How Did the Designer Design?

How did the Designer (God) Design this Universe? A few thoughts -
The Universe was an act of Creation. There are, from the beginning, the fundamental forces built into the Universe, including gravity and electromagnetism. These fundamental forces introduce the inevitability of life in the Universe from the first moment.

Matter was created. The Law of Thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the Designer must be 'other than' matter or energy.

Conditions are made for life with DNA as the core of all life as we know it Even non-coding DNA might have an important role in splitting DNA architecture into modules of important genes. Plant design is perfected by evolution.

Mutation and Natural Selection lead to a profusion of different animal life forms. Nature is connected into food chains and webs. Human brain size increases until consciousness is introduced. Language develops from human tribal social customs. At the right times, the Designer contacts His humanity by Divine Revelation to prove that He exists and wants to guide His 'children'.

Man sees the Design and how it unfolded, which was the whole point, and then denies God asking for proof.

But how can a frog explain dry land to a tadpole?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
There are, from the beginning, the fundamental forces built into the Universe, including gravity and electromagnetism. These fundamental forces introduce the inevitability of life in the Universe from the first moment.

The fundamental forces DO NOT make life inevitable, the only render it possible. Life is NOT inevitable, but is contingent. If life were inevitable, we'd be more likely to see things such as spontaneous generation, and origin of life experiments would be pretty much unnecessary.

Matter was created. The Law of Thermodynamics says that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the Designer must be 'other than' matter or energy.

The FIRST law of Thermodynamics states this, but prior to Planck time, ie the singularity, all matter is contained in an infinitely small point with infinite curvature of spacetime. Or in other words, the laws of physics as we understand them, likely including FLOT break down. There is simply no reason to cite the laws of physics prior to Planck time, as they technically did not exist.

Conditions are made for life with DNA as the core of all life as we know it Even non-coding DNA might have an important role in splitting DNA architecture into modules of important genes. Plant design is perfected by evolution.

Non-coding DNA DOES have critical functions. Scientists are learning this more-or-less everyday. In fact, most have dropped the misnomer 'junk DNA' in favor of the more correct non-coding DNA. Personally, I take issue with even this term. 'Non-coding DNA' almost certainly does encode something, just not protein.

Evolution doesn't perfect things. Evolution simply allows the most useful combinations of genes and other traits to proliferates. However, evolution doesn't perfect things by any stretch of the imagination.

Mutation and Natural Selection lead to a profusion of different animal life forms. Nature is connected into food chains and webs. Human brain size increases until consciousness is introduced. Language develops from human tribal social customs. At the right times, the Designer contacts His humanity by Divine Revelation to prove that He exists and wants to guide His 'children'.

If you truly believe that NS and Mutation leads to connected lifeforms, food chains, conciousness, and language, why invoke a Designer?

Man sees the Design and how it unfolded, which was the whole point, and then denies God asking for proof.

Some see Design. Others... not so much. Indeed many of the most prolific biological scientists maintain design is merely an illusion. For a biological scientist to admit they see design is tantamount to heresy among their fellow scientists. Design is odd man out in terms of biological science.

The fundamental forces DO NOT make life inevitable, the only render it possible. Life is NOT inevitable, but is contingent. If life were inevitable, we'd be more likely to see things such as spontaneous generation, and origin of life experiments would be pretty much unnecessary.

I don't know... if the conditions for life were programmed from the beginning of HUMAN time then life can be only formed according to the Laws of Physics, from first principles. Why should spontaneous generation occur when the Designer has stuck to His own rules?

The FIRST law of Thermodynamics states this, but prior to Planck time, ie the singularity, all matter is contained in an infinitely small point with infinite curvature of spacetime. Or in other words, the laws of physics as we understand them, likely including FLOT break down. There is simply no reason to cite the laws of physics prior to Planck time, as they technically did not exist.

Are we the only Universe, or are we in a multiverse where the fundamental Laws are different from our comprehension in other 'super' Universes, which contain Angels and Demons and the like?

Non-coding DNA DOES have critical functions. Scientists are learning this more-or-less everyday. In fact, most have dropped the misnomer 'junk DNA' in favor of the more correct non-coding DNA. Personally, I take issue with even this term. 'Non-coding DNA' almost certainly does encode something, just not protein.

I agree with this point. There probably is no junk DNA. Even introns in DNA may have a regulatory function.

Evolution doesn't perfect things. Evolution simply allows the most useful combinations of genes and other traits to proliferates. However, evolution doesn't perfect things by any stretch of the imagination.

But, my God, it certainly works doesn't it? Who can argue with the success of the sheer variety of Nature and its various forms? Photosynthesis, self-adjusting Food Webs...Can you deny its success?

If you truly believe that NS and Mutation leads to connected lifeforms, food chains, conciousness, and language, why invoke a Designer?

Because, the Almighty informs us that He started it all off in a series if Divine Revelation. We just have to scour the Revelations for features of the world that have been revealed to us relatively recently to be true, for example cosmological facts.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I don't know... if the conditions for life were programmed from the beginning of HUMAN time then life can be only formed according to the Laws of Physics, from first principles. Why should spontaneous generation occur when the Designer has stuck to His own rules?

I believe the operative word in the above is if. In any case, given that life itself is billions of years older than humanity, the conditions that make life possible would have to have been in place since the beginning. Anything that occurs in this universe can only occur according to the laws of physics... save for miracles and the like. I mentioned spontaneous generation only because if as you claim, life is inevitable, then life should logically arise whenever conditions are appropriate. However, if life is contingent, then spontaneous generation, etc. is unlikely.

Are we the only Universe, or are we in a multiverse where the fundamental Laws are different from our comprehension in other 'super' Universes, which contain Angels and Demons and the like?

