This seems very true, from what I can tell, and very sad. The question I always have for these people, and I'd ask of KateBeckinsale7 is this: What could a more intelligent design for biology be than genetic inheritance and natural selection -- that is, micro and macro evolution? When I stare at this gorgeous system, I am in awe of whatever laws, powers, or God put this together. It is mind-numbing and beautiful. Something has set up a universe where noise and imperfection, inherent in all processes, actually drives refinement in lifeforms! Life benefits from the noise of mutation! This is beautiful to me on a deeply spiritual level. Doing backbends to work a system into one narrow interpretation of an old book, however, is not beautiful to me, and it could be seen as insulting the wonderful minds that God gave us. Now, Katebeckinsale7, I must also address your (well, the article's) reference to quantum theory. "Chance" here has a lot of philosophical weight, so it's worth being very careful. Quantum mechanics has actually been the most successful and precise predictor of nature that humans have ever beheld. It describes experimental results exactly, to almost ludicrous precision. The laws predict concrete results to experiments and concrete predictions for the functioning of the subatomic universe. So, while quantum theory involves a more probabilistic and less linear description in its mechanistic guts, it is incorrect to philosophically take that to mean that physics now shrugs and says "yeah, there's a lot of just random stuff going on. We can't figure it out." Again quantum beats the pants off of any other theory we've ever seen when it comes to exactly, with little uncertainty, describing what happens in nature. I just to warn against taking "chance" to mean "random" or "mysterious."
Just to chime in on the DNA issue, I believe in a divine being, but don't buy this DNA argument. An intelligent probably created DNA, I'm fine with that. Who's to say it's not a previous civilisation, or one from another planet? All this stuff we're doing on Mars, maybe someone did that millions of years ago here? or maaaaaybe it's just chance. Humans will be able to create DNA, so what does that make us?
Damn. I thought I had killed this thread with my boring post. Sane, even if we can create DNA someday, that does not bring us into equivalence with the forces of nature or divine presence that formed or devised the entire system.
I agree. We'll never figure out the entire system of the universe and be able to re-create everything. However, KateBeckinsale7 uses this argument very often, and although it could be a good argument, it's not a leg to stand on. DNA has complex code in it, and that's something mind-boggling... However, not mind-boggling enough for someone to say "This is why I believe God exists, because of this DNA sample". When I say we'll be able to create all this DNA in the future, what I mean to say is that it will be much less eye-popping than it is now.
Interesting, Sane. Let's step aside from KateB7, because I think he/she has a very different view from mine. I'm not trying to say "God exists, and you can see it in the DNA." I'm just saying DNA, the cosmos, and all these things we're discovering in science *can* be a way for an individual to be inspired to see something more than *random*. I hope that makes sense. My first post in this long thread meant to dispute those seeking an "intelligent design," and that community typically tries to refute evolution, against 99% of scientific evidence, in order to come up with something a little closer to the Bible and absolute human uniqueness. Every time I get a chance to speak with one of these people, I say "if you want to believe in God, that's wonderful. I'm all for it. But why not celebrate this God with your God-given brain, accepting this evidence, and looking with awe at this system in biology/the universe/et cetera." I am in no way saying that each and every one of us has to look at DNA and say "yep, that there's God at work." No way. Now, on the subject of DNA, I'll argue the wonders never cease. Most of the material in DNA is non-coding, and some call this "junk DNA." Interesting. We don't know what it does (yet), but you better believe it does something! More and more layers to this onion. Cheers.
Sane, If you read my posts, you'll see that my argument is that the specified complexity of DNA points to an intelligent source. I believe in God, so I believe God created DNA. I have reasons to believe in God. I have not argued that DNA is proof that God exists.
What lie? The Jews tried to crucify Jesus, but he was saved. In my eyes, when Islam claimed that Jesus was saved and not crucified, that's a victory. That's a sigh of relief. That's a "Thank God. He was so noble and sincere that God saved him. What a lesson". AstaghfurAllah, but did you expect God to text everyone and tell them what actually happened? No, according to my faith, that's one of the main reasons the Qura'an was sent down. For this information to come out. For the disciples, they participated in a historical event that will have implications in the future, and taught a lesson to everyone. But that's according to MY faith, so I understand that you would have trouble grasping this. You're a true Christian, so you can't go by my beliefs in these topics. God didn't say "I'll let them all believe in an illusion." Who knows why it was done? I'm not God or Jesus, so I don't know. What Id o know is that according to my faith, the people that believed the truth was in front of them surely won't be penalized for being human, but the people who had the information, they will be judged accordingly.
I believe God created DNA too, and if you're not arguing that DNA is proof that God exists, then we are in agreement over this topic.
