Complexity and evolution of the cell

[jriccitelli]

Science makes mistakes all day long, pointing out two Christian ones is hardly a logical defense.
I suppose science should give up their case because they have been wrong millions of times.
Creation is nothing but super fantastic design, that's all it consists of, so wouldn’t the answer be obvious = there is a designer?
Yet they have ‘begun’ to suppose the ‘no-designer hypothesis’ to be the obvious answer, how does that make sense. (most do not even ‘consider’ that there could be a designer)
It seems the number one reason they give is because ‘things resemble other things’ (a monkey is similar to a man, a mouse is similar to a rat), this is more of an argument for a designer, and is just what designers and designs do, they share good designs.

Your heart has valves that open, let in used blood, valves close on the other end to the motor response of electronic impulse, a hundred times a minute, speed up slow down with demand, year after year, in all kinds of mammals, the internal combustion engine is very similar (but never lasts quite so long) this super fantastic engineering, it just developed itself? The valves ‘have’ to shut tightly in the right order, and they all speed up together, etc. this happened without design?
You don’t have to be a musician to know good music.

[SteveF]

Science makes mistakes all day long, pointing out two Christian ones is hardly a logical defense.

It wasn't a defense. It was an example of a Christian who struggled. Hence, why should we be surprised when non-Christians reach their conclusions when looking at the same evidence? The point is, we shouldn't be so dogmatic about things, especially when we may be wrong and cause others to stumble.

I'm not sure why you keep giving examples that illustrates there is a designer. Nobody disagrees with this. We are only considering how the design came about. Unless you're assuming an atheist may be reading this.

[SteveF]

A couple of interesting quotes from Alvin Plantinga for anyone interested:

This one from Wikipedia:

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that. ...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.



This gem is from his book “Where the Conflict Really Lies” in which he argues philosophically that the real conflict is between Naturalism** and Science, not Religion and Science. I’m actually copying this from someone’s excellent review of the book on Amazon:

Plantinga argues that naturalism is in conflict with evolution as he deems naturalism a "quasi-religion;" this in part means the "real conflict lies between science and naturalism" (pp. 310-311). From the perspective of theism our cognitive "faculties are indeed for the most part reliable," but "suppose you are a naturalist: you think that there is no such person as God, and that we and our cognitive faculties have been cobbled together by [unguided] natural selection. Can you then sensibly think that our cognitive faculties are for the most part reliable? I say you can't. The basic idea of my argument follows: First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. ... If I believe in both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief" (pp. 312-14).


**"Naturalism" meaning that God had nothing to do with creation. Everything happened naturally.

[Homer]

A couple things are troubling for theistic evolution. If there was an Adam, it doesn't seem probable for him to have gradually evolved. At which step would he be Adam if he was only slightly different than his parent? And if no first Adam, how is Christ a second?

And it seems to me macro evolution is little more than unprovable speculation. If it is science, where are the experiments that show macro evolution has occured?

[SteveF]

A couple things are troubling for theistic evolution. If there was an Adam, it doesn't seem probable for him to have gradually evolved. At which step would he be Adam if he was only slightly different than his parent? And if no first Adam, how is Christ a second?

Here is a sample of some theologian’s views who are also Theistic Evolutionists. I’ve come across a number of different propositions and found none of them entirely satisfying but, then again, I’m not entirely satisfied with any view I’ve heard on the first chapters of Genesis.

Alister McGrath

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL5su0zmpKM

Timothy Keller

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc ... al-christ/

N.T. Wright

http://biologos.org/resources/multimedi ... am-and-eve

Scott McKnight

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed ... d-eve-rjs/

If it is science, where are the experiments that show macro evolution has occured?

There are a number of excellent Christian scientists who can explain why they believe in Macro-Evolution. I think a good book to start with would be “The Language of Science and Faith” by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins. It does not deal exclusively with evolution but it is a good introduction to the evidence.

[jriccitelli]

(this is rushed this morning, so forgive, thanks)

Steve all four of your references are about Genesis, I said earlier that I am not starting with God, I am starting with ‘there is a creation' (much like the philosophers BC) ‘the creation has fantastic design, which demands fantastic intellect. Intellect that is far-far-far beyond what any organism on earth possess’. I asked ‘who’ then designed all this, whether or not it was the God of the Hebrews at this point is not the argument. The argument is whether the creation and life-forms reveal development and design – or do they not show development and design.
It is not Genesis authenticates design, it is design authenticates Genesis.

The 'evolutionist assumes the design development can happen without input, but that is a deceptive use of the two words design and development, they need to say what they believe: that things happened by chance without design, development, input or intellect.
There are only two choices:
Lifeforms formed without design (outside input).
Lifeforms formed because they were ‘designed’ (outside input).

I was trying to make my point without getting to wordy, the point seems understood though, that defining ‘evolution’ establishes the difference between the two hypothesis, and why they cannot be intertwined, as in ‘Theistic evolution’ (note also, agreeing or disagreeing with the term ‘Darwinism’ is also confusing because his ‘observations’ really do not eliminate design (no observation of creation can 'eliminate' a designer) As natural selection does not eliminate design, either.

The terms defy the definitions, so yes (Michelle), using definitions (developed vs. happened by chance) rather than terms (ie. Evolve, Darwinism) will help eliminate the deception in what evolution proposes: that matter ‘develops itself’ into life-forms.

I find that defining this (or pointing this out) is well worth it, as getting into molecular development and biological terms is not even necessary if a person can see ‘design’ does not define or have anything to do with what happens by chance.

Are Theistic evolutionists saying God did not ‘plan’ to have chicken and corn, and that these came about because molecules just happened ‘to end up’ at chicken and corn?

[Michelle]

moving along...

[SteveF]

Steve all four of your references are about Genesis, I said earlier that I am not starting with God

Are you referring to the post where I provided links from four different theologians? If so, I wasn't actually addressing you. I was responding to a specific question from Homer about Adam.


JR, I'm really having trouble understanding what you're trying to say or where you're going with your argument.

Let me try and simplify things. I'll provide a definition and ask a question.

Theistic Evolution: The belief that biological evolution is the design and method God uses in His creation. There are various views on the level at which God intervenes in the process.

Question: Are you in agreement or disagreement that Theistic Evolution, as defined above, is a way of explaining the design you are referring to.


Btw, I actually prefer the term Evolutionary Creation. I agree with a scientist who doesn't think God should simply be a qualifying adjective to the term evolution.

[SteveF]

maybe I was right after all and didn't need to delete my post (which I did because of my promise not to post when I don't understand

I thought I wasn't seeing things. I only had a chance to skim it because I was heading out the door. I looked for it later in the day and then I started questioning my sanity. I didn't even know a post could be deleted.

I wouldn't mind if you posted it again. I didn't have a chance to read it properly.

[Michelle]

maybe I was right after all and didn't need to delete my post (which I did because of my promise not to post when I don't understand

I thought I wasn't seeing things. I only had a chance to skim it because I was heading out the door. I looked for it later in the day and then I started questioning my sanity. I didn't even know a post could be deleted.

I wouldn't mind if you posted it again. I didn't have a chance to read it properly.

Hahaha...okay. I'm very far out of my element when it comes to this topic, so I've thought and rethought my participation in this thread. I've deleted twice now. I did save my first post and will repost it below. I also posted between jriccitelli's most recent post and your reply to him. Your reply is seems so succinct and asks him a question, so I didn't want my pondering to get in the way.