God; The Intelligent Designer

[kolipoki09]

This is a listing of his posts on the subject. I think you can figure it out which posts are germane to our discussion. Or perhaps not.

You've posted nothing. Literally, there's no link to anything.

As one cdesign proponentsist alluded earlier, I'm just an ignorant blowhard. But then, that's only his theory about me, and I merely confirmed a part of his hypothesis.

I'm reminded of something I learned from my philosophy of science teacher (referring directly to Karl Popper) that I think is relevant here:

He suggests that we search for errors by subjecting our knowledge, including scientific theories, to the most severe tests we can devise. He claims that “only the falsity of the theory can be inferred from empirical evidence, and this inference is a purely deductive one.” As a result, Popper concludes that all theories, in fact all human knowledge, must be regarded as tentative. in other words, we cannot know that our theories are true—we must accept their truth by faith. link

As for the claim of Darwinism being "godless," a number of prominent biologists (none of whom have lost the respect of their colleagues) have in fact, expressed their beliefs that God can fit within the paradigm, though it is not explicitly necessary.

Miller himself contends:

"A biologically static world would leave a Creator’s creatures with neither freedom nor the independence required to exercise that freedom. In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are – free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.” - Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Religion, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 291.

[kolipoki09]

You've posted nothing. Literally, there's no link to anything.

As one cdesign proponentsist alluded earlier, I'm just an ignorant blowhard. But then, that's only his theory about me, and I merely confirmed a part of his hypothesis.

I'm reminded of something I learned from my philosophy of science teacher (referring directly to Karl Popper) that I think is relevant here:

As for the claim of Darwinism being "godless," a number of prominent biologists (none of whom have lost the respect of their colleagues) have in fact, expressed their beliefs that God can fit within the paradigm, though it is not explicitly necessary.

Miller himself contends:

Hey, 1,000 posts! Woo hoo! It only took me 3.5 years, or 18.28 Kardashians!

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Here's a question for you. Imagine you are very ill. You want to get well. Do you go to a MD from a accredited university or one that isn't?

[Freedom]

It is clear that the Church takes no stance on evolution which means the official doctrine neither agrees nor disagrees with it. Religion, however, is not about how things came to be but rather why. We talk about the purpose of life not the causes of life. We talk about eternal progression, not about DNA mutation. I see no conflict between lds doctrine and evolution, but I do not feel compelled to believe that evolution is how life came to be. Neither side of the argument will ever prove the other wrong. I also reject the notion that BYU only teaches evolution in order to be an accredited university. This would suggest that the Brethren are tolerating a heresy for public relation purposes. This is, in my opinion, absurd. Nevertheless, arguing over dogma is entertaining but futile.

What is missing from the discussion is some data. Perhaps someone can list 5 reasons why Intelligent Design is problematic from both a doctrinal and a scientific perspective. The same could be done with evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Freedom:

From my religious point of view. I see no need to accept anything not Doctrine of the Church.

Irreducable Complexity is part and parcel of the intelligent design political campaign. EVERY example that the Creationists have put forward as Irreducable Complexity has been proven to be false.

Creationist insist that there are no transitional species. Time and again this claim has been proven false.

To accept Creationism would make hash of biology and its dependent modern medicine.

The Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body.

See; Wedge Document.

Creationism(Intelliegent Design) is rejected by every recognized scientific body in the world.

Edited November 24, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

Everyone knows they teach evolution at BYU but that doesn't mean that they represent LDS doctrine on the subject. They teach it to be an accredited school.

Right....because they want to be able to provide the best education for the church's youth and then they end up teaching them false doctrine........somehow I doubt the church leadership is either so stupid or so self-defeating to use a significant amount of tithing to turn a major portion of church members into believers of false doctrine, especially since that is more likely to result in total disbelief eventually.

[elguanteloko]

I'll let Widtsoe speak for himself,

lol Got it.

I just think that there are natural laws of the universe, and to the extent we know those laws, we see how God works.

I guess I just expected some rational justification for this instead of just a repeat of what you already believed without explaining

I'll tell you what I'd do if I were a God in this universe: I'd just let life naturally take hold on any planet where it can, and let evolution proceed until intelligent creatures are formed. That is the most efficient way to create life, and is pretty consistent with God's modus operandi in the modern universe. If you are immortal, you have the benefit of being able to wait a very long time for things to happen, so what's the rush?

and, allow me a wild guess here, that's how God happens to do it. Brilliant!

[Freedom]

Freedom:

From my religious point of view. I see no need to accept anything not Doctrine of the Church.

