Why the need for ID?

When it rains is it because God makes it rain? Or is it because of the processes outlined by current meteorological theory?   If God is out there he obviously created those processes so the answer is both.  But science only recognizes the 2nd.   Does anyone complain that God is not recognized in our models of how rain occurs?

There is no scientific theory that has God in the model, yet if God exists he is the one who built the systems we are modeling.

Any scientist who is even remotely religous views his exploration as peering into the works of the Creator.  

Why is evolutionary theory any different?   If God is out there, evolution is his handiwork.  Why the need to have him included as science when God is not in the realm of science?

Get out of here, we all know that Thor brings the Thunder and Rain.  You crazy guy you, LOL.

Quoted: Get out of here, we all know that Thor brings the Thunder and Rain.  You crazy guy you, LOL.

True, True.....

God created the sciences.

Quoted: God created the sciences.

possibly, but that wasn't the question

I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it.

Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it.

that  is how i feel.
also ,scientist do not know all, new discoveries are made weekly/monthly.

Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it.

That was not the question.

Every scientific theory is a naturalistic theory.  If God exists, then obviously he set the systems up we are modelling.

Yet the only theory that get the complaint that it leaves no room for God is evolution.

You don't hear people complain that God isn't recognized in meteorology, vulcanology, physics, or any other realm of science.

Why the need to have God mentioned in evolutionary biology?

Quoted: Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it. That was not the question. Every scientific theory is a naturalistic theory.  If God exists, then obviously he set the systems up we are modelling. Yet the only theory that get the complaint that it leaves no room for God is evolution. You don't hear people complain that God isn't recognized in meteorology, vulcanology, physics, or any other realm of science. Why the need to have God mentioned in evolutionary biology?

with evolution the creator is removed from the creation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it. That was not the question. Every scientific theory is a naturalistic theory.  If God exists, then obviously he set the systems up we are modelling. Yet the only theory that get the complaint that it leaves no room for God is evolution. You don't hear people complain that God isn't recognized in meteorology, vulcanology, physics, or any other realm of science. Why the need to have God mentioned in evolutionary biology? with evolution the creator is removed from the creation.

not any different than meteorology.   We don't put forth a scientific theory that God makes it rain, but if he exists then obviously he is the first cause.

Evolution says nothing about the first cause.

Theistic evolution is a nonscientific but perfectly valid view of things.  As would be theistic physics, theistic meteorology, etc..

For the sake of argument I'm willing to stipulate that God is responsible for everything.   Science does not take that into account when studying the systems God has set up.  

Once again, why is evolution treated any differently than physics or meteorology?

This is a great point.

God can shape creation through evolution, which appears to be random but still follows His plan.

No better analogy than molding man from clay, compared to molding man from simpler life forms over millions of years.  In each instance, the subject becomes more detailed and specialized.

Those who can't see that are being argumentative.

Quoted: not any different than meteorology.   We don't put forth a scientific theory that God makes it rain, but if he exists then obviously he is the first cause. Evolution says nothing about the first cause. Theistic evolution is a nonscientific but perfectly valid view of things.  As would be theistic physics, theistic meteorology, etc.. For the sake of argument I'm willing to stipulate that God is responsible for everything.   Science does not take that into account when studying the systems God has set up.   Once again, why is evolution treated any differently than physics or meteorology?

i think you have answered your own question.

i think evolution tries to explain there is no creator.
the only people that say GOD created evolution are people that want to think science is right , but also believe in a GOD.

I don't feel that the gods so much "control" anything as that they are a part of things.  It's like the pieces of a puzzle where they fit into the puzzle to make it complete, not that they're the ones putting the puzzle together.  The puzzle comes together on it's own.  

Quoted: Quoted: not any different than meteorology.   We don't put forth a scientific theory that God makes it rain, but if he exists then obviously he is the first cause. Evolution says nothing about the first cause. Theistic evolution is a nonscientific but perfectly valid view of things.  As would be theistic physics, theistic meteorology, etc.. For the sake of argument I'm willing to stipulate that God is responsible for everything.   Science does not take that into account when studying the systems God has set up.   Once again, why is evolution treated any differently than physics or meteorology? i think you have answered your own question. i think evolution tries to explain there is no creator. the only people that say GOD created evolution are people that want to think science is right , but also believe in a GOD.

Evolution says nothing about God, just like every other scientific theory out there.

The fact that you think evolution says anything about God shows you have some serious conceptual errors about evolution.

Evolution says nothing about God, how life originally started, etc..  It is only relevant to how the first life developed into the biodiversity we see today.

Quoted: Evolution says nothing about God, just like every other scientific theory out there. The fact that you think evolution says anything about God shows you have some serious conceptual errors about evolution. Evolution says nothing about God, how life originally started, etc..  It is only relevant to how the first life developed into the biodiversity we see today.

of course evolution says nothing about GOD, evolution tries to explan creation without the creator.

I believe evolution does go all the way back to how life developed. that it came from a cosmic soup  or something like that.

If you want to believe  that GOD created a lower life form for it to evolve into man, sounds crazier  to me than just believing GOD created man how he is today. just  my opinion.

Quoted: Quoted: Evolution says nothing about God, just like every other scientific theory out there. The fact that you think evolution says anything about God shows you have some serious conceptual errors about evolution. Evolution says nothing about God, how life originally started, etc..  It is only relevant to how the first life developed into the biodiversity we see today. of course evolution says nothing about GOD, evolution tries to explan creation without the creator. I believe evolution does go all the way back to how life developed. that it came from a cosmic soup  or something like that. If you want to believe  that GOD created a lower life form for it to evolve into man, sounds crazier  to me than just believing GOD created man how he is today. just  my opinion.

