Complexity and evolution of the cell

[Homer]

Regardless of what view you hold there does seems to be things God has set in motion in which he doesn’t seem to intervene. There’s such consistency, predictability and apparent non-intervention that the term “Laws of Nature” is used. This has enabled scientists to make predicable and consistent observations.

Yes, we depend on this predictability. Gravity, for example. Imagine what life would be like if we could not depend on it. How many baseballs have been hit by the millions who have played the game? And how many times has the ball kept going and never come down?

But this is like saying the car is dependable; the piston comes up in the cylinder and compressed gas/air mix explodes when there is a spark, again and again, millions of times without fail. But this ongoing predictability (following "nature", if you will) is a very different thing than the designing and building of the car in the first place. The evolutionist seems to say "nature" designed and built the car which was running (sort of) from the beginning.

[jriccitelli]

Adaptability does not mean anything evolves, your car and your computer are designed to adapt to things based on heat, cold, need, etc. this is part of the cars computer, it is prewired to fit different situations or needs. Biology adapts, yet it can only do so because the ability designed into it. There is no chance taking place. god has not engineered anything to just start 'forming' things on there own in order to improve the creature or thing, that would surely mean death. because everthing would be mutating all day long if there were not restraints on adaptation.

[SteveF]

The evolutionist seems to say "nature" designed and built the car which was running (sort of) from the beginning.

Actually the Evolutionary Creationist would take it a step further and say that God created nature in such a fashion that things would evolve the way they have. Much like the example in the documentary I mentioned. Tectonic plates, rain, mountains etc…all need to work together in in sync in order to have life on Earth. Some may say this all happened by incredible accident. I don’t. I would say this is all part of God’s plan or design.

I can't speak for everyone though. I think the evolutionist Michael Behe (famous for writing Darwin's Black Box) believes God directly intervened at various stages of evolution. I'm basing this on what I heard (I think it may have been William Lane Craig) said about him. I haven't actually read his material.

[SteveF]

Adaptability does not mean anything evolves

You're the first person I've ever heard say this. I think we are only talking about the degree in which evolution happens. Some would say micro-evolution (usually non-biologists) which allows for significant change within the same specie. Others would say macro-evolution claiming new species can evolve.

god has not engineered anything to just start 'forming' things on there own in order to improve the creature or thing

How do you know this? It seems you would agree that it would be remarkable if He did and everything turned out exactly as He planned.

[mattrose]

This thread makes plain the fact that anytime you use a slippery word like 'evolution,' you constantly need to make sure that everyone in the discussion is using the same definition. In its broadest sense, evolution simply means change. In its particularized sense, evolution means Darwin's theory. Everyone believes in evolution (change within a species) in the broadest sense. In fact, Young Earth Creationists believe in this form of evolution more radically than Darwinists, as far as I can tell. Not everyone believes in evolution (change from species to species) in the particular sense. The evidence for the former is indisputable. The evidence for the latter is disputable. In my experience, Darwinists utilize the fact that the term 'evolution' has these two senses to their rhetorical advantage. They show evidence of the general sense of 'evolution' to build their case for the latter sense. They take advantage of the fact that everyone admits the former is obviously true so as to make the latter seem like something nobody should dispute.

Personally, I am more concerned with the de-evolution of our character than the potential evolution of our bodies. If it turns out that God used what we call Darwinian Evolution, OK. Such a discovery will re-shape my theology a smidgen here or there, but will have no major impact so far as I can tell. As of yet, however, I have not felt compelled to accept Darwin's theory. I am open, but unconvinced. So far the most persuasive consideration for me toward theistic evolution has been WHO supports it and not the evidence itself (but it'll take a lot more than that to win me over).

[SteveF]

Personally, I am more concerned with the de-evolution of our character than the potential evolution of our bodies. If it turns out that God used what we call Darwinian Evolution, OK. Such a discovery will re-shape my theology a smidgen here or there, but will have no major impact so far as I can tell.

