Let us now hear from the Creationists
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
for vehn
"why should a bunch of atom have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this....the point is that there is no scientific answer."------Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse
"why should a bunch of atom have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this....the point is that there is no scientific answer."------Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse
The evidence for intelligent design are obvious.
First, despite what many have suggested, I am not a Christian.
I have nothing against Christianity, nor against any religion.
I have issues with the way man uses religions to act out his own issues that have nothing at all to do with God in my opinion.
So I am going to define intelligent design as just that:
Design from intelligence.
Not design from ignorance.
Not chance from intelligence.
Not design from chance.
And, certainly not ignorant chance.
Where is the data that would support that the universe that we can measure, the known effects of the universe, flows from a cause of both intelligence and design?
Often reaching a decision logically comes via looking at the world and using a reasoning process.
I see order, intelligence, and creativity in the natural world. I see these same qualities expressed by mankind (at times...certainly not all the time).
Does this effect of order, intelligence and creativity come from a cause of disorder, ignorance, and a lack of creativity?
That doesn't make too much sense to me. How often do we see order, intelligence, and creativity coming from ignorance, disorder, and a lack of creativity?
So common sense and observation of the world suggest that the effects come from a cause, and ordered effects are produced by ordered causes.
Creative effects flow from creative causes.
Intelligent effects flow from intelligent causes.
But, is the universe and its operations actually orderly?
Yes, I would say so. The laws of nature are not haphazard, gravity doesn't randomly work. The universe doesn't suddenly and randomly take a nap and turn off the electromagnet force.
The fact that science works so well rests on the orderliness of the universe. Were the behavior of natural laws random and not orderly and intelligent, we would have a hell of a time surviving.
So, the universe is indeed orderly, by our own observation, and measurements.
Is the universe intelligent?
Tougher question. I would say yes again. The universe survives, the universe combines opposing forces, the universe creates, maintains, and destroys on a continual basis. It takes intelligence, or intelligent programming to accomplish this.
Is the universe creative? I would say yes. The variety of natural phenomena in the universe is beyond imagination.
So we do observe intelligence, order and creativity in the world, that is a fact.
The question is:
Are these effects of this ordered universe a consequence of design, or chance.
I certainly favor design. I could be wrong, but I doubt seriously the degree of sophistication and simplicity are a matter of chance. Possible, but unlikely. I have never seen chance produce any great degree of order, intelligence, and creativity on a consistent basis.
So if the universe is by design, does this mean that the design is via a programmer, or is the universe self programmed?
How often do we run into self programmed computers who installed the OS themselves, and then wrote their own programs?
The evidence is overwhelming that the effect we can measure flows from a source of creative and orderly intelligence.
It cannot be proved one way or the other that there is a power of intelligent design behind and causing the universe, and equally it cannot be falsified.
I think the problem is that the Intelligent Design theory is not basic enough as being presented, nor is it being promoted in a non denominational manner.
It is not necessary to be a Christian to favor a theory of intelligent design, as I am evidence of.
The theory that the universe is not just a matter of random ignorant change is not just appealing or reasonable to most people.
Apply the principle of reduction of assumption down to the most basic question and figure this out:
Is it more probably that our order universe is a matter of chance ignorance
or is it more probable that our ordered universe is a matter of programming by an intelligent ordered source.
First, despite what many have suggested, I am not a Christian.
I have nothing against Christianity, nor against any religion.
I have issues with the way man uses religions to act out his own issues that have nothing at all to do with God in my opinion.
So I am going to define intelligent design as just that:
Design from intelligence.
Not design from ignorance.
Not chance from intelligence.
Not design from chance.
And, certainly not ignorant chance.
Where is the data that would support that the universe that we can measure, the known effects of the universe, flows from a cause of both intelligence and design?
Often reaching a decision logically comes via looking at the world and using a reasoning process.
I see order, intelligence, and creativity in the natural world. I see these same qualities expressed by mankind (at times...certainly not all the time).
Does this effect of order, intelligence and creativity come from a cause of disorder, ignorance, and a lack of creativity?
That doesn't make too much sense to me. How often do we see order, intelligence, and creativity coming from ignorance, disorder, and a lack of creativity?
So common sense and observation of the world suggest that the effects come from a cause, and ordered effects are produced by ordered causes.
Creative effects flow from creative causes.
Intelligent effects flow from intelligent causes.
But, is the universe and its operations actually orderly?