Well one belief (the first one) has at least some evidence to back it up.   The second is total conjecture and doesn't agree with the evidence we have.

Either way God does the creating, why does it really matter if the creation was done in an instant or if it happened over millions of years?  

Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it.

Perhaps if the (hypothesized) singularity that (may have) expanded to create the universe had all of the energy of the universe contained in an incredibly small area,  that would be an extremely high level of order, not chaos.

Jim

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Evolution says nothing about God, just like every other scientific theory out there. The fact that you think evolution says anything about God shows you have some serious conceptual errors about evolution. Evolution says nothing about God, how life originally started, etc..  It is only relevant to how the first life developed into the biodiversity we see today. of course evolution says nothing about GOD, evolution tries to explan creation without the creator. I believe evolution does go all the way back to how life developed. that it came from a cosmic soup  or something like that. If you want to believe  that GOD created a lower life form for it to evolve into man, sounds crazier  to me than just believing GOD created man how he is today. just  my opinion. Well one belief (the first one) has at least some evidence to back it up.   The second is total conjecture and doesn't agree with the evidence we have. Either way God does the creating, why does it really matter if the creation was done in an instant or if it happened over millions of years?

evolution leaves GOD out of the creation process,  it never has included him in the process. that is the whole reason for the arguement.
some People believe GOD was the creator, and we did not evolve from primates. there is no evidence to prove that.

I'll give it a shot. Rain does not effect me one way or another in its nature. If rain just fell out of a blue sky it really means nothing to me it is rain. I get wet or get out of it.

Biology is me. Its how I'm made up. If God did not create biology then I am an animal(not that God didn't make animals) a lower life form if you will. If I have no eternal perspective then its "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" . The ends justifies the means.  Man is a graduate animal.  Whether we happened by design or accident has a profound affect how how we live this life. Athiests claim to be moral to some extent. But its realitive, there is no black and white. If it feels good do it if you don't hurt anyone physiclly. I can rob you and not hurt you if you don't fight, besides I need to put my kid through college. There is no punishment if I don't get caught.

If there is a God who designed it then there is even more reason to live a moral life. Rain, volcano's etc comes after the fact. If God made biology he made the rest of the sciences.

To me science is the study of the physical knowledge of God. Just remember he can control atoms by his voice alone, that is some serious Knowledge.

There is a Mormon scripture(can't recall book or verse at this second)"the glory of God is intelligence".

Did I come close to what you were asking?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Evolution says nothing about God, just like every other scientific theory out there. The fact that you think evolution says anything about God shows you have some serious conceptual errors about evolution. Evolution says nothing about God, how life originally started, etc..  It is only relevant to how the first life developed into the biodiversity we see today. of course evolution says nothing about GOD, evolution tries to explan creation without the creator. I believe evolution does go all the way back to how life developed. that it came from a cosmic soup  or something like that. If you want to believe  that GOD created a lower life form for it to evolve into man, sounds crazier  to me than just believing GOD created man how he is today. just  my opinion. Well one belief (the first one) has at least some evidence to back it up.   The second is total conjecture and doesn't agree with the evidence we have. Either way God does the creating, why does it really matter if the creation was done in an instant or if it happened over millions of years?   evolution leaves GOD out of the creation process,  it never has included him in the process. that is the whole reason for the arguement. some People believe GOD was the creator, and we did not evolve from primates. there is no evidence to prove that.

That is simply wrong.   No scientific theory explicitly recognizes God.   Every theory allows room for God to be present though.   Its not scientific to do so, but faith doesn't need to be.

As far as evolving from primates, either we did so or God made it appear we did so.  

If evolution leaves God out of the process, then so does every other scientific theory.   Like gravity (see the intelligent falling down thread)

Quoted: I'll give it a shot. Rain does not effect me one way or another in its nature. If rain just fell out of a blue sky it really means nothing to me it is rain. I get wet or get out of it. Biology is me. Its how I'm made up. If God did not create biology then I am an animal(not that God didn't make animals) a lower life form if you will. If I have no eternal perspective then its "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" . The ends justifies the means.  Man is a graduate animal.  Whether we happened by design or accident has a profound affect how how we live this life. Athiests claim to be moral to some extent. But its realitive, there is no black and white. If it feels good do it if you don't hurt anyone physiclly. I can rob you and not hurt you if you don't fight, besides I need to put my kid through college. There is no punishment if I don't get caught.

First, atheism makes no claim on morality.   I'm not moral because I'm an atheist (and neither is any other atheist).  You have to look at our belief systems (as opposed to our lack of belief in God) to determine where our morals come from.   I don't know any atheist who thinks it is ok to steal if you don't actually  hurt someone.  Stealing is viewed as wrong all across human culture.  To imply that atheists are somehow less moral than others is bullshit.

2nd if God exists then He made everything, including evolution.  

Quoted: Did I come close to what you were asking?

Not really, I guess what I'm looking for is a specific teaching that evolution contradicts.

The only thing I can see it undermining is a literal interpretation of Genesis, but many Christians don't view Genesis as completely literal anyway.

Quoted: This is a great point. God can shape creation through evolution, which appears to be random but still follows His plan. No better analogy than molding man from clay, compared to molding man from simpler life forms over millions of years.  In each instance, the subject becomes more detailed and specialized. Those who can't see that are being argumentative.

