Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does Design Theory Contradict Lds Theology?

Log

By Log
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Fig-bearing Thistle Enthusiast

Fig-bearing Thistle

Posted
Posted (edited)

Fig-bearing Thistle:

Birds are just modern day dinosaurs.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And we are all just modern-day single celled organisms.

And because strong winds kept blowing the dinosaurs over, and they couldn't get back up w/o considerable effort, they gradually developed wings so they could take flight and use the wind to their advantage.

Edited by Fig-bearing Thistle
Mordecai Enthusiast

Mordecai

Posted
Posted (edited)
The point is that his assumption that "for probability less than 1/2 that there is a greater likeliness of intelligent design" is incorrect.
The problem with this as an attack on intelligent design is that the two competing theories here are random luck versus intelligent design. If you say it's blind luck, then you must have a means of producing that luck. For example, in the lottery, you have a machine that bounces ping pong balls. That's what produces a random string of numbers. What produced the random string of functional DNA in the first life? Evolution can't have done it in the first life, of course, so what produced the luck? Furthermore, when the numbers look like 1 in 10^200, while the number of atoms in the universe add up to a "mere" 10^64, it's pretty absurd to say luck caused the formation of the first life. Our universe isn't even likely to produce a single Shakespearean sonnet much less something as complex as a single protein, which means its exponentially less possible to produce the first life via chance. Clearly, Intelligent Design is a more substantive and intellectually satisfying theory and is supported by observations of what intelligence can and can't do, while no other observed process can produce a significant amount of functional information.

With regard to evolution, if you say luck caused the diversity of species, is that a good scientific explanation? It's essentially conceding that you have no idea what happened, and it's also conceding that Darwinian processes played a lesser or insignificant role in the process.

Edited by Mordecai
urroner Grand Master

urroner

Posted
Posted

cdowis:

I already did give you a one sentence summary. "Creationism IS Intelligent Design". See post 64.

Creationism is not ID, rather, it's sort of the other way around, ID is a subset of creationism and when I say "creationism," I am talking about "Christian Creationism."

In "Christian Creationism, IMNSHO, there is a continuum of beliefs ranging all the way for Flat Earthers to Pure Evolution.

There are Flat Earthers and Geocentrists at one extreme, but they are very few in numbers today. There are Young Earthers and Old Earther, and these two subsets are easily broken up in several smaller subsets. IDers are part of the Old Earther subset.

Continuing on the continuum there are some more major subsets until one arrives at "Pure Christian Evolutionists" who are more deists and not theists. God kicked it all off with a Big Bang or whatever and let it go where it wanted to go with absolute minimum of intervention.

But one thing I have learnt is that some Christians don't believe that active Mormons can be Creationists because they believe that in order to be one, you must believe in ex nihilo.

cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted (edited)

In "Christian Creationism, IMNSHO, there is a continuum of beliefs ranging all the way for Flat Earthers to Pure Evolution.

There are Flat Earthers and Geocentrists at one extreme, but they are very few in numbers today. There are Young Earthers and Old Earther, and these two subsets are easily broken up in several smaller subsets. IDers are part of the Old Earther subset.

Here's how talkorigins breaks it down:

CREATION

Flat Earthers

Geocentrists

Young Earth Creationists

(Omphalos)

Old Earth Creationists

(Gap Creationism)

(Day-Age Creationism)

(Progressive Creationism)

(Intelligent Design Creationism)

Evolutionary Creationists

Theistic Evolutionists

Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists

Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists

EVOLUTION

Edited by cinepro
urroner Grand Master

urroner

Posted
Posted

Here's how talkorigins breaks it down:

CREATION

Flat Earthers

Geocentrists

Young Earth Creationists

(Omphalos)

Old Earth Creationists

(Gap Creationism)

(Day-Age Creationism)

(Progressive Creationism)

(Intelligent Design Creationism)

Evolutionary Creationists

Theistic Evolutionists

Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists

Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists

EVOLUTION

Thanks Cine.

Mordecai Enthusiast

Mordecai

Posted
Posted (edited)
...Here's how talkorigins breaks it down...
Instead of going to mere authority, we could go to reason. Two profoundly different things shouldn't be called by the same name, the same label or described with the same language. An emotionally charged word like creationism has no place in a debate about Intelligent Design, unless you're a propagandist.

