I have started reading John Lennox's book and have finished the preface which I thought was a fantastic introduction. The preface went on to distinguish between the different terms of use and their meaning. For example he noted that "Intelligent Design" is confusing when discussing about a "Designer" of the universe because it is a shorthand these days for "crypto-creationism". He suggested that "intelligent causation" or "design" is a better term because the meaning of intelligent design is tainted.
BathTub and I ran into this problem before. I had to explain that I meant literally "intelligent design" and not a movement.
An interesting paragraph:
"The oft repeated question whether intelligent design is science can be rather misleading, certainly if we understand the term 'intelligent design' in its original sense. Suppose we were to ask the parallel question: Is theism science? Is atheism science? Most people would give a negative answer. But if we were now to say that what we are really interested in is whether there is any scientific evidence for theism (or for atheism), then we are likely to be faced with the reply: Why, then did you not say so?
One way to make sense of the question whether (intelligent) design is science or not is to reinterpret it as: Is there any scientific evidence for design? If this is how the question should be understood, then it should be expressed accordingly in order to avoid confusion".
Hmmmm,
Onto chapter one.
DP
P.S. I am not trying to do reviews of the book but I like to share what I think is...cool :)
I actually just posted on my blog an article about the importance of Intelligent Design for many of the great scientists in history such as Newton. It's basically a link to a 20 minute video, but it's something you might enjoy.
ReplyDeleteBack to the topic at hand, if your "scientific evidence" for the existence of God is universally unaccepted by the scientific community, it doesn't sound like very good evidence at all.
Back to the topic at hand, if your "scientific evidence" for the existence of God is universally unaccepted by the scientific community, it doesn't sound like very good evidence at all.
ReplyDeleteSince when did the popular say mean that the popular say was always correct?
Galileo would disagree with you there.
10 oranges on the ground under a orange tree, they are in line. Is this evidence for a designer?
Simple.
Do we look out for intelligent signals from out of space? Why would we do such a thing if it were not considered evidence of a designer of intelligent signals.
cheers
Since when did the popular say mean that the popular say was always correct?
ReplyDeleteGalileo would disagree with you there.
This exception that breaks the rule of argumentum ad populum. Unlike Galileo, scientists today would eagerly accept an intelligent designer if that's what the evidence pointed to.
Similarly, the consensus of experts commands attention. Creationism is not a new hypothesis, it has been evaluated and rejected from the scientific realm, even by the majority of Christian scientists.
While true that all the experts could be wrong, how likely is that? Do you honestly think that scientists who spend their whole life studying biology and evolution would be so stupid as to completely misunderstand well-understood processes? Would they be so blind as to not find fault with evolution and find evidence of an intelligent designer even though that would certainly win them a Noobel prize if they were correct?
Come on now...
10 oranges on the ground under a orange tree, they are in line. Is this evidence for a designer?
You could make a case either way depending on other circumstances.
Do we look out for intelligent signals from out of space? Why would we do such a thing if it were not considered evidence of a designer of intelligent signals.
Biologists HAVE searched for evidence for an intelligent designer; it's just not there, and our genetic code confirms common ancestry. Before you state the "common designer" argument, you should know about endogenous retroviruses (ERVs).
ERVs are viruses that pass their genetic data to the next generation by inserting themselves into the host's gennome. This happens at a fairly predictable and uncommon rate. There are 90,000 fragments and elements of ERVs in the human genome. It's very uncommon to get and pass down an ERV.
So, first, there haven't even been 90,000 generations in 6 to 12,000 years, so that destroys YEC argument right there.
Secondly, the chances of two ERVs embedding themselves into the same spot in the genome in two different species is about 1 in 2 billion. But guess what happens when scientists compare ERVs of different species?
That's right, they match up exactly predicted by common descent. For example, humans and chimpanzees share more ERVs than humans and whales. Think about this, about 90,000 ERVs in chimps match up exactly with about 90,000 ERVs in humans. Given that there's a 1 in 2 billion chance that any two ERVs would infect two separate hosts in the same place, the conclusion is inescapable.
We are related.
I don't have much time at the moment and will be away fro the weekend but here are a few thoughts:
ReplyDeleteCreationism is not a new hypothesis, it has been evaluated and rejected from the scientific realm, even by the majority of Christian scientists.
The point of this post is about defining what terms mean. Creationism carries many different meanings. God's hand in evolution, God's hand in just the laws of the universe, God's hand completely and no macro-evolution..the list goes on.
Would they be so blind as to not find fault with evolution and find evidence of an intelligent designer even though that would certainly win them a Noobel prize if they were correct?
Scientists who believe in God have won nobels.
You are describing an either or scenario... creation with God or evolution without God. Don't forget other views.
You could make a case either way depending on other circumstances.
Thank you for admitting that there is such thing as evidence for design without "tasting" "touching" "smelling" hearing" or "seeing" the designer.
I am assuming you wouldn't say "Look ten oranges in a line! I won't accept they are designed until I find the designer".
The oranges could have happened by "random" chance or unguided happenings but it is highly unlikely...why? because it is complex/arranged.
