24 Observations on the Intelligent Design versus Macro Evolution debate

patsullivan.com/blog ^ | June 28, 2007 | Pat Sullivan

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Ex-Pralite Monk]

Darwinism is a atheist construct and is NOT accepted by the faithful.

The Mr. Ken Hamm of "Answers in Genesis" came to my church several months ago, stood at the podium, and said the exact same thing. He also said that the world was created in six literal, sunrise-to-sunset, days. He also said that if you add up all the begats in the old testament, it points to a world that is less than 10,000 years old. He finished with saying if you don't believe the literal interpretation of Genesis, why believe the literal interpretation of John 3:16?

It worked. I haven't been to church since. I don't know if there is a God, or if there is, what form It is in, but I know this: I'm done. If I have to choose between reading a science book or reading the Bible, I'll take the science book every time.

The sad thing is, no one goes to church to find out how old the universe is. They go in order to associate with some decent people, and to feel as if they are a part of something larger. (At least I did.) If the tenets of Christianity can be invalidated by a proven scientific theory, then Christianity (as currently defined) is doomed.

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for posting. There is a lot of content, and it was thoughtfully written. My logic class contained a section on informal fallacies, and Sullivan addresses some of them. He spends a fair amount of time noting and arguing against the ad hominem attack. It is a shame these “attacks against the man” are so common in these debates. Sullivan was right to take this on upfront and at length. Again, it is a shame that Sullivan was compelled to address this.

Another fallacy is the genetic fallacy: the fallacy that an argument should be accepted, or rejected, based upon it’s source. I think Sullivan dispatches this one too. Not everyone gets this wrong. The Hidden History of the Human Race is written by Cremo and Thompson, who acknowledge they have a Vedic background. But as they say “What really matters is not a theory’s source but its ability to account for the observations.”

Here is something more advanced:

Everyone brings bias to their arguments, conscious or unconscious, and bias in and of itself is not wrong -- hidden bias is what's wrong.

I think he is absolutely right and many people should take this to heart.

Sullivan notes the bias of some evolutionists who must find a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence.

Sullivan distances himself from creationists. But one of the best and most refreshing admissions of bias that I’ve seen was at a creationist (some say “creation science”) website. The author addressed the age of the universe and freely admitted that his religious understanding gave him the answer - now to the science. He came up with several approaches and evaluated each, pro and con. I remember one approach had the speed of light changing over time. That struck me as sheer conjecture. But so does the idea of multiverses, and other cosmological speculation that some are given credence by some.

[ChessExpert]

I have never heard of any atheist who "believes in" ID.

Nor I, in this context. An atheist who denied evolution would seem to have no explanation for the life about us.

The search for extraterrestial intelligence (SETI) includes the search for signals that display intelligence, signals that are intelligently designed. That too is ID. I expect many SETI enthusiasts are atheists. If so, atheists have no problem with ID as long as the field is SETI and not biology.

To me, intelligent design should be no more controversial than natural selection. If I were to find cupid’s heart and “Bobby loves Sandy” on a sandy beach, I would infer intelligent design, and would reject the tide as an explanation. The idea that a soot filled era would favor black cats, or a snowy environment might favor white cats, seems like common sense and natural selection would be a highly plausible hypothesis.

[Coyoteman]

An evolutionist has no logical basis for morality. It’s about morality more than theology.

Actually it's about science -- you know, facts and well-supported theories and all that.

[ROTB]

>There’s only one flaw in that interpretation...they start
>with the answer and work backwards to find the appropriate
>question to ask. They’ve defined the math to fit the idea
>that they were trying to describe much like the global
>warming alarmists do (ref: hockey stick). You can make the
>data fit the observations if you try hard enough and
>manipulate enough. You can’t conclude anything like this
>from a book as vague as the bible. Sorry but it just doesn’t
>work that way.

The math for all three prophecies works without violence being done to the language of the Bible.

Please support your assertion by naming exactly where the writer of the article, “defined the math to fit the idea that they were trying to describe”.

[AntiKev]

Over 2,500 years ago, the history of a country and a city were foretold and documented accurately to within days of modern events that took place within the last 50 years.

The accuracy of the calculations is complete conjecture as evidenced by the following:

The prophet Jeremiah around 600 BC predicted that because the Jews were turning away from God to idol worship and other Gods he would punish them for 70 years under Babylonian captivity

Around is the historians term for within a few hundred years. The source he cites for the 360 day year is himself. But it could have just as easily been the aforementioned 354 day year.