If ID proponents are creationists, so are theistic evolutionists. The only reason ID proponents are branded as "creationists," is that they undermine the power and authority of secularists and mainstream biologists. There are a myriad of very important differences between ID and creationism. I could write pages on the differences.

Edited by Mordecai
asbestosman Veteran

asbestosman

Posted
Posted
We freely grant that stuff here is "patterned after the old" stuff that came before.

Hi Log. We've had our battles in the past and sometimes it was fun! Just wanted to say thought that I found this sentence noteworthy after what I've been learning about creativity and inventions. Many great improvements are often seen as tweaks of existing stuff. Steve Jobs didn't invent the GUI operating system, but he didn't exactly copy from Xerox either. He got some of the idea from them, but he also saw how to improve it and adapt it for a new purpose--the home and consumers instead of experts and professionals in a certain environment. He even worked with someone to take the mouse which cost over $1000 to build and make one that was simple and cost about $10. In other words, successful design in technology is almost always "patterned after the old".

Now. how would that work with human bodies? I do not know. We would have to see what the prior art was and how (or if) God adapted the design to the operating conditions (the uncontrolled parameter for God here being our agency). Even then, one could still claim that God demonstrated intelligence by selecting the existing designs which best meet the requirements. Could better bodies have been designed? Almost surely, but at what cost?

As for detecting design I still disagree with Dembski, but that's apparently off topic as I don't have evidence meeting your specifications. What I do have is arguments about the proper interpretation of the math.

Nathair/|\ Mentor

Nathair/|\

Posted
Posted

Intelligent Design + LSD? Hmmm, I'm thinking maybe that explains the platypus. ;)

OK, now I have to share this. Please understand, this is a humor piece and has little to do with my beliefs.

Polytheist Creation Story

Original speech by Barry Marin (PanThea 2002)

My real problem is that they let the trickster Gods into it. Like farting. You KNOW farting was Pan's idea. It's just exactly his style.

I can just picture the animal design committee in my mind. There's Hermes in the corner, making insect after insect after insect. They're small, they fly, they're annoying. Perfect!

So Artemis wanted something to hunt them: invented the Wren. Aphrodite didn't think that was pretty enough: invented the Bluebird. Ares thought that was too tame: made the Hawk. Zeus thought that was too small: invented the Falcon. Poseidon had to top that: created the Eagle. Athena put her twist on the idea: invented the Owl. Hera wanted something more practical: invented the Chicken. That was too ugly for Aphrodite: made the Peacock. Zeus wanted bigger chickens: created the Turkey. And Bacchus chimed in: "Ok, ok! It's a chicken. A BIG chicken! A REALLY big chicken! And it's got a looonnngg neck!" "Looks too big to fly, Bacchus." "It don't fly, it runs really fast!"

"That's nice, Bacchus."

So then, we know Poseidon created the Horse. Aphrodite didn't think that was pretty enough: made the Gazelle. Hera wanted something more practical again: created the Cow. Zeus made it bigger: invented the Ox. Poseidon had to top THAT: invented the Elephant. Cows weren't fierce enough for Ares: made the Leopard. Which Zeus wanted bigger: created the Lion. which now Artemis had to top: invented the tiger. And Bacchus: "Right! So it's a horse, a BIG horse! And it's got a looonnngg neck; And ORANGE POLKA DOTS!"

"That's nice, Bacchus."

And it went on.

Athena made Fish for Poseidon. Zeus made them bigger: created Whales. Poseidon returned the favor: invented Rabbits for Athena's Owls. Aphrodite wanted them softer: made Chinchillas. And, of course, Bacchus: "Ok, So; it's a looonnngg neck!" "How many feet does it have, Bacchus?" "It's got no feet! It's just a loooonnng neck. Slithering on the ground!"

"That's nice, Bacchus."

And so it went.

If you listen carefully and observe the world around you, you begin to hear the music of creation. And it's not the monotone, monotonous march of a monotheistic Deity. What single God would bother to invent 9000 different kinds of Frog? No, that music is Jazz! One idea bouncing off another, and taking off in a new direction. Riffs; and variations on themes, and variations of the variations. Obviously a group effort! Until finally, Bacchus, from deep in his cups: "Platypus!"