The biblical analogy of the potter and clay is not about creation or evolution.  Its about judgement.  If the potter is not pleased with the pot he will destroy it.  The same is true for God.

Jer 18:6  O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
Jer 18:7  At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

Rom 9:21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22  What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

There is no biblical support for evolution, only creation.

Shok

Quoted: but many Christians don't view Genesis as completely literal anyway.

Many Christians do view Genesis as completely literal.  There is no biblical support for evolution.

Shok

Quoted: Either way God does the creating, why does it really matter if the creation was done in an instant or if it happened over millions of years?

It doesn't matter, and the whole time evolution was discussed in school I thought they meant it was how God did the creating. It was only later that I found evolution pushed as fact rather than theory by every atheist/agnostic I met. I make no pretext of knowing how God created everything, but every non-believer I've talked with uses evolution as their proof that things just happen.

The believers aren't the ones who make this such an issue, at least in my experiences.

Quoted: Quoted: Either way God does the creating, why does it really matter if the creation was done in an instant or if it happened over millions of years?   It doesn't matter, and the whole time evolution was discussed in school I thought they meant it was how God did the creating. It was only later that I found evolution pushed as fact rather than theory by every atheist/agnostic I met. I make no pretext of knowing how God created everything, but every non-believer I've talked with uses evolution as their proof that things just happen. The believers aren't the ones who make this such an issue, at least in my experiences.

I see evolution as a naturalistic explanation of the biodiversity on the planet.  All science is naturalistic and makes the assumption that things have a natural explanation.   That should be your criticism of all sciences, not just evolution.

My problem with some believers is they have no issue with naturalistic explanations for gravity, electricity, and magnetism, but when its applied to evolution it is somehow wrong or anti-God.

All scientific explanations leave out mention of God due to the principle of parsimony.   If God does in fact exist, even the most radical atheist would admit He is responsible for all things, including evolution.  

I understand what you're saying, but the other sciences have observable cause/effect, where evolution takes leaps that had to be thought up to make the model work.  Evolution takes a leap of faith so to speak, and most scientists and/or atheists that I've heard are adamant that the faith be attributed to natural events with no divine creation.


To put it another way, believers can look at a sunset and say how God created something beautiful without being attacked by atheists and weathermen. They may roll their eyes and shake their heads, but it doesn't get the same attention or protection as the theory of evolution.


I think the only real difference between your point and mine is who is making a big stink on the subject.

Is there an actual athiest dogma? As far as I know Marx was an athiest and people that followed him sure have done their fair share of mayhem.

Quoted: Is there an actual athiest dogma? As far as I know Marx was an athiest and people that followed him sure have done their fair share of mayhem.

The only atheist dogma is either "there is no God" OR "I don't believe in God"; depending on which type of atheist you are.

If an atheist has any beliefs (and most do), they come from a belief system other than atheism.  Atheism is about lack of belief in God, that is all.

I think the whole ID thing is a backlash against the hardline Communist style athiests and the American Communist Labor Union (ACLU)'s attempts to remove any mention of God in public places. In years past it was ok for a teacher to say he didn't believe man came from apes and even state his belief in God. Now in some areas of the country that will get you fired. I think ID is a way teachers can keep their jobs and still express their opinions on the divine creation. A law on the books would protect that right.

Personally I think its a sad commentary on where we are at in this free society when we have to pass laws to guarantee the first ammendment. Hate speech is free speech til it encites a riot. This is a whole other topic and I digress.  Again I think it protects teachers jobs as much as anything else.

Thats my thoughts on it.

I posted this reply on another thread, I hope I'm not breaching some BB ethics by adding it to this thread also.  This subject fascinates me and I felt it was appropriate for this thread also.  Here it is:

The "Science of Origins" is not science at all. Experiments must be repeatable. The conditions during the origin of the universe cannot be repeated, therefore experiments cannot be used to validate what happened billions of years ago, or thousands of years ago-depending on what you "believe" to be true. We are left with unproveable theories based on the evidence left behind.

Evolution and Creationism cannot both be true. Either one is true, or they are both false. "ID" or "intelligent design"is an effort to meld two opposing idealogies. For example, if evolution is true, then then death existed before Adam and Eve sinned. The bible clearly states that death did not enter creation until sin. The bible also states that animals were created according to their own "kind". If this is true, then animal "kinds" do not have common ancestors as evolution claims. Claiming that God directed the evolution of species goes against modern science which does not aknowledge the existence of God-and also against bible principles of God being intimately involved in creation and that man is a special creation different from the animals. There is no way to logically reconcile the two theories.

As for what is used as "evidence" for evolution, I cannot come to the reasonable conclusion that evolution is true. There are NO transitional forms found in the fossil record. Every proposed missing link put forth has either been debunked as a fraud, or clearly classified as a pre-existing form. If evolution is true, then there should be numerous trasitional forms exhibiting both characteristics of the previous form and the later form. Darwin himself dispaired at the lack of transitional evidence in the fossil record.

That raises a quetion of how transitional forms could possibly live long enough to reproduce. If some mutation formed a lung in a fish, it would drown in the water. If it was lucky enough to jump onto land before drowning, how did it move and find food? Much less find a mate and reproduce more of the mutated new form. Injecting first millions, then later billions of years does not change the fact that transitional forms cannot survive.

Bring a fossil to a secular scientist and ask him how old it is. He will ask you what layer of the geological "record" you found it in-he could then tell you how old it is. Ask a scientist how old a layer is in the geological "record" and he will ask you what fossils you found in the layer-then tell you how old the layer is. This is circular logic, and is not scientific.