Couldn't agree more!

[jriccitelli]

“… believes God directly intervened at various stages of evolution”

Your right Matt there are two definitions of ‘evolution’ one is to use words like develop, engineer etc to define what you mean, the other definition would use words such as speciate, differentiate, specialise, specialize, etc. my argument was that it is deceptive to use one word to describe two extremes (i.e. when things heat up they are cooling – the man constructed his house by doing nothing – the engineer developed the new device without any thought). It is very deceptive to use a word that apparently has two definitions.

Def 1: You could say the heart was developed (evolved) to work.
Def 2: The heart just happened by chance (evolved) to work.

Def 1: All the systems of the body were developed (evolved) to work together.
Def 2: All the systems of the body happened by chance (evolved) to work together.

I am saying: be honest with definitions.

‘… God has not engineered anything to just start 'forming' things on their own in order to improve the creature or thing (me) ”

What would happen if an Apple engineer were to design his computer chip, have it work perfectly, and then put into the design the ability for the chip to just start taking free un-thought changes to it’s system? (please, no jokes on this one. He would be fired)
How crazy would a designer have to be to build into his design the apparatus to change the program without meaning, program, or thought? I don’t let just anyone take apart my computer (or lawnmower) just to blindly do whatever and anything, what kind of intellect is that? Especially when we are talking about highly technical systems such as DNA and living things, especially when trial and error’ would immediately result in death, or reproduction.

The typical popular notion of 'Evolution' means there was no direction or input by a higher power (intellect), if there was a point in that stage where God intervened then that part was design by God, not evolution. To allow chance (without a intelligent designer) to move upon your design is instant disaster. This science proves, entropy and observation notes things get immediately worse, like a car when you let go of the steering wheel, or when you let your nephew take your car out on Saturday night.

[SteveF]

JR, I've noticed a trend in your posts. I think you may need to have a healthier view of scientists and the scientific field.

I would like to see a scientist ‘make’ a dolphin.

I don’t know any scientist who has made this claim.

That’s another thing that ‘evolutionists’ ignore – the shear length of a million ‘years’

Do you really think scientists are ignoring this? In fact scientists are generally inquisitive which draws them into the field and they enjoy looking at different aspects of things. Even if a particular scientist chose to ignore something they still need to bring their findings up for peer review.

It is very deceptive to use a word that apparently has two definitions

Now scientists are very deceptive?



You seem to be combative towards the field of science.

If you have a scientific argument to make then make it. Unwarranted rhetoric will get you nowhere. In fact it usually has the opposite effect.

Like the example I gave earlier about the Heliocentric solar system. If Christians respond to this finding with name calling and challenging the validity of the scientists what does that say about our so called “Christian character”. Also, if a scientist who had no particular religious leaning senses that Christians seemed threatened by their findings then what are they to assume? Obviously they would be inclined to think they are disproving Christianity in some way.

[jriccitelli]

I have a high respect and admiration for design and engineering.
I have a high respect for science and research.
Yet, all men are sinners.
Growing up in Silicon Valley I have known ‘many’ engineers and scientists and the like (as neighbors and some friends). A person’s profession does not change their prejudices. It seems few scientists are concerned with the evolution debate or involved with something that would necessitate an opinion. But those who do answer to the evolution debate are generally opposed to the creator idea, yet why, and why not?

[SteveF]

But those who do answer to the evolution debate are generally opposed to the creator idea, yet why, and why not?

I think Christians may need to look in the mirror on this one. Segments of Christians have been so insistent that their interpretation of the bible in regards to creation must be true, that they say anything that science shows otherwise must be wrong and undermines Christianity.

When a scientist discovers something that is clearly different than what these Christians say then what conclusions do you expect them to reach?

Even scientists that are Christians that have been taught a dogmatic view of creation have faced a crisis of faith when presented with the evidence. Here’s one example briefly mentioned in a video. If your time is limited go straight to 8:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6uhQWQQMQ