Irreducable Complexity is part and parcel of the intelligent design political campaign. EVERY example that the Creationists have put forward as Irreducable Complexity has been proven to be false.

Creationist insist that there are no transitional species. Time and again this claim has been proven false.

To accept Creationism would make hash of biology and its dependent modern medicine.

The Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body.

See; Wedge Document.

Creationism(Intelliegent Design) is rejected by every recognized scientific body in the world.

So you have identified two problems with ID:

The idea that complex organisms did not evolve from simple organisms, and that there are no transitional species. Are there any other problems?

Do they argue that all that is on the earth today is all that there ever was? How do they explain the transitional species that have been found? How do they respond to the apparent evidence of a progression of complexity in species?

[RhipSaw2]

It is especially odd considering the BOM basically gives an argument exactly like Paley's watchmaker analogy(which is pretty much the same as intelligent design).

[44] But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator

.

[blackstrap]

To quote a quote I heard today, " science progresses,one funeral at a time "

This is in reference to the difficulty in changing a paradigm that is fully entrenched.

[Stargazer]

The only place where random chance comes into play is in individual mutations. Do you think that God intentionally causes and controls mutations, almost all of which kill fetuses in the womb? Is God an abortionist? Does God intentionally cause cancer? Or is it more reasonable to believe that mutations are caused by random things like background radiation, ultraviolet light, and environmental chemicals?

Good grief. What is it with people who try to apply human laws to God? Or who try to turn God's laws back on Him? God can't kill any of His creations, you think? He does it every day. The fact is simple. If God does not prevent the death of one His creations, when He is perfectly capable of it, then it is as if He caused the death. Because He created the mortal being, He created the very fact of death. Why is this such a problem? He could, if He chose, decide the whole thing was a big mistake and cause the Universe itself to cease existing. It's His. Get used to it. There is nothing that prevents it except His will and His purposes.

God controls every bloody speeding neutrino streaming through your body every single moment.

There are no "random" mutations.

[elguanteloko]

Good grief. What is it with people who try to apply human laws to God?

"Human laws' would include human understanding, it seems to me. The answer is because if you didn't, then you would be open to accepting ANYTHING that crosses your way. Why accept that A=A and A=/= not-A? Why not accept ANY crazy idea? The best we can do is not putting understanding aside with the excuse that, "Well, that doesn't apply to God because he is God."

Or who try to turn God's laws back on Him?

Why? For the same reason it is wise to realize I'm not good even when I say I am if I'm not, and to check whether I am or not if you don't know whether I am or not.

God can't kill any of His creations, you think? He does it every day. The fact is simple. If God does not prevent the death of one His creations, when He is perfectly capable of it, then it is as if He caused the death. Because He created the mortal being, He created the very fact of death. Why is this such a problem?

There is a crucial distinction you aren't making and it is an often-made mistake by many folks. That God is able to do something does NOT mean it is morally permissible for him to do it. Otherwise is the might-makes-right mentality. God can torture children but that doesn't mean he should do it.

Also, I never understood why creating something all of a sudden, somehow, gives you the right to do whatever you want with it with impunity. If I create, somehow, a human being from dirt and stones, does this mean I can now torture and punish and treat this human in any way I want? That seems insane to me.

He could, if He chose, decide the whole thing was a big mistake and cause the Universe itself to cease existing. It's His. Get used to it. There is nothing that prevents it except His will and His purposes.

Once again, "It's His will" doesn't mean that's right and, "He could if He chose to" ALSO doesn't mean it is right. Bro, this is BASIC critical thinking, man, how can they not teach you this at church when it can (and often does) have disastrous consequences?

God controls every bloody speeding neutrino streaming through your body every single moment.

There are no "random" mutations.

...well, if he controls everything then he can't really punish anyone with justice since he controlled our actions, also, can he? I'm surprised you can hold such a contradictory position to the most basic forms of freewill in Mormonism.

Edited November 25, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Rob Osborn]

People who properly understand ID know that the only threat to it is to prove that there is No God. But, as LDS, we are in a specially peculiar position because our whole doctrine concerning the creation is based entirely off the belief system that it is entirely and solely upt o the ontelligent workings of God as to why anything even exists, including nature itself. I find it interesting that those who truly know ID theory realize that ID theory doesn't directly attack evolution but rather the method of how it works. Specifically, ID cahllenges the theory that complex information can come from a series of unguided and random events. Here is a good analogy-

Suppose we were to come accross a funny story on the internet that was ten pages long. Our intelligence informs us as we read the story that it came from an intelligent source- some person's intellect. But if we were told that the story was written froma special computer program that randomly put words together we would not readily believe it. Our intelligence tells us that only sophistication begets sophistication. No computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own. In much the same way, our bodies are a series of highly sophisticated supercomputers- literally billions of them all networked together, and for the most part work pretty flawlessly most of the time. But not only does this network of computers write and decipher information, they are capable of astronomically incredible feats of micro engineering.