I propose that one searching for the truth, without a pre-supposed idea of the existance or non-existance of a supreme being, viewing the evidence (fossil record, bible, observable scientific experiments) would conclude that it is entirely possible that the bible is true and the earth is relatively young.

Quoted: I propose that one searching for the truth, without a pre-supposed idea of the existance or non-existance of a supreme being, viewing the evidence (fossil record, bible, observable scientific experiments) would conclude that it is entirely possible that the bible is true and the earth is relatively young.

That you would include a religious book along side hard scientific data as a viable piece of evidence to decide the origins of tangible matter tells me that you are guilty of what you're warning against.

It's possible the earth is younger than we now know, just like it's possible that the Bible is a wholly fictitious, man-made yarn. You prepared for that as a possible outcome? If you're searching for the truth without a pre-supposed idea, you should be.

Somehow I doubt you are.

Quoted: Quoted: I propose that one searching for the truth, without a pre-supposed idea of the existance or non-existance of a supreme being, viewing the evidence (fossil record, bible, observable scientific experiments) would conclude that it is entirely possible that the bible is true and the earth is relatively young. That you would include a religious book along side hard scientific data as a viable piece of evidence to decide the origins of tangible matter tells me that you are guilty of what you're warning against. It's possible the earth is younger than we now know, just like it's possible that the Bible is a wholly fictitious, man-made yarn. You prepared for that as a possible outcome? If you're searching for the truth without a pre-supposed idea, you should be. Somehow I doubt you are.

Quoted: Why the need for ID? When it rains is it because God makes it rain? Or is it because of the processes outlined by current meteorological theory?   If God is out there he obviously created those processes so the answer is both.  But science only recognizes the 2nd.   Does anyone complain that God is not recognized in our models of how rain occurs? There is no scientific theory that has God in the model, yet if God exists he is the one who built the systems we are modeling. Any scientist who is even remotely religous views his exploration as peering into the works of the Creator.   Why is evolutionary theory any different?   If God is out there, evolution is his handiwork.  Why the need to have him included as science when God is not in the realm of science?

Science concerns itself with the classification and explanation of phenomena.

Scientists figuring out how rain occurs and explaining the process isn't theology. There is no contradiction with the Bible in such a thing. Or in the study of electricity, or micro-biology, or in medicine, etc.

Folks deciding that by examining some fossils that man must necessarily have evolved from simpler life forms which all ultimately derived from a single cell that showed up out of nowhere from a bunch of random protiens floating about in some primordial soup isn't science. Evolution as a hypothesis stands on 2 main elements: Abiogenesis and the idea of increasing genetic complexity being brought about by natural selection, NEITHER of which has been demonstrated in the laboratory. In fact, as more and more discoveries about DNA and the makeup of cells has been done, several scientists (even well known ones who wrote what are considered authoritative texts on abiogenesis and chemical evolution) have abandoned the hypothesis of evolution as unworkable thanks to what we know about protien formation and cellular biology.

Evolution's genesis was as an explanation of origins that did NOT include a creator. Further, Adam plays an important role in Christian Redemption, something many people forget. Evolution tries to explain man's existence without God being in the picture, and attacks the Biblical claims of man being made in God's image.

That is why it is theologically unacceptable.

Quoted: Quoted: Why the need for ID? When it rains is it because God makes it rain? Or is it because of the processes outlined by current meteorological theory?   If God is out there he obviously created those processes so the answer is both.  But science only recognizes the 2nd.   Does anyone complain that God is not recognized in our models of how rain occurs? There is no scientific theory that has God in the model, yet if God exists he is the one who built the systems we are modeling. Any scientist who is even remotely religous views his exploration as peering into the works of the Creator.   Why is evolutionary theory any different?   If God is out there, evolution is his handiwork.  Why the need to have him included as science when God is not in the realm of science? Science concerns itself with the classification and explanation of phenomena. Scientists figuring out how rain occurs and explaining the process isn't theology. There is no contradiction with the Bible in such a thing. Or in the study of electricity, or micro-biology, or in medicine, etc. Folks deciding that by examining some fossils that man must necessarily have evolved from simpler life forms which all ultimately derived from a single cell that showed up out of nowhere from a bunch of random protiens floating about in some primordial soup isn't science. Evolution as a hypothesis stands on 2 main elements: Abiogenesis and the idea of increasing genetic complexity being brought about by natural selection, NEITHER of which has been demonstrated in the laboratory. In fact, as more and more discoveries about DNA and the makeup of cells has been done, several scientists (even well known ones who wrote what are considered authoritative texts on abiogenesis and chemical evolution) have abandoned the hypothesis of evolution as unworkable thanks to what we know about protien formation and cellular biology. Evolution's genesis was as an explanation of origins that did NOT include a creator. Further, Adam plays an important role in Christian Redemption, something many people forget. Evolution tries to explain man's existence without God being in the picture, and attacks the Biblical claims of man being made in God's image. That is why it is theologically unacceptable.

1) evolution does not rely on abiogenesis any more than it relies on the big bang theory.   They are seperate theories and the only thing they have in common is it allows us to generate a possible timeline.   Evolution is observable in nature and in the laboratory.  Our current theory about evolution is a modern synthesis that expands and refines the process as Darwin understood it.