The question of the multiverse is a fabrication specifically postulated to make the "cosmic jackpot" in terms of physical laws we have in this universe seem to be no big deal. The idea of a multiverse is, IMO, highly unlikely, and is not a scientific idea. The idea is untestable, and hence is unscientific. Angels and Demons, also an unscientific notion, but in any case, they exist outside the realm of this universe. IOW, they are not subject to spacetime and its constraints.

I agree with this point. There probably is no junk DNA. Even introns in DNA may have a regulatory function.

Introns most definitely do have functions. We most certainly are unaware of the depth of their functionality. But for starters, some introns function as ribozymes, others are involved in alternative splicing, some introns encode small nuclear RNA's, which is important for translation of other mRNA's.

But, my God, it certainly works doesn't it? Who can argue with the success of the sheer variety of Nature and its various forms? Photosynthesis, self-adjusting Food Webs...Can you deny its success?

I don't deny its success. I only deny that evolution perfects things. Though the beauty, functionality, and complexity of it all are part of the reason I'm a Christian.

Because, the Almighty informs us that He started it all off in a series if Divine Revelation. We just have to scour the Revelations for features of the world that have been revealed to us relatively recently to be true, for example cosmological facts.

True, but perhaps all that was needed was the initial push. It all appears to function quite well on its own, without the necessity of further intervention. The natural world appears to function, diversify, expand, and adapt all on its own, without the necessity of intervention by the Designer.

Which is the better design, that which can function on its own, without the requirement for constant tinkering, or the design that can be left to its own devices and trusted to run on its own? Invoking the necessity of periodic intervention by the Designer only serves to limit the abilities of God, and in a sense deglorifies Him.

I believe the operative word in the above is if. In any case, given that life itself is billions of years older than humanity, the conditions that make life possible would have to have been in place since the beginning. Anything that occurs in this universe can only occur according to the laws of physics... save for miracles and the like. I mentioned spontaneous generation only because if as you claim, life is inevitable, then life should logically arise whenever conditions are appropriate. However, if life is contingent, then spontaneous generation, etc. is unlikely.

Is this what a modified form of Carter's Anthropic Principle would state? That the inevitability of life was built into it from the Beginning.

The question of the multiverse is a fabrication specifically postulated to make the "cosmic jackpot" in terms of physical laws we have in this universe seem to be no big deal. The idea of a multiverse is, IMO, highly unlikely, and is not a scientific idea. The idea is untestable, and hence is unscientific. Angels and Demons, also an unscientific notion, but in any case, they exist outside the realm of this universe. IOW, they are not subject to spacetime and its constraints.

I may actually agree with you here but isn't there another realm where 'other' rules may apply? For example didn't Lucifer refuse to obey the rules?

I agree with this point. There probably is no junk DNA. Even introns in DNA may have a regulatory function.

Introns most definitely do have functions. We most certainly are unaware of the depth of their functionality. But for starters, some introns function as ribozymes, others are involved in alternative splicing, some introns encode small nuclear RNA's, which is important for translation of other mRNA's.

I don't deny its success. I only deny that evolution perfects things. Though the beauty, functionality, and complexity of it all are part of the reason I'm a Christian.

This is the heart of the question. I believed in Creationism until I read extensively about possible evolutionary events. What tilted me towards an idea that God evolved man was the endosymbiont theory. The ribosomes of mitochondria are a bacterial size. The plasmid uses bacterial transcriptional signals and the peptides have signs of post-translational modification typical of bacteria. I looked at it and thought: 'Why would God make a human being as a miraculous creative act and build into him something that is an endosymbiont? This made me finally go over to the Design argument.

True, but perhaps all that was needed was the initial push. It all appears to function quite well on its own, without the necessity of further intervention. The natural world appears to function, diversify, expand, and adapt all on its own, without the necessity of intervention by the Designer.

Which is the better design, that which can function on its own, without the requirement for constant tinkering, or the design that can be left to its own devices and trusted to run on its own? Invoking the necessity of periodic intervention by the Designer only serves to limit the abilities of God, and in a sense deglorifies Him.

I certainly hope not. I would never de-glorify God. I don't think I postulated the possibility of a Designer tinkering with the design every so often, but....we must also confront the Scientific method and we must confront the fossil record in its incomplete state and we must rationalise before adopting faith. I am struggling to see where we disagree here?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Is this what a modified form of Carter's Anthropic Principle would state? That the inevitability of life was built into it from the Beginning.

Not sure about that. However, again, I don't believe life was inevitable... only contingent. Personally, I believe it contingent on His will alone.

I may actually agree with you here but isn't there another realm where 'other' rules may apply? For example didn't Lucifer refuse to obey the rules?

Other realms are out of the realms of scientific investigation. What we know of other rules arrive via untestable, and unconfirmable means. They are based on revelation and faith alone.

This is the heart of the question. I believed in Creationism until I read extensively about possible evolutionary events. What tilted me towards an idea that God evolved man was the endosymbiont theory. The ribosomes of mitochondria are a bacterial size. The plasmid uses bacterial transcriptional signals and the peptides have signs of post-translational modification typical of bacteria. I looked at it and thought: 'Why would God make a human being as a miraculous creative act and build into him something that is an endosymbiont? This made me finally go over to the Design argument.

Creationism is for those who lack faith, not for those whose life is defined by faith. Creationism results from a weakness in one's faith, not a strength.

I certainly hope not. I would never de-glorify God. I don't think I postulated the possibility of a Designer tinkering with the design every so often, but....we must also confront the Scientific method and we must confront the fossil record in its incomplete state and we must rationalise before adopting faith. I am struggling to see where we disagree here?