Biologists HAVE searched for evidence for an intelligent designer; it's just not there, and our genetic code confirms common ancestry
Um, slight misunderstanding..I was talking about people searching for other civilizations out in "space" in the universe.
I am saying simply, why look for intelligent information/signals (from aliens or whatever) out in space if we will not accept "ordered evidence" as evidence of a designer.
cya,
DP
Scientists who believe in God have won nobels.
ReplyDeleteYou are describing an either or scenario... creation with God or evolution without God. Don't forget other views.
Name a single biology based Nobel prize winner in the last 100 years that was a creationist. Sure many have believed in a God in some sort or another (although the ratio right now is 85% of distinguished scientists don't believe in God), but how many would dispute the theory of evolution by naturalistic means? Note: Saying evolution was a part God's plan doesn't count because they are still admitting that it occurred by itself without intervention. See theistic evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Dr. Francis Collins, a devoted Christian and founder of the human genome project, wrote a book entitled, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." For everything outside of biology, he makes a god of the gaps / fine tuning argument. He even argues that God started life. But when it comes to his relevant field, he adamantly opposes creationism in all forms.
There's not a single reputable creationist biologist (although I'm sure you can find "biologists" who graduated from or work at Patriot University or some diploma mill).
In fact, I'm pretty sure that being a creationist and a biologist in a reputable university is grounds for being fired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7619670.stm
I am assuming you wouldn't say "Look ten oranges in a line! I won't accept they are designed until I find the designer".
Actually, I've seen pictures of perfectly formed stone circles. If you didn't know that they were caused by the permafrost, you would have sworn they were man-made.
You do, however, need to touch, see, taste, whatever to determine if a specific person exists. You can infer from birth records, and maybe even finger prints, but in each case you need to have physical evidence of their existence.
I am saying simply, why look for intelligent information/signals (from aliens or whatever) out in space if we will not accept "ordered evidence" as evidence of a designer.
Because we find nothing in nature that couldn't have formed itself from entire planets to you and me.
Ordered design turns up all the time in nature. Look at a snowflake under a microscope and you'll see what I mean. But is it logical to conclude that the snowflake was created by an intelligent agent? Of course not.
=================
Read what I wrote about ERVs! It's a mouthful, I know, but it completely discounts any sort of creation model. Seriously, the only creationist response to ERVs is that "God put viral DNA in our genome!" Come on... Creation Wiki says that some ERVs (note: 90,000 for humans) were designed to embed themselves in the same place as in the genome as other animals.
Show me a single example of an ERV that embeds itself in the same place in multiple species' genome and maybe we'll talk. But like usual, creationists just make stuff up without any evidence.
I found this and thought of you. It's a list of natural formations that look man-made.
ReplyDeletehttp://webecoist.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/
Oh, and here's a page with a picture permafrost stone circles I was talking about. It's the top picture. I am assuming you wouldn't say "Look stones in a circle! they must have had a designer!".
http://www.npolar.no/geonet/items-picture-atlas/p_a_sv_03.html
Hey there DM
ReplyDeleteDr. Francis Collins, a devoted Christian and founder of the human genome project, wrote a book entitled, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." For everything outside of biology, he makes a god of the gaps / fine tuning argument. He even argues that God started life. But when it comes to his relevant field, he adamantly opposes creationism in all forms.
Can you imagine why he accepts that God created life and didn't guide it? could he have seen design?
(I have not read his book)
Just because macro-evolution might be true does not mean that the universe "evolved".
You do, however, need to touch, see, taste, whatever to determine if a specific person exists. You can infer from birth records, and maybe even finger prints, but in each case you need to have physical evidence of their existence.
I think you are stretching my point here. I would believe in a designer if I saw evidence until otherwise.
I take what I consider as the best conclusion.
You imply that you will not believe in a designer unless you could test the designer.
Regarding the snowflake analogy...I can see the point you are trying to make. However it is flawed.
Why does the snowflake appear designed?
Hint: What makes up a snowflake in order to make it look designed?
Answer:
Ordered laws of science.
Where did that order come from? Did all the right forces and temperatures and chemical mixes all become compatible all by themselves or did someone assemble the laws in order to let it run its ordered course of formation?
Order assembles order. Dis-order does not assemble order...except by fluke :)
Just because macro-evolution might be true does not mean that the universe "evolved".
ReplyDeleteYou're right. But we know the universe "evolved" and how it "evolved" over time because we have some handy dandy machines that allow us to look into the past.
I would believe in a designer if I saw evidence until otherwise.
That's not the way science works. You don't accept an idea as fact until it''s proven false. It's the exact opposite. You don't accept an idea as fact until you have evidence to back up your claim. The claim also has to be falsifiable. Please explain how one would falsify the claim that God created plants and animals.
Since we're on the subject, one of the ways religious people weasel their way out of having to have their beliefs tested by science is by making their god unfalsifiable.
Did all the right forces and temperatures and chemical mixes all become compatible all by themselves or did someone assemble the laws in order to let it run its ordered course of formation?