2) from a theological perspective, the issue of Adam is concerning original sin.  Its only an issue if you view Adam as an actual invdividual instead of a symbol for man's inability to obey God's commandments.   The view of many Christians AND Jews is that Genesis is not meant to be taken 100% literally.  Evolution doesn't conflict the Bible, it conflicts a specific interpretation of the Bible.

In essence you reject science based on your theology.   That is a case of using the wrong tool for the job.

If God exists, then evolution is a part of his plan.  

Just curious, but do you also have a problem with the science that shows the earth is old?  Some think the Bible shows the earth is young, but science contradicts that interpretation.

Quoted: 1) evolution does not rely on abiogenesis any more than it relies on the big bang theory.   They are seperate theories and the only thing they have in common is it allows us to generate a possible timeline.   Evolution is observable in nature and in the laboratory.  Our current theory about evolution is a modern synthesis that expands and refines the process as Darwin understood it.

Evolution does depend on abiogenesis. If all life is explainable by coming from simpler forms, eventually those forms have to come back to a single life form, which came from somewhere.

Abiogenesis is the thing evolutionists don't want to talk about, because no current scientific knowledge can say that it is even remotely possible.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Further, the idea that genetic mutation can produce increased genetic complexity is equally not demonstrated in the lab. Thus the origin of life according to evolutionary hypothesis is not viewable, nor is the process by which evolution is supposed to have turned an ape-like ancestor into chimps and humans.

Natural selection IS observable, but there is no solid scientific evidence that natural selection produces more genetically complex life forms that can eventually lead to more advanced species.

2) from a theological perspective, the issue of Adam is concerning original sin.  Its only an issue if you view Adam as an actual invdividual instead of a symbol for man's inability to obey God's commandments.

The Bible does not treat Adam as any more of an allegory than it treats Christ. Adam is treated as a HISTORICAL figure by the Bible.

The view of many Christians AND Jews is that Genesis is not meant to be taken 100% literally.

I know people who claim Christianity that believe a lot of things that are Biblically untrue. The Bible contains metaphor, but it is quite clear on when metaphor is being used and when history is being recounted. The opening chapters of Genesis are not metaphor. They are treated by the Bible as HISTORY. To treat them as something else is to substitute what we think for what the Bible says.

Evolution doesn't conflict the Bible, it conflicts a specific interpretation of the Bible.

Evolution conflicts with the Bible if you read it as what it claims to be: The revelation of God to mankind. It only doesn't conflict when you come up with your own ideas and substitute them for what the Bible actually says.

In essence you reject science based on your theology.   That is a case of using the wrong tool for the job.

Science said that a friend of mine would be dead from blood clots in the lungs within hours. Theology says that no matter is finished until God finishes it. That friend whom the doctors gave hours to live is now in perfect health with lungs that show no trace of his years of smoking.

Science is man's best guess. The Bible is God's revealed Truth.

I will believe God over man EVERY time.

That aside, there are lots of scientific objections to evolutionary hypothesis, which is why you don't hear many evolutionists talk much about cell biology or the intricacies of genetic study.

If God exists, then evolution is a part of his plan.

If God exists and evolution is part of his plan, then either the Bible isn't true or God is a great big liar.

Just curious, but do you also have a problem with the science that shows the earth is old?  Some think the Bible shows the earth is young, but science contradicts that interpretation.

The Bible gives us the approximate age of the Adamic creation, but does not say that ALL creation is as old/young as the Adamic creation. The Bible does show that there was a creation prior to the creation from which Adam came.

The Bible says that the earth was without form and void, and that The Spirit of God hovered above the waters and moved upon the earth. It would be difficult for The Spirit to hover above waters of a planet that wasn't there yet.

Thus earth could well be in the billions of years in age, and could have had only Heaven knows how many forms of life on it in the pre-Adamic creation. Genesis and passages that speak of the angelic rebellion fomented by Lucifer leave open a reasonable Biblical position that Earth is older than the Adamic creation.

It leaves no such room for the idea of men coming from ape-like ancestors.

Quoted: Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it. That was not the question. Every scientific theory is a naturalistic theory.  If God exists, then obviously he set the systems up we are modelling. Yet the only theory that get the complaint that it leaves no room for God is evolution. You don't hear people complain that God isn't recognized in meteorology, vulcanology, physics, or any other realm of science. Why the need to have God mentioned in evolutionary biology?

I think the issue is not so much with evolution in the animal world.
I don't think that has ever really been disputed.
My issue has always been that evolution teaches that mankind is descended from apes.
This goes against everything I belive in, as well as having no evidence, no missing link.
This has always been Religion's problem with Evolution - teaching that God did not create man, but that man evolved from apes.

Quoted: Evolution does depend on abiogenesis.

Sorry man, you are wrong on this one.   If you want to argue evolution from a scientific basis, you need to learn some things first.   Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.   Evolution explains how life develops once it started.   How life started is a completely seperate matter.

Whether God created the first life, or aliens did, or a comet deposited microbes, or if it happened with no intervention at all; life came from nonlife.  So everyone believes in abiogenesis, we just can't seem to agree on the mechanism for it....

Stating that evolution depends on abiogenesis shows a tremendous misunderstanding of evolution.  We speak of them together because taken together they give a complete picture.   Any scientist will admit that abiogenesis is not anywhere near as well established as the theory of evolution.

Abiogenesis is far from proven, all we have is some experiments that show it is _possible_

Quoted: Sorry man, you are wrong on this one.   If you want to argue evolution from a scientific basis, you need to learn some things first.   Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.   Evolution explains how life develops once it started.   How life started is a completely seperate matter.