Regardless of the incompleteness of the scientific evidence, the existing fossil record is suggestive of general trends... less complex to more complex, less diversity to more diversity, etc. These are questions that those without faith attempt to navigate around. Those whose faith cannot be shaken have no difficulties with such observations. We may not disagree, but science is a gift of God like all other gifts. God should not fill the gaps, it's a dangerous, and perhaps more importantly unnecessary place to put God.

Regardless of the incompleteness of the scientific evidence, the existing fossil record is suggestive of general trends... less complex to more complex, less diversity to more diversity, etc. These are questions that those without faith attempt to navigate around. Those whose faith cannot be shaken have no difficulties with such observations. We may not disagree, but science is a gift of God like all other gifts. God should not fill the gaps, it's a dangerous, and perhaps more importantly unnecessary place to put God.

Boy, am I glad that there are rational Believers like yourself who also understand the Science... However, I may disagree about the Prime Mover theory with you , but that is a minor concern for me. What is more important is that in this Topic, believers and those who have faith in Science seem to miss the point each other as I have stated many times. They expect a scientific proof of God without reading the scriptures- which are a proof of the existence of God. They see mechanism without a cause. In short, they hear the symphony without listening and spend their time analysing the sequence of notes.

Another concern to a believer is: why is the design of a Perfect Designer not perfect? This one stumps me at present. Any answers?

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Is this what a modified form of Carter's Anthropic Principle would state? That the inevitability of life was built into it from the Beginning.

Not sure about that. However, again, I don't believe life was inevitable... only contingent. Personally, I believe it contingent on His will alone.

Sounds like the Participatory Anthropic Principle [PAP]. Which is Wheeler's version of the Strong Anthropic Principal. I don't believe you could be a theist and subscribe to [Carter's] version of the Weak Anthropic Principal, correct? In my opinion, the mechanism for [the origins of] life, consciousness, etc are going to be found in physics not biology.

From the PAP link:

Collapse of the Multiverse
Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.


[...]

The bottom line of the participatory anthropic principle is that minds can exist independently of matter, and they create their actual environments from the potentialities around them. But isn't this all just pure metaphysical speculation? Well maybe not. The participatory anthropic principle makes potentially verifiable statements about the early history of the universe, the speed of evolution and the occurrence of extremely unlikely evolutionary steps, including the first appearance of life itself.

I believe that this Ultimate Observer, if you will, is God and that indeed, all of Creation was/is contingent upon His will.



Kallikak:

Creationism is for those who lack faith, not for those whose life is defined by faith. Creationism results from a weakness in one's faith, not a strength.

I think that this is an unfair statement or; in the least you're using quite a large brush, imho. Do you say the same for all apologetics, or just for ones dealing with science (creationism)?

I agree that for someone [a believer] to say, for example: If man is an evolved primate, the Bible is wrong; If the flood wasn't global, the Bible is wrong; If the Earth/universe is more than ca. 10k years old, the Bible is wrong. I would call that a weak Faith also, assuming that that believer would give up his [F]aith were any of those statements falsified to his/her satisfaction.

Although I'm not a young earth creationist, nor much of a fan, I don't believe that's how it/they work. No? There's plenty of former YECs out there who've came to be theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists. They maintained their Faith (i.e., There is only One, Most High God, Jesus was/is His Word made flesh, through His death, and resurrection, our debt was paid in full; we didn't deserve it, He only did it because, "He so loved the world")

None of those beliefs are contingent upon our understanding of the nature of nature [aka, science/creationism]. So if you're saying a person whom says, 'disprove the global flood/special creation/etc, and I'll deny Salvation and/or belief in God altogether,' has a weak faith, then I agree. Who wouldn't?


Does your opinion that creationism is only for those who lack faith, apply to all creationists? Would, (e.g.) Hugh Ross, be such a person?

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork [Psalm 19]

(1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2)The same was in the beginning with God. (3)All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1]

If I read you right, you're agreeing with those statements but you say that you'd need to be a person of weak Faith to believe that science supports them?

How about this way: Some critics say that Genesis tells us that we had light on earth (and vegetation/life) before we had a sun. Are you siding with the critic and saying that, 'yes, that's an accurate interpretation, the creationists (of all stripes) are wrong, Genesis is not scientifically accurate, therefore it's not the Word of God but just some guy (whomever) who didn't know any better'? Would only a weak-Faithed creationist be compelled to square such a circle?


I realize that it's not a scientific text and these discussions miss the point of the creation story, but if Scripture says the sky is Red, things fall up, or that earth was in place, fully 'lit,' with growing vegetation, prior to the creation of our sun, we have an issue. The evolution interpretations ('kinds') are more of a stretch, I know, but the point is the same.


Sorry if I've misread or misunderstood your point; I've always had a hard time understanding theistic evolution[ists, and what it is that they believe, exactly] certainly no offense intended.

Very much enjoying the conversation ya'll are having. . .


[... continued next post]

Kallikak:

Regardless of the incompleteness of the scientific evidence, the existing fossil record is suggestive of general trends... less complex to more complex, less diversity to more diversity, etc. These are questions that those without faith attempt to navigate around. Those whose faith cannot be shaken have no difficulties with such observations. We may not disagree, but science is a gift of God like all other gifts. God should not fill the gaps, it's a dangerous, and perhaps more importantly unnecessary place to put God.

I hate that "gaps" term, seems to imply an arguement from ignorance, how's that any different than the atheistic/materialistic promisory note i.e., 'science will have an answer one day'? If we observe something, and develop an understanding of how it works, we also develop an understanding of what its limitations are (i.e., what it cannot do, or "gaps" if you must.) Take for example Behe's IC, is it based on what we don't know (gaps) or what we do know(science)?