THAT'S NICE BACCHUS."

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted

The problem with this as an attack on intelligent design is that the two competing theories here are random luck versus intelligent design.

And yet, what often appears to be random, in other words, isn't random. Because we cannot determine something that is actually random, we can't actually compare the two. Because we cannot compare the two, it is impossible to determine which one it is.

If you say it's blind luck, then you must have a means of producing that luck.

This is incorrect. For example, with 1/2 probabilities... I can keep multiplying them to infinity (keep on performing the event again and again)... but the possibility of it happening by 'blind luck' still exists as long as there isn't an infinite number of multiplications (the event must happen an infinite number of times). Considering that we cannot prove an event will happen an infinite number of times, it is impossible to say for sure that blind luck is not involved.

For example, in the lottery, you have a machine that bounces ping pong balls. That's what produces a random string of numbers.

This isn't random though. It is based on the gravity, position, friction, and other elements upon the balls. It isn't actually random, and if we had all the variables, we would find it isn't random.

What produced the random string of functional DNA in the first life?

Again, as I said, if randomness exists (nobody had proved it has or it hasn't), there is a possibility that a random string was created, in the right place at the right time. Just because it's very unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

Evolution can't have done it in the first life, of course, so what produced the luck?

That's one of the things about luck - it isn't produced. There isn't such a thing as luck. There isn't guaranteed to be even such a thing as 'blind chance', you see. It may exist. But it would be unrecognizable from other 'random-looking' numbers that we have... numbers that look random, but actually are not.

Furthermore, when the numbers look like 1 in 10^200, while the number of atoms in the universe add up to a "mere" 10^64, it's pretty absurd to say luck caused the formation of the first life.

Of course it is. But under the assumption that luck exists (which I disagree with), it is a possibility none the less.

Our universe isn't even likely to produce a single Shakespearean sonnet much less something as complex as a single protein, which means its exponentially less possible to produce the first life via chance. Clearly, Intelligent Design is a more substantive and intellectually satisfying theory and is supported by observations of what intelligence can and can't do, while no other observed process can produce a significant amount of functional information.

Unlikeliness doesn't remove possibility.

With regard to evolution, if you say luck caused the diversity of species, is that a good scientific explanation? It's essentially conceding that you have no idea what happened, and it's also conceding that Darwinian processes played a lesser or insignificant role in the process.

Again, my friend, I actually don't believe luck exists. But I am saying that the argument used by the guy about less than 1/2 is incorrect, because if luck does exist (which I don't belive it does), it can make possible feats like such.

No, if I was to attack luck, I would ask them to define how it 'decides' between two equally likely choices. The thing is, you can't have a decision if two forces are equally likely. There must be some difference, something to compare, in order to make any 'decision' in the universe. That is how, if you were attacking luck, I would suggest you go about. Don't attack unlikeliness. Attack the impossibility of luck to actually make a decision. In fact... if you trace it back... it leads you to realize... the only way 'decisions' are made is based on previous 'frames of existance', aka, the past. In other words, there must always be something to cause something else. And if there is always something to cause something else, it pretty much discounts random chance right there ;-).

Just thoughts =).

-TAO

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted

OK, now I have to share this. Please understand, this is a humor piece and has little to do with my beliefs.

I can't remember if I told you my daughter loved this the last time you posted it, she thought it was spot on.
Mordecai Enthusiast

Mordecai

Posted
Posted (edited)
And yet, what often appears to be random, in other words, isn't random. Because we cannot determine something that is actually random, we can't actually compare the two. Because we cannot compare the two, it is impossible to determine which one it is.
Actually, you can determine, via statistics, what isn't random. Things that appear random, can't be proven to actually be random. But for all practical purposes, things that appear to not be random can essentially be proven to not be random. For example, these last few sentences I wrote can't be claimed to be random, can they? Similarly, the information found in DNA doesn't appear random at all. It's far more complex and informative than what I just wrote, times a 10^200 or so.
...it is impossible to say for sure that blind luck is not involved...
Will you say that what I've written here is blind luck? If not, why not?
This isn't random though. It is based on the gravity, position, friction, and other elements upon the balls. It isn't actually random, and if we had all the variables, we would find it isn't random.
It's random in the same way that DNA would supposedly line up without supervision or action on God's part, so it's an effective analogy. The word random and its definition are not required for this analogy to work.
Just because it's very unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, this is a fact. The real question is, is it a good scientific explanation. If our universe is unlikely to produce even a Shakespearean sonnet or a single protein, does it seem like we should think it a rational explanation to say that our universe had the time and resources to produce the first life, when the chances of that are 1 in 10^200? (Again, considering that there are "only" 1 in 10^64 atoms in the universe). Edited by Mordecai
cinepro Grand Master