Makes complete sense B-Bob, I think I understand what you're saying. In theory, God created everything. But for a reason I have yet to unearth, Christians start to panic when the subject of science comes up. Why does it have to be God vs. Science? The way I see it, God created science, and science sometimes creates "random" things. There are tons of possibilities. Science routinely shows incredible discoveries, and we are rightfully awed by them. To me, personally, it's kind of like finding Egyptian artifacts. You dig and you dig and you dig... then you find something, and you say "Hmmmmm, how amazing. How long ago did the Egyptins make this, did they have the technology?" But maybe... just maybe... It's just a very interesting looking rock? I'm of the opinion that everything is different. There are many signs of an intelligent source, but to say "This didn't evolve from science, this is put here by God"... That's a bit naive for me. It could be both, or it could be one of those options. Due to my personal beliefs, it's either God or God&science. However, I understand how someone might say "it's just a stone!" and the other might say "God put those particles together, and fused the into one structure". Two years later, we discover atoms and molecules, and it's just a bunch of that stuff put together... Again, in my case, it is God's work. But that's not the type of thing that convinces anyone that God exists.
Sane, Lie #1 - Jesus was crucified. Lie #2 - Jesus died. Lie #3 - Jesus rose from the dead. According to Islam, Jesus was a prophet sent by God. Why would God want Jesus' disciples to believe in lies about Jesus that would help form the foundation of a false religion called Christianity?
No Worries, The "deterministic natural laws" of Newtonian physics allow for "necessity" as an explanation for scientific phenomena; they do not allow for chance. These laws were "supplemented" by the principles of quantum mechanics. The laws of Newtonian physics do not apply at the quantum level. In the context of the paragraph, "chance processes" refers to processes at the quantum level. In the world of Newtonian physics, there is not much room for chance; predictions can be made with certainty. Imprecise predictions can be attributed to imprecise measurements. In the world of quantum mechanics, outcomes are ruled by chance. Predictions are made based on probabilities. Monod asserted that chance and necessity alone are sufficient to account for all scientific phenomena. I hope that clears up your confusion.
B-Bob, I like science. I am not a scientist. I use my God-given ability to reason when evaluating the case for a scientific theory. If I take the biblical creation account literally in terms of the time frame involved, and if I assume that the Bible's geneologies include every generation, then I have to believe the universe is about 6,000 -10,000 years old. But we see light from stars and galaxies that comes from millions of light-years away. I believe in the big bang theory. I believe that the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. I believe the Bible is the truth. So how do I reconcile that with my belief in the big bang theory? I don't know exactly. I think it helps a lot if I take the "6 days" of the biblical creation account in a non-literal way, so that's what I do. (Christians differ on the issue.) I still believe, though, that Adam was literally the first human being created by God, and that Eve was the second. I believe in the big bang theory because I think it's supported by strong evidence. I won't go into much detail, but I'll list a few highlights in case anyone is interested. In 1929, Edwin Hubble found that all distant galaxies are retreating from us at a velocity that is proportional to their distances from us. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965. The microwave background spectrum matches the blackbody curve perfectly. In 1992, George Smoot announced that the COBE satellite had measured the expected "ripples" in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The big bang theory might be wrong, but I think it's a sound theory based on what we know right now. According to the big bang theory, the universe had a beginning. According to the Bible, the universe had a beginning. The big bang theory has its limitations: "It says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all." - Brian Greene I don't believe in Darwinism. Microevolution is a reality, but that doesn't prove that the Darwinian theory is correct. I've read The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins). I've evaluated the case for Darwinism and I think it's weak. I've read Darwin's Black Box (Michael Behe) and Darwin on Trial (Philip Johnson). They are excellent critiques of Darwinism. My point is that I am willing to believe in a scientific theory if there is strong evidence to support it.
If you believe in the big bang theory based on strong scientific evidence but don't beleive in the evolution of man on the same basis, imo, you are contradicting yourself. The evidence for evolution, even of man (especially in fossilized form) is overwhelming, imo, given the time frames involved and the relatively short amount of time in which serious archaeological work has been done.
According to my faith, that's not what God wanted. According to my faith, humans created the Christianity that you follow. If you want to believe that God is the sun KateBeckinsale7, God won't strike you down with lightning. You can believe anything you want to believe. But if you had no way of knowign that God is not the sun, and all evidence that you searched for showed that God is the sun, then God will forgive you for that. They tried to crucify Jesus, and God saved him from it. The memo about him being saved arrived in the form of the Qura'an. But again, that's according to my faith.
Why God, the All Mighty, has to send so many prophets trying to convince us that He is the one and only one. Either after all he is not that perfect in picking His messagers, or in creating His species. With the religious mess we are in, I guess He finally gave up after Muhammad if he is indeed the last true phophet.
Darwinism and everything it implies - don't know. Evolution as a concept in general, and of humans in particular - definitely. The fossilized evidence is overwhelming.
If you're inclined (and I realize it's a big chore), could you point me to the fossil evidence you find overwhelming? I've always thought of the fossil record as one of the weakest links for evolution.
...It is a big chore, so, suffice it to say, they have fossilized evidence that relates to a number of variations of the human species before the appearance of modern homosapiens. Home erectus, homo habilis, neanderthal, australopitichus africanus, etc. Not to mention the even more distinct fossil evidence for the evolution of other animals....horses, elephants, cats, whales, etc. Now, with human evolution, we're clearly not talking about thousands of complete fossils. But, we are talking about, imo, overwhelming evidence. ESPECIALLY when you consider that many of these fossils are millions of years old and serious archaeological research, as oppossed to looting and the like, is only centuries old.