So, on that basis alone, I find it quite intriguing that we can't actually prove on any level how intelligent information can come about without there first being an intelligent cause driving it. Thats all ID is claiming- exactly what our scriptures are tryin to teach us all along- that in the beginning there was an intelligent source- GOD, and that through Him, we not only exist, but we are intelligently existing.

So when I hear of naming 5 things wrong with ID I have to laugh because you can't mock that which is so clearly and easily defined. There is living proof of ID in all aspects of nature. Nature itself is written language of intelligent networking by countless micro engineered and intelligent computers and biologic machines. Evolutionary science can't even figure out step one in a line of infinite steps. That first step is of course- figuring out how to create intelligence out of nothing in nature.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Agan science does not deal with God. I can not invoke God to demonstrate my science. God by definition is the Supernatural. Science only deals with the Natural. Science by defintion can neither support nor deny the existence of any God(s).

Let's make this real simple. Say you get a little cut on your finger. You can not demonstrate that God caused the bleeding to stop. But I can demonstrate it was the clotting factors in your blood that caused your finger to stop bleeding. Now; DID God stop the bleeding? Of course he can if he wanted to. But a better explanation is that he gave your body clotting factors, and the brains to put on a bandage.

That is nothing more than a variation on the watch on beech argument.

http://philofreligio.../paleyhume.html

That is nothing more than an appeal to the "God of the Gaps".

http://en.wikipedia....God_of_the_gaps

All that nothing can create is nothing.

No scientist that I know of claims that something came from nothing, and certainly no LDS that I know of claims that.

Evolutionary science is the explanation of how living organisms changed(evolved) AFTER life first appeared.

Edited November 25, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Feedom:

I count five arguements against Creationism/ID.

[Mariner]

Evolutionary science is the explanation of how living organisms changed (evolved) AFTER life first appeared.

Does this mean that you accept evolution, but not abiogenesis?

If you do not accept abiogenesis because of your religious belief, how is your position not based on a God of the gaps argument?

Edited November 25, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

Sorry - Double Post

Edited November 25, 2011 by Mariner

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

I can accept a God that uses all the sciences to achieve, including some we now know little to nothing about, his desired goal. IE; Abiogenesis.

[elguanteloko]

To quote a quote I heard today, " science progresses,one funeral at a time "

This is in reference to the difficulty in changing a paradigm that is fully entrenched.

If you read Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions you'll realize that paradigms are something quite necessary. Also, you are making it sound like if science did not progress before a change in paradigm and that is quite false. Don't you think there has been progress in physics since Quantum Mechanics? There hasn't been a revolution that shows QM as flawed but yet we have been making much progress all throughout using QM or following the paradigm in place in physics. Same with textual criticism or analytic philosophy, etc.

Edited November 25, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

It seems to me you're reading too much into the statement. It is the abandonment(death) of one idea, usually percipitated by the birth of a new idea, that make science work.

[elguanteloko]

People who properly understand ID know that the only threat to it is to prove that there is No God.

oh, boy! you are doing a disservice to ID here. ID, for example, does not say what the intelligent designer was at all and saying that those against it can only challenge it critiquing God's existence is to reduce the ID position to what they have been trying to appear they are not advocating (i.e. God).

But, as LDS, we are in a specially peculiar position because our whole doctrine concerning the creation is based entirely off the belief system that it is entirely and solely upt o the ontelligent workings of God as to why anything even exists, including nature itself.

God's existed before your God so, no. "Matter" also existed before God formed it into planets so, no, also. Also, "why anything exists" is NOT something that is answered by "because of God" because "God" is something. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is NOT answered by an appeal to God's grace because God is something and, I would imagine, you shouldn't just explain existence by an appeal to something that already exists.

I find it interesting that those who truly know ID theory realize that ID theory doesn't directly attack evolution but rather the method of how it works. Specifically, ID cahllenges the theory that complex information can come from a series of unguided and random events. Here is a good analogy-

Suppose we were to come accross a funny story on the internet that was ten pages long. Our intelligence informs us as we read the story that it came from an intelligent source- some person's intellect. But if we were told that the story was written froma special computer program that randomly put words together we would not readily believe it. Our intelligence tells us that only sophistication begets sophistication. No computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own. In much the same way, our bodies are a series of highly sophisticated supercomputers- literally billions of them all networked together, and for the most part work pretty flawlessly most of the time. But not only does this network of computers write and decipher information, they are capable of astronomically incredible feats of micro engineering.