Funny, but that isn't how my professors ever treated it.

Whether God created the first life, or aliens did, or a comet deposited microbes, or if it happened with no intervention at all; life came from nonlife.  So everyone believes in abiogenesis, we just can't seem to agree on the mechanism for it....

God is alive. Thus whatever He created came from Him, which would preclude His creation from being classified as abiogenesis....

Stating that evolution depends on abiogenesis shows a tremendous misunderstanding of evolution.  We speak of them together because taken together they give a complete picture.   Any scientist will admit that abiogenesis is not anywhere near as well established as the theory of evolution.

Evolution itself depends on genetics and cellular biology. In order for those fossils that the evolutionists like to point at to have really spawned from one another, natural selection would have to have favored random genetic mutations that made life forms more complex over long periods of time.

When examining the details of cellular biology and the formation of DNA, etc, it becomes increasingly difficult to say that this process is even possible, let alone likely.

Evolution on the grand scale isn't possible unless it can happen on the cellular level, and it can't happen on the cellular level unless random protien chains and DNA instructions can materialize out of nowhere.

That "nowhere" would be abiogenesis. If we cannot reliably say that functional life came from randomness, it is equally difficult for us to reliably say that advances in life forms came from randomness. If it isn't demonstrable on a cellular and genetic level, it isn't demonstrable period.

When evolutionary hypothesis was thought up, we didn't have the level of knowledge about cells and DNA as we do today. Had evolution been proposed anew today in the midst of all we know about the living cell and the genetic complexity that makes life possible in the first place, it would be laughed out the door.  

Abiogenesis is far from proven, all we have is some experiments that show it is _possible_

No, we don't. We do not have any experiments that show that protiens form randomly absent genetic instructions (DNA) and that these protiens can randomly combine and form a living cell.

Quoted: Quoted: Evolution does depend on abiogenesis. Sorry man, you are wrong on this one.   If you want to argue evolution from a scientific basis, you need to learn some things first.   Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.   Evolution explains how life develops once it started.   How life started is a completely seperate matter. Whether God created the first life, or aliens did, or a comet deposited microbes, or if it happened with no intervention at all; life came from nonlife.  So everyone believes in abiogenesis, we just can't seem to agree on the mechanism for it.... Stating that evolution depends on abiogenesis shows a tremendous misunderstanding of evolution.  We speak of them together because taken together they give a complete picture.   Any scientist will admit that abiogenesis is not anywhere near as well established as the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is far from proven, all we have is some experiments that show it is _possible_

Evolution is a recursive theory.  It states that given organic complexity, even greater (more refined) organic complexity will come to be.  Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on without an origin of life.

I'm a Christian, and I don't see much point in ID.  I believe that God is the creator; end of story.  I also believe that I'm not smart enough to completely understand how He did it.  That's why He's God, and I'm not.  From what I know of ID, it's not a scientific theory.

As a scientist, I find evolution laughable as a theory.  It's horrible, really.  All we get is a snapshot of today and some fossils to work with.  Compare this to astrophysics/cosmology, where we get to see some of the earliest events in the universe happening now (because of the finite speed of light).  When you can directly look back 12 billion years, you can make a much better theory.  Evolution is a piss-poor theory, and any scientist who doesn't admit that is a fool or a liar.  That being said, it is the best scientific theory in its field.  Of course, at one time, "spontaneous generation" was the best theory in its field.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't a piss-poor theory.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I find it impossibly hard to logically reconcile the incredible intricacies of the universe with the idea of both origins and order coming from total chaos.  If that means that I must have faith in the illogical idea of a creator/designer, then so be it. That was not the question. Every scientific theory is a naturalistic theory.  If God exists, then obviously he set the systems up we are modelling. Yet the only theory that get the complaint that it leaves no room for God is evolution. You don't hear people complain that God isn't recognized in meteorology, vulcanology, physics, or any other realm of science. Why the need to have God mentioned in evolutionary biology? I think the issue is not so much with evolution in the animal world. I don't think that has ever really been disputed. My issue has always been that evolution teaches that mankind is descended from apes. This goes against everything I belive in, as well as having no evidence, no missing link. This has always been Religion's problem with Evolution - teaching that God did not create man, but that man evolved from apes.

The problem with special creation for man is that we have no evidence for it.   In contrast we have a chain of fossils tracing the development of early man.  

The idea of the missing link is kind of strange.   Say we have an idea that all other animals evolved over time and we have fossil evidence that lends credence to that theory, but we have no fossil evidence of pre-human hominids.

If we find an example of that hominid we now have a gap between hominid A and modern humans.   So we start looking for the missing link.   We find hominid  M who we can show has intermediate features  and datings methods put him between hominid A and modern humans.   Now we have 2 gaps and need to look for 2 more missing links.

For every "missing link" we find, we create 2 more holes in the fossil record and require 2 more missing links.   Science will never be able to find enough fossils to convince anyone who is against evolution for religious reasons and the more evidence we find the more holes the fundamentalists see.  Its a no-win situation.