So far as science goes, how do you differentiate theistic evolution (catholics mostly) from deism, or are you saying the distintion is superfilous and/or unscientific? Not trying to pick a fight (certainly not a science one with a PhD ) but I sometimes think, 'hey I'm a theistic evolutionist' but I can't be because I support Intelligent Design and I remain unconvinced wrt common ancestry, and I think 'fine-tuning' extends beyond the Big Bang. Somehow that reduces me to some weak-Faithed 'gapper' who's reduced God to some sort of cosmic tinkerer. :shrug: Never see myself like that until a critic points it out, and have no idea (besides saying 'am not') how to argue otherwise, or why such an argument wouldn't be ultimately futile anyway. I do believe 'God did it,' I even have some opinions on how it was done (science wise); I try to square my beliefs with Scripture, which I believe to be God's inerrant word, which makes me a creationist, I guess. Persona non grata usually.


In your book, is Behe a theistic evolutionist or a creationist, are his (scientific) opinions wrt evolution due to his weak Faith, and/or does he fill gaps, dangerously, with God? You could probably satisfy my curiosity (and ignore the rest of my, admittedly, long-winded post ) by letting me hear your opinions on Ross/Rana, Behe, and (e.g.)Ken Miller. Or were your comments directed only at the Hamm/Hovinds of creationism, and if that, why?

Regards

Sounds like the Participatory Anthropic Principle [PAP]. Which is Wheeler's version of the Strong Anthropic Principal. I don't believe you could be a theist and subscribe to [Carter's] version of the Weak Anthropic Principal, correct? In my opinion, the mechanism for [the origins of] life, consciousness, etc are going to be found in physics not biology.

Thank you for correcting me and good to hear from you. If we posit the appearance of the Universe from the contingency of the Will of God, are we not falling into the trap of the atheists old arguments again? For example who observed the observer etc... I only suggested this 'theistic' Anthropic Principle because of the cosmological, fine structure constant (alpha) and other strange numbers that seem to be contingent upon a unique event, in answer to kallikak's response.

The bottom line of the participatory anthropic principle is that minds can exist independently of matter, and they create their actual environments from the potentialities around them. But isn't this all just pure metaphysical speculation? Well maybe not. The participatory anthropic principle makes potentially verifiable statements about the early history of the universe, the speed of evolution and the occurrence of extremely unlikely evolutionary steps, including the first appearance of life itself.

I've read the link and the PAP would satisfy the sheer profusion of different life forms imperfect and 'perfect'. However atheists would jump on the word 'sentient' which the Principle predicts. They would ask: 'Does a virus or a mycobacterium have sentience?'

I believe that this Ultimate Observer, if you will, is God and that indeed, all of Creation was/is contingent upon His will.

But why would you call it Creation then and not Observation?

I agree that for someone [a believer] to say, for example: If man is an evolved primate, the Bible is wrong; If the flood wasn't global, the Bible is wrong; If the Earth/universe is more than ca. 10k years old, the Bible is wrong. I would call that a weak Faith also, assuming that that believer would give up his [F]aith were any of those statements falsified to his/her satisfaction.

Personally I would not give up my faith but would be forced to admit the scriptures as metaphysical allegory and not as containing some scientific evidence from a Divine perspective. Having dabbled in Science, I would feel a bit uneasy but my faith would be unaffected. I do not want to speak for kallikak but isn'y his point that we should question our faith and then ask for Divine help to understand it better and face atheistic Science head on? Because it has few answers yet.

Although I'm not a young earth creationist, nor much of a fan, I don't believe that's how it/they work. No? There's plenty of former YECs out there who've came to be theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists. They maintained their Faith (i.e., There is only One, Most High God, Jesus was/is His Word made flesh, through His death, and resurrection, our debt was paid in full; we didn't deserve it, He only did it because, "He so loved the world")

None of those beliefs are contingent upon our understanding of the nature of nature [aka, science/creationism]. So if you're saying a person whom says, 'disprove the global flood/special creation/etc, and I'll deny Salvation and/or belief in God altogether,' has a weak faith, then I agree. Who wouldn't?

I have no problem with YEC's and to deny faith in the face of imperfect Science IS exhibiting a weakness in faith. But is there anything wrong with accommodating faith with science? I agree, there is no problem. Except with atheists who see faith as antithetical to reason.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork [Psalm 19]

I couldn't agree more.

Sorry if I've misread or misunderstood your point; I've always had a hard time understanding theistic evolution[ists, and what it is that they believe, exactly] certainly no offense intended.

No offense taken. However, I am probably taking an uncomfortable line by sitting on the fence and trying to square evolution with a Divine starter of everything. However, this satisfies me at present and does not alter the strength of my faith at all. I just get tired of atheists unrolling the same old arguments of 'millions of years of evolution' without referring to the molecular level where Behe STILL has valid arguments.

They tend to refer to events at the macro level (e.g. limb development) as if the molecular arguments have been addressed completely. They haven't! From my experience, if you are looking for a particular model in Science you will look at any organism which gives a positive result for your hypothesis and then publish the result, regardless of the consensus for that field. Cynical? Yes. These arguments will always carry on regardless. Over to kallikak to speak for himself...

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Another concern to a believer is: why is the design of a Perfect Designer not perfect? This one stumps me at present. Any answers?