cinepro

Posted
Posted

Instead of going to mere authority, we could go to reason. Two profoundly different things shouldn't be called by the same name, the same label or described with the same language. An emotionally charged word like creationism has no place in a debate about Intelligent Design, unless you're a propagandist.

If ID proponents are creationists, so are theistic evolutionists. The only reason ID proponents are branded as "creationists," is that they undermine the power and authority of secularists and mainstream biologists. There are a myriad of very important differences between ID and creationism. I could write pages on the differences.

Well, they do describe their definitions for the categories:

Intelligent Design Creationism

Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.

In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.

Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA.,

Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC)

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer.

periodical: Origins & Design

Behe, Michael, Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, NY, 1996)

Dembski, William, The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998)

Johnson, Phillip, Reason in the Balance (Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, IL, 1995)

Davis, Percival & D. H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Haughton, Dallas, TX, 1989)

Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.

Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links.

http://www.orot.com/ec.html

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted (edited)

Actually, you can determine, via statistics, what isn't random. Things that appear random, can't be proven to actually be random. But for all practical purposes, things that appear to not be random can essentially be proven to not be random. For example, these last few sentences I wrote can't be claimed to be random, can they? Similarly, the information found in DNA doesn't appear random at all. It's far more complex and informative than what I just wrote, times a 10^200 or so.

That is incorrect, actually. For example, assuming true randomness exists, if it 'decides' the same possibility multiple times in a row, it doesn't mean it's not 'random'.

Let's say a dice had embedded in it 'true randomness' (which I don't think exists). When rolled... it rolls a 6... and a 6... and a 6... and a 6 and a 6. From those 5 dice rolls, you cannot assume it is not random. Nor can you assume it is random. It looks organized... but it may not be.

Will you say that what I've written here is blind luck? If not, why not?

As said, my friend, I don't believe in blind luck, but if blind luck does exist, yes, it would be possible. I heard it said once that given enough times and enough apes pecking on keyboards, you'd eventually come up with 'The Chronicles of Narnia' or something of that sort. Highly unlikely. But totally possible. It might even happen that the same ape types it again, verbatim, perfectly the next time. But that doesn't mean randomness doesn't exist, or that it does.

It's random in the same way that DNA would supposedly line up without supervision or action on God's part, so it's an effective analogy. The word random and its definition are not required for this analogy to work.

But as said, this isn't true randomness. True randomness is based on actual randomness - chaos - which I don't think exists. The reason chaos probably does not exist, is because chaos cannot actually be bounded by rules. It dissolves them... there isn't any 'leverage' to gain upon. Now whether there is a somolgous mix of randomness and order, I don't know... I can't figure out how that would actually exist. So right now, I lean towards all order.

And you are correct, the assembly of DNA in that sequence isn't true randomness either. I'm not disagreeing with you Mordecai, on that the comparison isn't valid, but as said, it doesn't represent true randomness.

Yes, this is a fact. The real question is, is it a good scientific explanation. If our universe is unlikely to produce even a Shakespearean sonnet or a single protein, does it seem like we should think it a rational explanation to say that our universe had the time and resources to produce the first life, when the chances of that are 1 in 10^200? (Again, considering that there are "only" 1 in 10^64 atoms in the universe).

Many people think it is a good enough scientific explanation. I disagree, of course. You see, in order for the actions of their type to exist, time must always exist, in one form or another... in other words... there must always be something preceding every event. That means, of course, that you can never go far enough back in time till when there was 'nothing'. Which you will notice, parallels our LDS belief system, in a way ;-).