So basically it starts with a false premise and works from there. I still contend that the bible is so vague that I could come to another date with another set of equally valid assumptions. I don't have time right now to go into this any further. Maybe later.

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ I know all those documents ~ you are in error. Many of them draw on the same source as the Bible.

[muawiyah]

BTW, in a universe with at least 11 full dimensions, only 4 of which we can directly sense, there's no doubt there's a lot of stuff going on right under our noses we don't know about, nor even suspect.

[RightWhale]

Marketing science: The list should be a bullet list following the seven plus, or minus two rule.

[ChessExpert]

There is no conclusive evidence either way right now...

O.K.

but I will point out a quote that I posted in another ID/Evolution thread earlier:
“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.”
- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

Now we’ve jumped away from intelligent design and Darwinian, or some other, theory of evolution right into theology. I find that an odd thing to do.

The quote, presumably your thinking as well, contains an assertion that “God expects his creatures to pick one true religion by faith.” What is the basis for that? I have not heard it before.

It is true that there are many religions. Some take this as disproof of religion. There are also many versions of evolution but that is taken as support for evolution. Perhaps anyone who takes a complex topic, or field, seriously will be able to discern non-trivial differences of opinion. Those who do not take the topic seriously can use these differences as an opportunity to mock the field or domain. I’ve done this myself in challenging global warmng. It went something like this. In the 70’s you predicted doom from global cooling, now you predict doom from global warming, make up your mind. This technique may be valid to the point of challenging dogmatism. But I think rejecting religion, evolution, climate study, or anything else, in its entirety simply because there are differences of opinion is mistaken. It’s dogmatism that I reject. I welcome differences of opinion. I take them as a positive sign.

[ROTB]

>>The prophet Jeremiah around 600 BC predicted that because
>>the Jews were turning away from God to idol worship and
>>other Gods he would punish them for 70 years under
>>Babylonian captivity

>Around is the historians term for within a few hundred
>years. The source he cites for the 360 day year is himself.

Whatever “around” means, the Old Testament was finished long before the birth of Christ, and we know this because of the many ancient authors that quote the Old Testament. You can’t quote what doesn’t exist. Thus, the prophecies were all demonstrably in written form long before the subject matters they dealt with came to pass.

The sources he cites for the 360 day year are Genesis 7, Genesis 8, Esther 1, and Isaac Newton (yes, Mr. Gravity/Calculus Isaac Newton), not himself.

Get back to me when you have time sir. This is worth 100 hours of your life spent in investigation.

[Jeff Gordon]

The concept of ID should be addressed, not the other beliefs of it's proponents.

I was addressing a specific argument made by the author of the lead posting.

Why do yo wish to see it as an attack on ID?

[Jeff Gordon]

Your evidence against evolution comes from campfire stories told by bronze age men? Surely you jest.

[Jeff Gordon]

The idea that a soot filled era would favor black cats, or a snowy environment might favor white cats, seems like common sense and natural selection would be a highly plausible hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is very simple you can agree with it. If the hypothesis gets complex beyond your ability to analyze it, you think that God must have done it.

[ChessExpert]

You think you know a lot about me! LOL.

[ROTB]

>Your evidence against evolution comes from campfire stories
>told by bronze age men? Surely you jest.

I don’t jest ... and stop calling me Shirley.

Those “stories” predict the future, and only God can do that. Such accurate predictions don’t appear in the Koran or any other “holy book”.

[Jeff Gordon]

Those “stories” predict the future, and only God can do that.

What do these stories say about Hillary? Is she really the anti-Christ? I have heard that she has the number of the beast tattooed onto her labia.

[AntiKev]

I agree completely that we should reject dogmatism. It does noone any good. None at all. I think that we should all be open to both sides of the argument and refute eachother’s arguments with the facts as we know them. End of story.

As for spending 100 hours investigating this. Sorry but that’s just not in the cards. There are much more pressing matters. I will say this though, this whole “paper” wreaks of circular logic. And you can’t deny that he starts with a conclusion and then draws his “facts” from that. You may be able to prove exactly what he said, but do the proof properly. Don’t look for an answer, and then invent facts to support it.

I know very well that my viewpoint is a lonely one here on FR, but it’s much needed. This religious dogmatism is one thing that the left likes to harp on about conservatives. It just doesn’t help our cause.

[Alamo-Girl]

Interesting article. Thanks for the ping!