So, on that basis alone, I find it quite intriguing that we can't actually prove on any level how intelligent information can come about without there first being an intelligent cause driving it. Thats all ID is claiming- exactly what our scriptures are tryin to teach us all along- that in the beginning there was an intelligent source- GOD, and that through Him, we not only exist, but we are intelligently existing.

Brother, seriously, you are NOT doing ID a favor here. Your 'analogy' doesn't even take natural selection into account or pretty much any factor besides randomness that makes evolutionary theory the powerful theory that it is. Humans didn't arise simply by molecules just randomly arranging in different ways until, kaboom! a human came to be.

BTW, in the previous quote I took from your post you wrote the following:

Our intelligence tells us that only sophistication begets sophistication.

This is so extremely vague than anyone can agree with this, even those against your position. Again, no one is saying humans just popped into being from molecules moving around, brother.

No computer program has ever been made to create an actual and discernable new series of new information on it's own.

You couldn't be more wrong. Computers can create new information in the same way humans can. Computers can even create mathematical proofs never seen before and that look as creative as any human proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXhfEezJGE

This is the best IDvsEvolution debate I've seen in part because it shows how simple the issues at hand are that determine the differences between ID and modern Evolutionary theory:

Edited November 25, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Freedom]

Feedom:

I count five arguements against Creationism/ID.

1) Irreducable Complexity is part and parcel of the intelligent design political campaign. EVERY example that the Creationists have put forward as Irreducable Complexity has been proven to be false.

2) Creationist insist that there are no transitional species. Time and again this claim has been proven false.

3) To accept Creationism would make hash of biology and its dependent modern medicine.

4) The Discovery Institute is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body.

See; Wedge Document.

5) Creationism (Intelliegent Design) is rejected by every recognized scientific body in the world.

Point 1 & 2 are, to me, strong arguments against the theory. Point 3 is the reason why 1 & 2 are a problem. Point 5 is the scientific community’s reaction to points 1 & 2. Point 4 may be true but it should not have a bearing on the validity of the theories they put forward.

I am not trying to split hairs or to challenge your point; I think perhaps I didn’t ask the right question. What I meant to ask was what are the concepts put forward by this theory that are problematic.

I believe the issues that creationisits have with Darwin could be listed as follows:

1) Adam was the first man

2) The earth is 6,000 years old

3) God was in complete control and there could not have been any randomness to life

4) God created the species and placed them on the earth as explained in genesis.

5) Evolution says there is no God

I doubt I did an effective job of putting forward their defence but perhaps someone could do it more justice.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

It seems to me you're reading too much into the statement. It is the abandonment(death) of one idea, usually percipitated by the birth of a new idea, that make science work.

He didn't mean the death of an idea, if that was the case then he would have said nothing. He was talking about Kuhn's statement that it is the dying off of previous scientists who had a lifetime invested into a paradigm that allows for newer ones to arise, something I don't think is the case anymore but I'm granting him as much as possible since to do so is easier to show someone wrong when they are wrong.

[Cobalt-70]

It is especially odd considering the BOM basically gives an argument exactly like Paley's watchmaker analogy(which is pretty much the same as intelligent design).

But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator

These things did witness to the existence of a Supreme Creator to anyone alive before Isaac Newton, or at least someone after that time who was not aware of Newtonian physics. To the modern mind, however, the mere fact that planets have regular orbits does not testify to the existence of a god. It is god-neutral now. God is no longer required to keep planets in their orbits--since Newton, gravity relieves God of that responsibility.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Stargazer]

"Human laws' would include human understanding, it seems to me. The answer is because if you didn't, then you would be open to accepting ANYTHING that crosses your way. Why accept that A=A and A=/= not-A? Why not accept ANY crazy idea? The best we can do is not putting understanding aside with the excuse that, "Well, that doesn't apply to God because he is God."

Why? For the same reason it is wise to realize I'm not good even when I say I am if I'm not, and to check whether I am or not if you don't know whether I am or not.

There is a crucial distinction you aren't making and it is an often-made mistake by many folks. That God is able to do something does NOT mean it is morally permissible for him to do it. Otherwise is the might-makes-right mentality. God can torture children but that doesn't mean he should do it.

Also, I never understood why creating something all of a sudden, somehow, gives you the right to do whatever you want with it with impunity. If I create, somehow, a human being from dirt and stones, does this mean I can now torture and punish and treat this human in any way I want? That seems insane to me.