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry man, you are wrong on this one.   If you want to argue evolution from a scientific basis, you need to learn some things first.   Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.   Evolution explains how life develops once it started.   How life started is a completely seperate matter. Funny, but that isn't how my professors ever treated it. Then your professors were teaching you incorrectly.   Thats a problem with your teachers, not the theory of evolution.  I had a high school biology teacher teach Lamarckianism, its not the fault of evolution that he taught something that had been disproven decades ago. Whether God created the first life, or aliens did, or a comet deposited microbes, or if it happened with no intervention at all; life came from nonlife.  So everyone believes in abiogenesis, we just can't seem to agree on the mechanism for it.... God is alive. Thus whatever He created came from Him, which would preclude His creation from being classified as abiogenesis....   You do understand that abiogenesis simply means non biological origins?   If you believe the Bible, then you believe God created us from dust.   Life from dust IS a form of abiogenesis.  Creationists and IDers use this concept when they poopoo experiments about abiogenesis.  "All that you've proven is an intelligent person can set the conditions for the creation of life, your proving ID" is the argument used.  At some point someone or something or some natural process allowed the first life to form.   Creation ex nihilo... Stating that evolution depends on abiogenesis shows a tremendous misunderstanding of evolution.  We speak of them together because taken together they give a complete picture.   Any scientist will admit that abiogenesis is not anywhere near as well established as the theory of evolution. Evolution itself depends on genetics and cellular biology. In order for those fossils that the evolutionists like to point at to have really spawned from one another, natural selection would have to have favored random genetic mutations that made life forms more complex over long periods of time. When examining the details of cellular biology and the formation of DNA, etc, it becomes increasingly difficult to say that this process is even possible, let alone likely. Evolution on the grand scale isn't possible unless it can happen on the cellular level, and it can't happen on the cellular level unless random protien chains and DNA instructions can materialize out of nowhere. That "nowhere" would be abiogenesis. If we cannot reliably say that functional life came from randomness, it is equally difficult for us to reliably say that advances in life forms came from randomness. If it isn't demonstrable on a cellular and genetic level, it isn't demonstrable period. When evolutionary hypothesis was thought up, we didn't have the level of knowledge about cells and DNA as we do today. Had evolution been proposed anew today in the midst of all we know about the living cell and the genetic complexity that makes life possible in the first place, it would be laughed out the door.   You have an inadequate grasp of the theory of evolution.   It says nothing about where the first life came from.  It starts AFTER the first life appears, no matter how it appears.   Visit talk origins they discuss both evolution and abiogenesis and they freely admit that the evidence to suport abioegenesis is nowhere near the mounds of evidence, across many scientific disciplines, to support the theory of evolution.  You would also be turned on to the fact that the modern synthesis does not rely just on natural selection but has other methods it recognizes as well. Abiogenesis is far from proven, all we have is some experiments that show it is _possible_ No, we don't. We do not have any experiments that show that protiens form randomly absent genetic instructions (DNA) and that these protiens can randomly combine and form a living cell.

If you want to argue the mechanism for abiogenesis is not known, I will concede that.  The facts are that this planet at one time had no life on it.   There is now life on it.   Abiogenesis happened, whether it was a guided or a natural process.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Evolution does depend on abiogenesis. Sorry man, you are wrong on this one.   If you want to argue evolution from a scientific basis, you need to learn some things first.   Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis.   Evolution explains how life develops once it started.   How life started is a completely seperate matter. Whether God created the first life, or aliens did, or a comet deposited microbes, or if it happened with no intervention at all; life came from nonlife.  So everyone believes in abiogenesis, we just can't seem to agree on the mechanism for it.... Stating that evolution depends on abiogenesis shows a tremendous misunderstanding of evolution.  We speak of them together because taken together they give a complete picture.   Any scientist will admit that abiogenesis is not anywhere near as well established as the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is far from proven, all we have is some experiments that show it is _possible_ Evolution is a recursive theory.  It states that given organic complexity, even greater (more refined) organic complexity will come to be.  Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on without an origin of life.    Many sciences are based on observation of an effect without understanding the underlying causes.   Our entire theory of gravitation is based on a theory of particle exchange between objects with masses.  We have  never observed the particles or the mechanism of exchange.   Yet our theory of gravitation makes predictions that are testable.  It has passed every test so far.   Evolution makes predictions that have been tested in the real world and the laboratory.  As you say later,  it is the best theory we have.   The origin of life that a complete worldview needs to pair with evolution can be pulled from any faith story.  Theistic evolution is a perfectly acceptable worldview that combines the science of evolution with the religious belief in a Creator.   I'm a Christian, and I don't see much point in ID.  I believe that God is the creator; end of story.  I also believe that I'm not smart enough to completely understand how He did it.  Is it at least _possible_ that God used evolution to paint the picture we see today? That's why He's God, and I'm not.  From what I know of ID, it's not a scientific theory. agreed As a scientist, I find evolution laughable as a theory.  It's horrible, really.  All we get is a snapshot of today and some fossils to work with.  Compare this to astrophysics/cosmology, where we get to see some of the earliest events in the universe happening now (because of the finite speed of light).  When you can directly look back 12 billion years, you can make a much better theory.  Evolution is a piss-poor theory, and any scientist who doesn't admit that is a fool or a liar.  That being said, it is the best scientific theory in its field.  Of course, at one time, "spontaneous generation" was the best theory in its field.  That doesn't mean that it wasn't a piss-poor theory.

It is the best theory we have.  It _could_ be a piss poor theory that we continue to update or even possibly overturn in the next few hundred years.  It could also be fundamentally correct.   99.8% of biologists view evolution as fact.   They _could_ all be wrong.   Until someone _proves_ them wrong, evolution is the best explanation for the world we see around us.

I agree that the finite speed of light lends cosmologists a degree of legitimacy that evolutionists do not have.  Of course that doesn't work if the theology of someone you are discussing it with requires a young universe and a young earth.  

Letting theology determine which scientific theories you accept is a strange way to do things.