Yes, I would say so. The laws of nature are not haphazard, gravity doesn't randomly work. The universe doesn't suddenly and randomly take a nap and turn off the electromagnet force.
The fact that science works so well rests on the orderliness of the universe. Were the behavior of natural laws random and not orderly and intelligent, we would have a hell of a time surviving.
So, the universe is indeed orderly, by our own observation, and measurements.
Is the universe intelligent?
Tougher question. I would say yes again. The universe survives, the universe combines opposing forces, the universe creates, maintains, and destroys on a continual basis. It takes intelligence, or intelligent programming to accomplish this.
Is the universe creative? I would say yes. The variety of natural phenomena in the universe is beyond imagination.
So we do observe intelligence, order and creativity in the world, that is a fact.
The question is:
Are these effects of this ordered universe a consequence of design, or chance.
I certainly favor design. I could be wrong, but I doubt seriously the degree of sophistication and simplicity are a matter of chance. Possible, but unlikely. I have never seen chance produce any great degree of order, intelligence, and creativity on a consistent basis.
So if the universe is by design, does this mean that the design is via a programmer, or is the universe self programmed?
How often do we run into self programmed computers who installed the OS themselves, and then wrote their own programs?
The evidence is overwhelming that the effect we can measure flows from a source of creative and orderly intelligence.
It cannot be proved one way or the other that there is a power of intelligent design behind and causing the universe, and equally it cannot be falsified.
I think the problem is that the Intelligent Design theory is not basic enough as being presented, nor is it being promoted in a non denominational manner.
It is not necessary to be a Christian to favor a theory of intelligent design, as I am evidence of.
The theory that the universe is not just a matter of random ignorant change is not just appealing or reasonable to most people.
Apply the principle of reduction of assumption down to the most basic question and figure this out:
Is it more probably that our order universe is a matter of chance ignorance
or is it more probable that our ordered universe is a matter of programming by an intelligent ordered source.
In case you haven't figured this out yet, there is a difference between the product of science and the scientific community.
The beliefs the scientific community may hold, themselves are not necessarily scientific.
When someone is sick, they don't go to a doctor for a theory on health or why the body is sick or what the doctor's theory of sickness is.....they go for treatment and cure.
The value of science is in its practical application, not what scientists happen to believe or disbelieve.
The scientific community has been wrong time and time again, so to conclude that they are suddenly right now is not logical.
Time will tell if they are right or wrong, and only if they can go beyond theory to a proof of their opinions.
The beliefs the scientific community may hold, themselves are not necessarily scientific.
When someone is sick, they don't go to a doctor for a theory on health or why the body is sick or what the doctor's theory of sickness is.....they go for treatment and cure.
The value of science is in its practical application, not what scientists happen to believe or disbelieve.
The scientific community has been wrong time and time again, so to conclude that they are suddenly right now is not logical.
Time will tell if they are right or wrong, and only if they can go beyond theory to a proof of their opinions.
nice post Zzzzzz...
"the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." ------ Werner von Braun, the father of space science
im out.....Thunder??????????????????
"the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." ------ Werner von Braun, the father of space science
im out.....Thunder??????????????????
Every single sentence?
LOL.
Show me some factual and known examples where order is a product of ignorant chance.
p.s. You think the following sentence is opinion?
First, despite what many have suggested, I am not a Christian.
LOL.
Show me some factual and known examples where order is a product of ignorant chance.
p.s. You think the following sentence is opinion?
First, despite what many have suggested, I am not a Christian.
Since you are ignorant of what the original intent could have been, your evaluation of the product in terms of intelligent design is meaningless.
In order to conclude as you do, you must have a definition of what is a satisfactory "scientific proof." If your definition of a scientific proof excludes proofs accepted by the majority of the scientific community, then your definition is not the correct definition of what is a scientific proof.
Your definition of scientific proof, nevertheless, may be the correct one. If you believe this to be so, then you should publish your theory to the scientific community and allow it to be tested. But, as of this moment, the scientific community accepts evolution as an accurate version of the development of life, ergo, they accept the offerred proofs of the contributing scientists as satisfying the scientific method -- even if you do not.
That you do not accept these same proofs, strongly suggests that your definition of what is or is not scientific is wrong -- despite your personal desire for your definition to prevail.
And, by-the-way, what exactly IS your definition of a scientific proof? You should publish that, right here, so anyone who reads your thoughts can subject them to the same standard of proof that you elusively demand from the rest of the world.