Perfection, is a subjective term. Not perfect by what standard? Not sure if you've seen Amadeus, but when Mozart plays his composition for the King of Austria(?), his response is that there are "too many notes," to which Mozart replies, "there are exactly as many notes as required," In the ears of the king, the composition is less than perfect, but in the ears of the composer, the composition is perfect. The same thing applies with respect to the design of the universe, the Earth, and humanity, in the eyes of a human, the creation may appear less than perfect, however, in the eyes of the Creator, perhaps this isn't so. Who can say? It's impossible to know God's grand plan, and thus impossible to judge the degree of perfection that exists in His Creation.

Rren, thanks for your comments. I've got to go work out now, but will address your posts at a later time this evening.

Originally posted by Heronumber0

Thank you for correcting me and good to hear from you. If we posit the appearance of the Universe from the contingency of the Will of God, are we not falling into the trap of the atheists old arguments again? For example who observed the observer etc...

Perhaps. Of course, by definition, God is an uncreated Creator. . . so the question is non-sensical, imo. Atheists wont like that to be sure but, if we're positing a mind/conciousness that transends space/time (whomever, whatever He/she/they/it may be) it would, by definition (ie, trancends space/time) have no before, have no where. There is no such thing as before time, there is no such thing as outside space. In other words, uncreated. Certainly unanswerable [that a word?], or just a red-herring that keeps them from dealing with the issues. I mean is it really just turtles all the way down?

I only suggested this 'theistic' Anthropic Principle because of the cosmological, fine structure constant (alpha) and other strange numbers that seem to be contingent upon a unique event, in answer to kallikak's response.

Have you read The Privileged Planet or seen the video? You can watch a low-res version of the video for free here, if you haven't seen it yet.

I've read the link and the PAP would satisfy the sheer profusion of different life forms imperfect and 'perfect'. However atheists would jump on the word 'sentient' which the Principle predicts. They would ask: 'Does a virus or a mycobacterium have sentience?'

I couldn't answer that. Although, I'm not seeing how that question/answer would be a falsification of PAP (or any version of the 'Strong'), you?

But why would you call it Creation then and not Observation?

Not sure I follow. He would be (in a PAP model) the conscious mind that 'collapsed the wave,' thus creating the universe.

Personally I would not give up my faith but would be forced to admit the scriptures as metaphysical allegory and not as containing some scientific evidence from a Divine perspective. Having dabbled in Science, I would feel a bit uneasy but my faith would be unaffected. I do not want to speak for kallikak but isn'y his point that we should question our faith and then ask for Divine help to understand it better and face atheistic Science head on? Because it has few answers yet.

I don't disagree with any of that. I took issue with Kallikak's depiction of creationists as persons of weak Faith. I am a creationist (old-earther [OEC]) and thought it was (assuming I read him correctly) demonstrably false. I mentioned a couple OECs (Hugh Ross/'Fuz' Rana) and would even say that YECs, like Walt Brown (Here's a list of some YEC scientists) have my respect and althought I may disagree with them, I respect their postion and would never claim that it comes from a weak-Faith. The insinuation (as I read it) being that were they to have a stronger Faith, they'd abandon any notions of a young-Earth (etc...).

But... I know Kallikak, I like 'em too... nay, I love 'em. I'm just giving him a hard time 'cause I like to watch him squirm. Besides he couldn't have been wronger, had he tried to be.

*poke*

I have no problem with YEC's and to deny faith in the face of imperfect Science IS exhibiting a weakness in faith. But is there anything wrong with accommodating faith with science? I agree, there is no problem. Except with atheists who see faith as antithetical to reason.

Yeah, we're on the same page here.

Originally posted by kallikak
Rren, thanks for your comments. I've got to go work out now, but will address your posts at a later time this evening.

Look bud, next time I have a comment out there you'd better put on your best fake cough and call in sick. I'm sure they can find somebody else to get the coffee and sweep the parking lot. *poke*


Nice job wrt to the subjectivity of 'bad-vs-good' design, though. Liked the analogy too... never heard that one. The critic (especially the atheist) is really asking 'why do we get sick?. . . if he really made us, if He really loves us so much. . . He would have done it differently.' Their issues, in my experience, are rarely about science.


Here's a page on 'bad design' from an OEC site I like to use, that ya'll might like.

Regards.

Originally posted by Rren
Kallikak:

I think that this is an unfair statement or; in the least you're using quite a large brush, imho. Do you say the same for all apologetics, or just for ones dealing with science (creationism)?

Perhaps it is unfair. I don't the same for all apologetics. Many other aspects of apologetics are directly related to the Bible itself, and its subject matter. For example, the historicity of Jesus, the resolution of apparent 'discrepancies' between the gospels, etc. are valid topics with respect to the Bible. However, I don't believe that resolving modern science with respect to the Bible is a necessary exercise. I don't believe the Bible was offered or written as an answer to scientific questions. The Bible is a book regarding the relationship between God and Humanity, and doesn't need to be interpreted as a scientifically accurate work. Indeed even the origins stuff that is contained within is tough to interpret in a scientific mindset. I'm no linguist, but as I understand it Greek and Hebrew don't have some requirement that words that appear in a certain order are necessarily describing something chronologically as it occurred.

I agree that for someone [a believer] to say, for example: If man is an evolved primate, the Bible is wrong; If the flood wasn't global, the Bible is wrong; If the Earth/universe is more than ca. 10k years old, the Bible is wrong. I would call that a weak Faith also, assuming that that believer would give up his [F]aith were any of those statements falsified to his/her satisfaction.

With respect to these types of arguments, I think part of the problem is that people are caught up thinking three-dimensionally. The question of time is quite irrelevant to God and anything He creates. A being that exists outside the realm of spacetime is quite free of its constraints. It makes no difference whether humans appear billions or thousands of years after the Beginning on their own time scale.