Once again, "It's His will" doesn't mean that's right and, "He could if He chose to" ALSO doesn't mean it is right. Bro, this is BASIC critical thinking, man, how can they not teach you this at church when it can (and often does) have disastrous consequences?

...well, if he controls everything then he can't really punish anyone with justice since he controlled our actions, also, can he? I'm surprised you can hold such a contradictory position to the most basic forms of freewill in Mormonism.

The problem with Cobalt70's comment/question, which is what I was responding to, (and here it is in all its glory):

The only place where random chance comes into play is in individual mutations. Do you think that God intentionally causes and controls mutations, almost all of which kill fetuses in the womb? Is God an abortionist? Does God intentionally cause cancer? Or is it more reasonable to believe that mutations are caused by random things like background radiation, ultraviolet light, and environmental chemicals?

is simply that it is a pack of semantic illogicalities. I was responding in kind.

The fact of the matter is you and he are trying to judge the eternal using the temporal. Your comment

Also, I never understood why creating something all of a sudden, somehow, gives you the right to do whatever you want with it with impunity.

makes it abundantly clear that you are attempting to do so as well.

Let's shift the argument slightly and put it into a comparison that is more apt for the case.

If you, elguanteloko, were a farmer, and had a barnyard with chickens, pigs, cows, and so forth, you would be entering the chicken coop daily and taking newly-laid eggs for your breakfast, and to sell in the market, and some you would permit to be nurtured by the hens until they hatched, just so that you were able to ensure the future of the flock. When too many of the young chicks were male, you would at some point sell a few to someone who needed a rooster, castrate some of them to prevent them from challenging the primacy of the existing rooster, and raise them especially for consumption. Your hens would only be killed and eaten when their productive lives were over). The same would apply to the cows, except in this case your product was milk instead of eggs. Your pigs would of course be raised solely for meat. You would prevent all of these animals from interfering with each other, of course, so far as you were able. Say you had a hen who was a really mean one, and she was constantly attacking the other hens and putting them off their egg production. Likely as not you would remove her from the flock and have her for dinner.

In all of this, you would be life-and-death for all these animals, and at no time would you ever look at yourself and suddenly realize that you were a slavemaster and a murderer. Cobalt70's assertion that the impact of a cosmic ray with someone's DNA strand is all so very random and out of God's control is absolutely farcical. If God isn't perfectly aware of things down to this level, and cannot control things there, then God can't know or control anything.

Now, getting back to God's morality, which is what you are attempting to deal with, nothing stops God from killing you outright, except Himself. Does He have a reason for not doing so? Sure, lots. In fact, I am sure you will agree that He restrains Himself quite well. The thing is, God must be and is capable of wrongdoing. He must be! He has perfect freedom of action: He's God, for crying out loud. But what is wrongdoing, from His point of view? It is clearly not an act of wrongdoing to kill Ananias and Saphira, for the crime of lying to Peter and by extension to Him. It is also clearly not an act of wrongdoing to kill that soldier who attempted to steady the Ark of the Covenant. I say that it isn't, because as Nephi intimated, God could in fact cease to be God under some circumstances. I'd say that He is perfectly aware of what those circumstances are, and is perfectly capable of avoiding them. He's had at least 15 billion years to prove that He's capable of it.

The thing is, God is guiding human history. He's guiding it in such as way that He has already written down what will happen in the end days; it's found in the Book of Revelation. How is he guiding it? Well, I don't claim an over-abundance of knowledge of this, but the fact that you are still alive means that your life is onctributing towards the fulfillment of the end events He has ordained. If your death would serve that fulfillment rather than your life, then you would die. Of cancer, of an autombile accident, or of some other cause. The same applies to me. He will keep out of the limelight on this, but He must be the Ultimate Cause, otherwise He is not God.

The difference between the chickens and the hogs and the cattle and you and me is simply this: we are the Children of God. He has raised us up to see what will do with our lives, and to see whether we will be suitable for raising up to be His heirs. Whether we live or whether we die is of no importance, because the part of us that is important will live on, and will eventually be restored to a perfect and immortal physical frame. What is important, however, is how we have lived, and whether we have accepted the sacrifice of His beloved Son. We will not be forced to do so, but we will have the opportunity, and that choice and the other choices that grow out of it will determine what happens to us in the end. Because in the end it will be our own choices which will govern. He will not be arbitrary; if we are worthy we will receive what He has promised. If we have not been, then we will receive lesser rewards. But it will be of our own free will and choice.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Stargazer