I wouldn't let my science textbook be a guide for my moral development

Quoted: Letting theology determine which scientific theories you accept is a strange way to do things.

I don't know who you're talking to, because I didn't say anything remotely close to that.  I have only been a Christian a few years, but I have always thought that accepting evolution as fact is silly.  Are you a scientist?  Perhaps I can explain the scientific method by example.

I go into a laboratory with 10000 rubber balls of different sizes & weights.  I choose 10000 different heights, and I drop each ball 10000 times from each of those heights.  (This takes a while; that's why God made graduate students.)  For each fall I (i.e. my graduate student) records the time it took for the ball to hit the ground.  Each of those times is a fact, with some experimental uncertainty due to the equipment, operator, etc.  I now make a theory that the acceleration due to gravity in the laboratory is a constant so that the height of the fall is related to the time of the fall by

h = 0.5*a*t*t

I plot all the data, and lo and behold, it fits my theory with a constant a = 9.8 m/s/s.  The facts supported my theory.  In fact, it is difficult to find another curve that fits the data so well.  I have demonstrated that my theory is the best around.  It is not, and will never be "fact".  

If I can't even call that well-supported theory a fact, how can evolution with all its gaping holes be called one?  Anybody who calls evolution a "fact" is a blathering idiot.

Quoted: Quoted: Letting theology determine which scientific theories you accept is a strange way to do things. I don't know who you're talking to, because I didn't say anything remotely close to that.  I have only been a Christian a few years, but I have always thought that accepting evolution as fact is silly.  Are you a scientist?  Perhaps I can explain the scientific method by example. I go into a laboratory with 10000 rubber balls of different sizes & weights.  I choose 10000 different heights, and I drop each ball 10000 times from each of those heights.  (This takes a while; that's why God made graduate students.)  For each fall I (i.e. my graduate student) records the time it took for the ball to hit the ground.  Each of those times is a fact, with some experimental uncertainty due to the equipment, operator, etc.  I now make a theory that the acceleration due to gravity in the laboratory is a constant so that the height of the fall is related to the time of the fall by h = 0.5*a*t*t I plot all the data, and lo and behold, it fits my theory with a constant a = 9.8 m/s/s.  The facts supported my theory.  In fact, it is difficult to find another curve that fits the data so well.  I have demonstrated that my theory is the best around.  It is not, and will never be "fact".   If I can't even call that well-supported theory a fact, how can evolution with all its gaping holes be called one?  Anybody who calls evolution a "fact" is a blathering idiot.

Anybody who would make the last statement is a blathering idiot.   /shrug

Gravity is a fact, it exists.   I can observe it.
Our theory of gravity is the best explanation for what we have observed as fact.
The theory will never be fact, but gravity itself is a fact in our world.  
Gravity is both a theory and a fact.  

the same applies to evolution.

As a "scientist" you shouldn't need me to explain this to you

It might be a limitation in your education though.  You are aware that not all fields of knowledge lend themselves to being reduced to simple mathematical formulae and a few pithy sayings, correct?

I'm not going to take a physicists word on the validity of the theory of evolution.  It makes sense from my perspective as a non-biologist and the vast majority of biologists believe evolution is a fact and that our theory about that fact is on pretty firm ground.  

In the same way that I defer to the astrophysicists on matters involving the age of the stars, I will defer to the biologists on matters of evolution.  

Quoted: In the same way that I defer to the astrophysicists on matters involving the age of the stars, I will defer to the biologists on matters of evolution.

Do you also defer to numerologists when choosing lottery numbers and astrologers when deciding what to do any given day?

On the other hand, did you defer to physicists when deciding what to wear today?  After all, every single thing leading up to that decision was physics (the interactions of matter and energy).  

People place far too much faith in science.  It's very sad.

Quoted: Quoted: In the same way that I defer to the astrophysicists on matters involving the age of the stars, I will defer to the biologists on matters of evolution.   Do you also defer to numerologists when choosing lottery numbers and astrologers when deciding what to do any given day? On the other hand, did you defer to physicists when deciding what to wear today?  After all, every single thing leading up to that decision was physics (the interactions of matter and energy).   People place far too much faith in science.  It's very sad.

yes you sound like a man of science...

Quoted: yes you sound like a man of science...

Thank you.  That's what the editors of Physical Review Letters probably thought when they published my several papers.  That's also probably what my group thought when they hired me as a staff member at a national laboratory.  And your qualifications to discuss science are....?

Quoted: Quoted: yes you sound like a man of science... Thank you.  That's what the editors of Physical Review Letters probably thought when they published my several papers.  That's also probably what my group thought when they hired me as a staff member at a national laboratory.  And your qualifications to discuss science are....?

I'm sure your qualified in the field of Physics, far more than I am.  If I had a question in physics, I'd be more than happy to ask you.

You show a tremendous lack of knowledge on other scientific fields.  

Men who are just as knowledgeable in their fields as you are in yours all view evolution as a fact.   They view the current modern synthesis theory as the best explanation.    They see a mountain of evidence across many disciplines that confirm it.

If you can prove evolution somehow does not occur, then by all means feel free.  You will be guaranteed a Nobel prize for your work.

edit: I'll ask physics question in another thread, getting off topic

Mkay.

So is it:

Quoted: yes you sound like a man of science...

or

Quoted: I'm sure your qualified in the field of Physics

My first post in this thread stated that I don't think ID is even a scientific theory.  What emotional reason do you have for insisiting that evolution is a fact (and hijacking your own thread)?