Although I'm not a young earth creationist, nor much of a fan, I don't believe that's how it/they work. No? There's plenty of former YECs out there who've came to be theistic evolutionists or progressive creationists. They maintained their Faith (i.e., There is only One, Most High God, Jesus was/is His Word made flesh, through His death, and resurrection, our debt was paid in full; we didn't deserve it, He only did it because, "He so loved the world")

Quite true, and I think it represents an increase in faith on their part. In my own personal spiritual journey, one of the most liberating things was the loss of any need to reconcile scientific observation with Biblical authenticity.

None of those beliefs are contingent upon our understanding of the nature of nature [aka, science/creationism]. So if you're saying a person whom says, 'disprove the global flood/special creation/etc, and I'll deny Salvation and/or belief in God altogether,' has a weak faith, then I agree. Who wouldn't?

Well, for starters, I would imagine the folks over AiG, those at the ICR, perhaps the entire Southern Baptist Convention, the staff at Liberty University, etc. For whatever reason, they find it absolutely necessary to interpret the Bible in every aspect of their lives. And while I don't disagree with considering His will with respect to every aspect of one's life, I don't necessarily believe that Bible is always the source of that inspiration. In my own experience, the Bible is a tool that enhances the personal revelation I receive. Personal revelation has always influenced my own path more than the Bible itself. The Bible is a companion to personal revelation, and not its source... IMO.

Does your opinion that creationism is only for those who lack faith, apply to all creationists? Would, (e.g.) Hugh Ross, be such a person?

An interesting question. I like Hugh, and I think his perspective is unique... hell... I still have TNRTB coming to my email everyday... don't read it too much anymore, but I've not cancelled it. Perhaps it's wrong for me to judge someone's faith based on their actions in the real world, and I shouldn't make such comments. Perhaps he is fulfilling God's will with his mission. At this point in my life, I would simply encourage people to pray to Him, and He'll provide whatever one needs to increase their faith and understanding. That's what really worked for me personally. Years of studying science based apologetics - while perhaps beneficial always left me with nagging doubts. Personal revelation freed me from such doubt, and I no longer feel the need to reconcile the two.


[quoteIf I read you right, you're agreeing with those statements but you say that you'd need to be a person of weak Faith to believe that science supports them?
Perhaps I did use to broad a brush, and perhaps my language was too black and white. I would expect science to support the notion that God created the universe and everything within in a broad sense, but I think it unnecessary to resolve every intimate detail of Genesis for example, with the findings of science. The Bible wasn't written as scientifically modern text, and I think it's a mistake to interpret it as such.

How about this way: Some critics say that Genesis tells us that we had light on earth (and vegetation/life) before we had a sun. Are you siding with the critic and saying that, 'yes, that's an accurate interpretation, the creationists (of all stripes) are wrong, Genesis is not scientifically accurate, therefore it's not the Word of God but just some guy (whomever) who didn't know any better'? Would only a weak-Faithed creationist be compelled to square such a circle?

Well... as I think you are aware... being a fan of Hugh and all, that these are not necessarily accurate interpretations of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, the notion that ancient people were somehow unaware that the sun was the source of light on Earth is absurd, and should be dismissed wholesale. Certainly those who wrote the Bible shouldn't be relegated to position of ignorant fools who were remiss in making one of the most basic observations with respect to the source of light on Earth. Those critics who insist on interpreting the Bible in such a manner are as bad or worse than YEC's and suffer from the same mistake... interpreting it as a scientific description of origins.

.... continued

Originally posted by Rren
How about this way: Some critics say that Genesis tells us that we had light on earth (and vegetation/life) before we had a sun. Are you siding with the critic and saying that, 'yes, that's an accurate interpretation, the creationists (of all stripes) are wrong, Genesis is not scientifically accurate, therefore it's not the Word of God but just some guy (whomever) who didn't know any better'? Would only a weak-Faithed creationist be compelled to square such a circle?

Personally, I think if one is truly concerned with such questions, the answer lies in getting themselves a concordance, and interpreting the language in the most reasonable manner. If one does this, the notion that the Bible says that light on the Earth existed prior to the sun will be as ridiculous to them as it is to you and I.

I realize that it's not a scientific text and these discussions miss the point of the creation story, but if Scripture says the sky is Red, things fall up, or that earth was in place, fully 'lit,' with growing vegetation, prior to the creation of our sun, we have an issue. The evolution interpretations ('kinds') are more of a stretch, I know, but the point is the same.

Are you playing devil's advocate here? I know you don't have this problem with the interpretation of Genesis. Indeed following your links, and posting habits demonstrates you don't have an issue with this. The Bible doesn't say these things, and a quick investigation of some different apologetics, not necessarily science based, demonstrates those interpretations to be false.

Originally posted by kallikak

Are you playing devil's advocate here? I know you don't have this problem with the interpretation of Genesis. Indeed following your links, and posting habits demonstrates you don't have an issue with this. The Bible doesn't say these things, and a quick investigation of some different apologetics, not necessarily science based, demonstrates those interpretations to be false.

[re:devil's advocate] No I wasn't going for that, well not intentionally anyway. As I understand it (like I said previously I don't... much) TEs accept the documentary hypothesis... or that Genesis was cobbled together from various authors and that why it has such an unscientific order or model of cause and effect relationships. I agree the Bible doesn't say we had earth/life prior to having a sun. Yes, indeed, even if one were to argue it's man's word and not God's the idea that ancient hunter/gatherers didn't know light comes from the sun is ridiculous. I just always thought TEs didn't make that argument, atleast not in the same way a creationist does. (See: This page for an example)


From the TE's interpretation of Genesis link:

Mythological Language
Another clue is the elements of the stories in Genesis 1-3. We have a deity wandering round visible (in spite of Scriptural insistence that no-one has ever seen God). We have a talking snake. We have trees bearing symbolic fruit. We have more than a sniff of an ancient reworked 'Just So' story about How the Snake Lost its Legs.

