage in lengthy discussions, maybe later, but I would like to point out that Abiogenesis is just a fancy word for spontaneous generation and it has to do with the creation of lower life forms from matter, a theory that has not held water for quite some time. Regardless if you maintain it is chemistry rather than biology it is still part of the evolutionary process, the very first step in evolution-the evolution of life itself. The differentiation between chemistry and biology is plain semantics and is used by evolution believers to side track the issue. Before you can explain the working of evolution you must tackle the beginning of life. By the way, how many viruses do you know that have evolved into bacteria?

[steen]

steen,
Haven't got the time at present to engage in lengthy discussions, maybe later, but I would like to point out that Abiogenesis is just a fancy word for spontaneous generation and it has to do with the creation of lower life forms from matter, a theory that has not held water for quite some time.

Spontaneous generation was an idea in Europe of the Middle Ages and is NOT Abiogenesis.

Again, it would benefit the discussion if you actually learned the stuff you are talking about.

Regardless if you maintain it is chemistry rather than biology it is still part of the evolutionary process,

That is false. Evolution is about how life changes once it is there. Once again your claim is flat-out false.

You sure have difficulty admitting when you are wrong, don't you?

the very first step in evolution

Nope.

-the evolution of life itself.

That has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution. It is the use of the word as slang.

The differentiation between chemistry and biology is plain semantics

Complete nonsense. These are two completely different scientific fields. Once again, your expressed ignorance is astonishing, and I would recommend you actually learning the stuff you spew those falsehoods about. Becaus eright now, you are merely making yourself look dumb.

and is used by evolution believers to side track the issue.

nope, you are lying.

Before you can explain the working of evolution you must tackle the beginning of life.

You can do that all you want in a discussion about abiogenesis. That is not evolution and is not necessary for discussing evolution, your false claim none withstanding.

Please cease your incessant bearing false witness. It is highly offensive.

By the way, how many viruses do you know that have evolved into bacteria?

Why should they? Are you again trying to show how truly ignorant you are about evolution? because you sure are doing a good job at it.

[micatala]

Just a friendly reminder to keep things civil. This includes avoiding even mild profanity.

Utter bullshit.

Thanks.

[Cathar1950]

I guess Creationist have the same problem with the origin of God.
Not to mention other problems.

[steen]

Just a friendly reminder to keep things civil. This includes avoiding even mild profanity.

Utter bullshit.

Thanks.

Point well taken. I fixed it.

[Pyrrhonist]

.

Spontaneous generation was an idea in Europe of the Middle Ages and is NOT Abiogenesis. Again, it would benefit the discussion if you actually learned the stuff you are talking about.

Spontaneous Generation or Abiogenesis, ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduce by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances.
"Spontaneous Generation," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

That is false. Evolution is about how life changes once it is there. Once again your claim is flat-out false.
You sure have difficulty admitting when you are wrong, don't you?

.

OK. Was life then created or did it evolve? And if you believe it "evolved" then that's when "evol(ve)-ution" started here on earth. But if you agree that life did not evolve but was created from inorganic material then yes, evolution deals only with the actions after creation.

Complete nonsense. These are two completely different scientific fields. Once again, your expressed ignorance is astonishing, and I would recommend you actually learning the stuff you spew those falsehoods about. Becaus eright now, you are merely making yourself look dumb.

So you don't go for chemical "evolution" at all

Why should they? Are you again trying to show how truly ignorant you are about evolution? because you sure are doing a good job at it.

I would suggest that from virus to bacterium is a far easier step in your theory than from crocs to birds.
You may consider me ignorant, that's your perrogative. From my part I consider that you're living in cuckoo land.