Intelligent design / creationism

[MortenS]

Of course natural selection would fine tune eyesight, but natural selection will rarely make something perfect, just good enough. I would not use modern humans as a proof against natural selection, though, because all our medical advances are fighting against the powers of selection every day, pushing back what selection will remove.

Also, natural selection works best at removing bad properties of organisms that occur before reproductive age. When the organism already have had their offspring, selection would not matter that much, since the genes are already passed.

[Tormod]

Admin note:

This thread will be closed soon - it is now past 200 posts and it's time to start new threads based on the key concepts discussed here. I will leave that up the participants.

[mother engine]

it might be better for scientists who publish books if they would draw a distinct line between where the scientific method stops and basic human philosophy begins. it really does not matter what evidence there is concerning evolution because of the impossibility of knowing the mind of a possible creating entity one cannot empirically show that the universe is not designed. 'god' could have designed a universe that tricks all perceptive attempts by its very nature. personally i think alot of the fuel for the raging debate of god vs science is caused by scientists trying to be philosophers as well. creationism may be a bogus science (i certainlly believe it to be) but instead of letting this be the focal point of the issue many people push on in a futile attempt to 'prove' that god does not exist. waste of time and energy that only creates more distance between groups and problems i think.

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

Evolution can increase genetic information, so our eyes could be the product of evolution. So the discussion about the eye was just a red herring?

Holey Mackerel TeleMad, (trade you one fish for another ) no. There are numerous pathways that point to design, intelligent design. The eye is one example. It’s sophistication, irreducible complexity, the inference of design, specified complexity, the integration with the brain, signal processing – some want to attribute that to natural laws and I think the evidence shows otherwise. So do many other people, and they have very good arguments, logic, and evidence.

They wait not for the illusive transitionary fossil.
Likewise, the question of “the origin of the information in DNA” also shows intelligent design. Evolution can’t account for this information because the DNA had to be present before self replication.

Daniel Hillis remarked, “There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things, one is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex.”

But whether evolution is able to perform what otherwise would require engineers to perform is precisely the question.

Science has a bit of an issue going on, having defined science as the study of material processes, they disqualify design from the start, and that ensures that some materialistic account of evolution must be true in their mind. The answer is derived or caused by the initial assumption.

Is that good science? Should scientists begin with predispositions that don’t allow us to follow the evidence?

Now really TeleMad, you like to pick apart my quotes, (the length, the year, etc,) but why not answer the actual question? Isn’t it a fair question?

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

I'm not sure you are allowed to quote 8 full pages out of a book, even if you do give a reference.

Yes I see it's been removed. Go to the link I've provided and you will see it is available publicly and does not indicate it is copyrighted.

This information needs to be disseminated so people become aware of the issues.

This book (or the DVD) is a must read for anyone interested in evolution and truth.

http://www.iconsofevolution.org/intro/

[BEAKER]

Originally Posted by mother engine

'god' could have designed a universe that tricks all perceptive attempts by its very nature. personally i think alot of the fuel for the raging debate of god vs science is caused by scientists trying to be philosophers as well. creationism may be a bogus science (i certainlly believe it to be) but instead of letting this be the focal point of the issue many people push on in a futile attempt to 'prove' that god does not exist. waste of time and energy that only creates more distance between groups and problems i think.

I think you hit the nail on the head!

I personally believe that creatonism is not bogus science at all; and that those who are determined to eradicate God from all thought and disscussion are the same ones who have forgotten what it is they are trying to prove.

If evolution is true, then eventually the truth will be known by all, and there will no longer be a need to prove that God does not exist. Then they can finally relax in the satisfaction of knowing that all of their painstakingly accumulated wisdom will go to the grave with them when they cease to function. What a happy ending.

In the meantime, why is it that so many scientists would rather spend thier precious time proving there is no God, rather than searching for the illusive evidece that will finally prove thier point?

Hopefully it will be a less complicated exlanation for why we are here than the ones we currently cling to, that are obviously so far out there that you can't even begin to fathom the explanation without years of technical training and a willingness to ignore the obvious; in favor of some increasingly complex, mind-boggeling conundrum that ends in a grandious lack of final proof.

And why do they often seem to get so angry about those who have a contrary viewpoint?

God only knows!

[Tormod]

With BEAKER's post I am closing this thread. Some very good viewpoints have come forth. Please continue them in new threads.