We have a poetic structure in Genesis 1, where what is made on the first three days is populated on the second three:

Day 1 - Light is created and Day and Night are decreed.
Day 2 - The sea and the sky are made.
Day 3 - The land is made, replete with plants.
Day 4 - The sun and moon are created to rule over the Day and Night. The stars are also made.
Day 5 - The sea and sky are filled with animals - fish and birds.
Day 6 - Land animals are made to fill the land and eat the plants

This is the language of myth. Now, let's be careful here. Myth, in this sense, does not mean 'something that isn't true'. I will here quote Stannard (Ibid.)

Whilst there is no denying that the biblical myths describe events that did not occur in any historical sense, that is not the point; they never professed to be accounts of that nature. The symbolic language in which they are couched is but a vehicle - a means of transmitting what really matters: their deep underlying truths.

And this is what we have here. Myths, not 'mere' myths, but Divinely inspired myths. The truths contained are important, not the vehicle. Thomas Thompson (The Bible in History - how Writers Create a Past, Jonathan Cape, London 1999) says

It has been most unbecoming for theologians to bicker so long about whether it was a man or a woman who was made fitst, and which brought sin into the world. Both theses distort Genesis' story

So, TEs are saying that, indeed, acoording to Genesis, the Earth and life (plants atleast) were created prior to the sun.

I really like that page btw (have been quoting/linking it since I first read it a year or so ago)... I agree with much of it, but not the idea that the order is wrong... nor do I think 'Yom' is a red-herring. As I've stated I always thought these arguments were consistent with creationism and not Theistic Evolution. But, also like I said, I don't really understand theistic evolution[ists] all that well.

Gotta run... be back later this evening.

Regards.

Originally posted by Rren
I hate that "gaps" term, seems to imply an arguement from ignorance, how's that any different than the atheistic/materialistic promisory note i.e., 'science will have an answer one day'?

Well, I wasn't implying that God fills the gaps, and was specifically arguing against it. I was commenting on the danger of placing God within the gaps to one's faith. If one's faith is contingent upon science not having answers for something, then it will be shaken when and if science does come up with an answer to fill in said gap. Even if science does demonstrate that the notion of naturalistic origins of life are true (unlikely IMO given that the very nature of retrodiction is unprovability), I doesn't do anything to my faith personally.

If we observe something, and develop an understanding of how it works, we also develop an understanding of what its limitations are (i.e., what it cannot do, or "gaps" if you must.) Take for example Behe's IC, is it based on what we don't know (gaps) or what we do know(science)?

I like Behe. I think he raises some entirely relevant questions. I think what speaks volumes about Behe is the way in which the scientific community in general is so threatened by his ideas. I truly believe that the 'answers' to IC that science has provided thus far, are weak and an effort to set boundaries and disprove his hypotheses without doing any actual science. The notion that Matzke et al's papers somehow disprove IC is absurd, and speaks volumes with respect to the fear that mainstream science has of his hypotheses. Behe should be able to believe whatever Behe likes, and if it were actually demonstrated that random processes could build a flagellum, my faith wouldn't be shaken for an instant. I should however add the caveat that I don't believe that will ever happen. Though I'm not finished with his new book yet, I like it thus far, and the fear and loathing that has come about on the web actually make me sit back and chuckle.

For example SB Carroll's review suggests that he didn't even read the book. He mentions that Behe doesn't discuss pyrimethamine resistance in P. falciparum. Funny, my copy has it plainly outlined on p 75 and 76. I wonder if he read an earlier edition or something. In any case, I do believe that Behe raises some interesting ideas. I like his work, but at this point I enjoy it as a scientist, not a religious person. IOW, I don't need Behe's hypotheses to justify my faith. There may have been a time that I did, but I certainly don't now.

So far as science goes, how do you differentiate theistic evolution (catholics mostly) from deism, or are you saying the distintion is superfilous and/or unscientific?

I think that those different sets of beliefs can't be resolved scientifically. What scientifically observable differences would result from a deist creation story, relative to that of a theistic evolutionist? I think they're unresolvable scientifically. The distinction in one's belief must come from personal revelation.

Not trying to pick a fight (certainly not a science one with a PhD

) but I sometimes think, 'hey I'm a theistic evolutionist' but I can't be because I support Intelligent Design and I remain unconvinced wrt common ancestry, and I think 'fine-tuning' extends beyond the Big Bang.

I disagree here. You're not obligated to fulfill something by being both. For example, I would describe Ken Miller as a theistic evolutionist, but a cosmological ID supporter, even though he'd probably cringe at such a description. But if you've read Finding Darwin's God, how could you feel any other way.

I support ID as far as I think Behe, Dembski, et al should be able to pursue whatever paths they think science leads them down. I think scientists of all stripes should be able to follow their scientific instincts, and where they think the data leads them, without any fear of negative repercussions. As a scientist, I personally find the entire discipline of abiogenesis to be an absurd waste of time, money and scientific resources, but I support their right to follow those paths.

Finally, if you somehow become convinced of common ancestry, what will that do to your faith?

Somehow that reduces me to some weak-Faithed 'gapper' who's reduced God to some sort of cosmic tinkerer. :shrug: Never see myself like that until a critic points it out, and have no idea (besides saying 'am not') how to argue otherwise, or why such an argument wouldn't be ultimately futile anyway. I do believe 'God did it,' I even have some opinions on how it was done (science wise); I try to square my beliefs with Scripture, which I believe to be God's inerrant word, which makes me a creationist, I guess. Persona non grata usually.