Now why does the clause the original author of this thread give fail that action? Because there is always a possibility that the variables which are always changing, but are not truly random, cause it to be that way. Thus, it isn't intelligent design, but... cause and effect. Now, that doesn't mean intelligent design isn't included in cause and effect... intelligent design could be the cause, and the world could be the effect... but it doesn't guarantee it is the cause, which is why I don't think the guy's statement works all to well (what was his name again?). It wouldn't convince people who believe in randomness, in any case XD.

Humble Wishes,

TAO

Edited by TAO
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

TAO:

Anti-Evolutionist often compare evolution to a slot machine where all possible combinations of genes must be present and randomly spun. That is incorrect. Evolution is predicated on the fact that nearly all combinations are on "Hold".

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/evolution/7d0efb9447ed887261e17d0efb9447ed887261e1-895925486704?q=you+tube+evolution&FORM=VIRE5

Edited by thesometimesaint
LeSellers Veteran

LeSellers

Posted
Posted
That is incorrect, actually. For example, assuming true randomness exists, if it 'decides' the same possibility multiple times in a row, it doesn't mean it's not 'random'.

Let's say a dice had embedded in it 'true randomness' (which I don't think exists). When rolled... it rolls a 6... and a 6... and a 6... and a 6 and a 6. From those 5 dice rolls, you cannot assume it is not random. Nor can you assume it is random. It looks organized... but it may not be.

In any infinite string of random digits, there would be a series of digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 followed by exactly the same series twenty times. There would also be another identical series of twenty strings following that one, but separated from it by the digit 0, and it would be followed by the digit 1 followed by another series of twenty like the first one, followed by 2, and so on. All totally random.

There would be a string of six thousand two hundred fifty-seven 3s, a four, then another twelve thousand three hundred ninety-two 3s.

You would find the digital representation of pi to the fifteenth decimal place, followed by the digital representation of e to the fiftieth decimal place, followed by the square root of two to the two-hundredth place. Then the whole series would repeat itself, but in mirror image fashion. If these strings did not exist in the number, it would not be random. Of course, its being infinite may mean that you simply could not find them, even though they are there.

Randomness and infinity are difficult concepts.

Lehi

Mordecai Enthusiast

Mordecai

Posted
Posted (edited)

That is incorrect, actually. For example, assuming true randomness exists, if it 'decides' the same possibility multiple times in a row, it doesn't mean it's not 'random'.

True, but if you have the context of the string, you can safely infer if it's not random. Again, you're not going to assume that my comments were the result of randomness, are you?
It looks organized... but it may not be.
Right. Not complex enough. You need to get to a point where the complexity level gets high enough to where you can make better educated guesses.
Many people think it is a good enough scientific explanation. I disagree, of course. You see, in order for the actions of their type to exist, time must always exist, in one form or another... in other words... there must always be something preceding every event. That means, of course, that you can never go far enough back in time till when there was 'nothing'. Which you will notice, parallels our LDS belief system, in a way ;-).
While that is true, this earth definitely has been here a limited time. Furthermore, the fossil record tells us how much time has passed and around how how long it took for things to evolve. Since it should take many times the age of our universe for a whale to evolve into an aquatic creature from a land mammal, instead of just 3 million years, we can know that Darwinism didn't cause it. We could say everything in the fossil record occurred randomly (whatever that means), but since we have no proof that we've had infinite probabilistic resources, we certainly can't say that's a good scientific explanation.

I don't have a problem with God taking creatures that evolved over infinite time and using that to create what we see on earth. I just don't see that as scientific, though.

Edited by Mordecai
KevinG Grand Master

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Randomness and infinity are difficult concepts.

Lehi

You just described half the threads on this board. Random, infinite, difficult.

If you go on long enough they also curve back on themselves just like space.

:ph34r:

TAO Mentor

TAO

Posted
Posted (edited)

TAO:

Anti-Evolutionist often compare evolution to a slot machine where all possible combinations of genes must be present and randomly spun. That is incorrect. Evolution is predicated on the fact that nearly all combinations are on "Hold".

http://www.bing.com/...tion&FORM=VIRE5

*Shrugs* Yes, they do do this.

I was actually talking about formation of life from no life... sometimes... I prefer to think of them as saying that there are a bunch of particles that run around, and they happen to bump together at the right time. Is that closer to the 'hold' theory?

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited by TAO
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...