Order assembles order. Dis-order does not assemble order...except by fluke :)
Please look up "emergence" in a science textbook or encyclopedia.
Please look up "emergence" in a science textbook or encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteI looked it up on wiki...the point?
I think you are missing mine.
Please explain how one would falsify the claim that God created plants and animals.
Hmmm, we have been just talking about that. Well, I suppose there could be irreducible complexity. There could be the fossil record that suggests a progressive creation rather than an evolution (Looking at the whole of geological history).
But yes, you cannot prove that God is real. Neither can you prove that God is not real.
(The point of John Lennox's book is to bring evidence for or against atheism and theism...I have got a copy if you would like one. I'll get it to you for free.)
You don't accept an idea as fact until it''s proven false. It's the exact opposite. You don't accept an idea as fact until you have evidence to back up your claim. The claim also has to be falsifiable.
So, back to the oranges...what if you could not find any evidence regarding who did it?
I couldn't say that it was designed because that would not be falsifiable.
All the scientists could be scratching the ground for ages and find nothing and still reject that it was made.
Are you asking me to do that?
You don't accept an idea as fact until it''s proven false
Firstly no science can ever be proven. We only speak of evidence.
That is what I am concerned with is evidence and taking the best answer concerning it. As science shows that a house cannot form itself except by intelligent design...what if life could not be started without intelligent design?
There is always a first step of faith and I have taken that with God. Your step of faith is that this world/universe was not made and there is no underlying purpose or mind behind it. I don't have that kind of faith.
Would you accept the best conclusion until otherwise or would you continue to grasp at straws, denying the "obvious answer"?...as Anthony Flew puts it.
My belief in God is drawn from science but not only that but His work in my life and His message through His Word.
But we know the universe "evolved" and how it "evolved" over time because we have some handy dandy machines that allow us to look into the past.
You do? Like what caused the big bang?
How did the earth position itself just the right distance from the sun in order to have life? Why are all the weak and strong forces so good for having life?
DP
P.S.
By the way, thanks for sharing the info bits on mutations. It is always good to bounce off ideas off of each other.
How did the earth position itself just the right distance from the sun in order to have life?
ReplyDeleteTwo planets in our solar system alone fell into the goldilocks zone. Both had / have life on it. The habitable zone is pretty expansive.
Why are all the weak and strong forces so good for having life?
You could easily tweak the strong and weak nuclear forces and still have life. You could also tweak magnetism all you want. Gravity can be also tweaked. Many of the forces are actually linked together, and changing one changes others. In any respect, there's a fairly large range of value for initial constants which would form a stable Universe with stars and planets.
I don't know why the forces are the way they are, but assuming they were made that way for you is a huge assumption and a very egotistical thing to believe much akin to geocentrism.
If you want to talk about fine tuning, if the Universe was made for us, why is 99.99% of it uninhabitable? Why is life incredibly rare? If God is omnipotent, why does the Universe have to be fine tuned anyway? What's the point of all the billions upon billions of stars? Why are we located around a unremarkable star in the boondocks of an unremarkable galaxy? Why are there radioactive materials that cause cancer? Why does the Sun shine UV radiation which can burn your skin or cause skin cancer? Why are there earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, and other natural disasters that kill millions of people if the planet was fine tuned for our existence? I could go on, and on, and on...
I could go on, and on, and on...
ReplyDeleteSo could I :)
if the Universe was made for us, why is 99.99% of it uninhabitable
Why does an artist make art?
Why is life incredibly rare?
Why should life be incredibly common?
If God is omnipotent, why does the Universe have to be fine tuned anyway?
He made a world that had free will and could run its own course.
What's the point of all the billions upon billions of stars?
Why does an artist make art?
Why are we located around a unremarkable star in the boondocks of an unremarkable galaxy?
To keep us humble?
Why are there earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, and other natural disasters that kill millions of people if the planet was fine tuned for our existence?
We get caught up in them, it is a consequence of our sinful nature. I am glad that God is unfair toward us. If He were fair then we should all be consumed by them by now.
Now the topic has radically changed...
Two planets in our solar system alone fell into the goldilocks zone. Both had / have life on it. The habitable zone is pretty expansive.
ReplyDeleteWhich two planets?
Earth and Mars?
Earth and Mars?
ReplyDeleteYeah.
Interesting discussion! I've written my own review of God's Undertaker here: http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.com/2011/10/book-review-gods-undertaker.html
ReplyDeleteMy focus is on the accuracy and honesty of Lennox's claims. Thoughts welcome.
Hey Geoff,
ReplyDeleteI had a quick read over your write up on the book. Clearly you have a better understanding of the situations at hand than I, but I can give my two pence.
After reading your write up, I would be interested in hearing replies from the author that is being critiqued as often misunderstandings arise. (As you well know)
I am surprised he put in there that Anthony Flew is a theist. I also understand that he is a deist, I highly doubt that it was willful misleading on Lennox's part.
Do you have any more... positive comments or were you just lemon picking which we all love to do? :D
cheers,
DP
P.S. Looking at some of these old comments... sorry but, since when did Mars have life on it!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars#Cosmic_radiation