Goodness, well sorry to have insulted you my friend. You've been at this longer than I, and I certainly never meant to offend. But I think you don't give yourself enough credit. Refer again to my question above: what would become of your faith if somehow common ancestry were proven to you? I doubt it would be shaken much. And you're certainly free to believe 'God did it.' Hell, for that matter, I too believe that 'God did it.' Perhaps we simply differ on what we believe God did. I suppose using the broad brush, that I am a creationist too. So... on that note, I must retract my earlier statement re: Creationism being for weak faithed people only. I likely should have qualified the statement otherwise... something like you pointed out in one of your earlier posts within this thread. In any case, my point was that I think it unnecessary to resolve the Bible as a scientific text. It's not a point-by-point description of life's origins. That's why He gave us science in the first place. Science answers the questions the Bible cannot. Sorry to have offended.

In your book, is Behe a theistic evolutionist or a creationist, are his (scientific) opinions wrt evolution due to his weak Faith, and/or does he fill gaps, dangerously, with God? You could probably satisfy my curiosity (and ignore the rest of my, admittedly, long-winded post

) by letting me hear your opinions on Ross/Rana, Behe, and (e.g.)Ken Miller. Or were your comments directed only at the Hamm/Hovinds of creationism, and if that, why?

Behe is a scientist with a unique perspective on biological origins, who raises interesting questions

Kallikak,


I was curious what, if any, thoughts you had on Penrose's QM ideas wrt microtubules (or, I guess, more accurately the water contained in them). Way over my head, and I haven't spent any time really reading on it. So far as a mechanism (ie, how did the designer design) it looks interesting. If you could somehow merge Shapiro's ideas with Penrose/Hammeroff's you could have a pretty decent ID hypothesis, no? Certaily a more telic version of evo. . . maybe, they're atleast compatible/consistent with the Strong Anthropic Principal(s). I think :shrug: Pretty complex stuff and doesn't seem to translate into layman's ease well. I tried reading on retrocausality, but couldn't get my head around it. I have Davies' book here but still haven't read it.

Any thoughts? (links: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness (the long version) and here's the wikipedia entry for it.)

There's also an atheist arguing for an ID model based on Penrose/Hammeroff over at the TelicThoughts blog (here)... I'd probably start there for nice short summary of the idea and some references. Even if you know this stuff front-and-back already I realize you couldn't explain it to me, but I'd be interested in what you know about microtubules... or if you think it has, or could have, any relevance to the telic, guided evolution -vs- blind, unguided evolution debate.


Ok I really gotta go now... off again.

Regards.

the only ~presumed~ record of what/how of the things G-d created
is found in the Genesis book.
And in those words it seems that the creator didn;t concern us with the fundamental building blocks or the wherefores & whys of the different
layers of creation...
G-d just did what was deemed 'good' and caused it's existance to become reality.

the 5 prior "days" before mankind was created,
the landmasses, plants, animals, division of light-&-dark were established,
so we can deduce that the creation of those reality parts, were real & factual, & did not rely on the consciousness of menkind to become real
parts of the physical & natural world....as some would propose.

Could i/we know the mind of G-d? can we know if he busily formulated
a schematic of how all the ascending levels of the material universe then the formation of life would progress & develop??
The unsaid logic of creation is that the creator G-d, merely said...
in effect...'Let it be so'...........and it, his idea sprang full fledged & developed into the reality matrix of the universe
and on the Earth what we know as nature.

maybe he had the angels do all the tedious consolidating of Laws and
interactions of Forces to make available whatever He spoke into existance - a definite thing for eternity....???

I think matter is eternal just like God would be said to be. I think a higher power (not God) came along and made the universe how we see it today with life and all. But the higher power wasnt always here I think. I think the higher power can do just about anything ecept delete eternal matter. I think the higher power can have matter teleported though.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Mabus]

Originally posted by St Udio
the only ~presumed~ record of what/how of the things G-d created
is found in the Genesis book.
And in those words it seems that the creator didn;t concern us with the fundamental building blocks or the wherefores & whys of the different
layers of creation...
G-d just did what was deemed 'good' and caused it's existance to become reality.

I actually agree with you. However, my mind is restless for answers and I don't see any problems with theorising the way He did it. My faith would
be unaffected. I don't see anything wrong with questioning the scriptures but perhaps they are best left as metaphysical allegory and symbolism. I was looking for them to PROVE the existence of God, but perhaps all we can really have is flashes of insight into His mind as he created. That is fine with me.

the 5 prior "days" before mankind was created,
the landmasses, plants, animals, division of light-&-dark were established,
so we can deduce that the creation of those reality parts, were real & factual, & did not rely on the consciousness of menkind to become real
parts of the physical & natural world....as some would propose.

Never though of it that way, but it makes sense, I suppose. I have to reflect on it.

Could i/we know the mind of G-d? can we know if he busily formulated
a schematic of how all the ascending levels of the material universe then the formation of life would progress & develop??
The unsaid logic of creation is that the creator G-d, merely said...
in effect...'Let it be so'...........and it, his idea sprang full fledged & developed into the reality matrix of the universe
and on the Earth what we know as nature.

I think this is why believers are looking at both the molecular and at the quantum level for a way to consolidate science with belief or do we also consider that faith is antithetical to reason? It seems beautiful and elegant, for example that God as an Observer said: 'Let it be so' and all the infinite wave functions collapsed and in the process of the collapse created the sheer panoply of Nature in its diversity. However, I can see why Hegel gave up with trying to explain how the Absolute Ego created Nature.