God and Science

[Conundrum]

TWIMC,

Although I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about the current group of ideas which have gained the moniker Intelligent Design, the concept troubles me both as a Christian and as a rational person. My understanding of God as creator is that, as an infinitely powerful, wise, and creative being, He is completely capable of creating a perfect universal system. In our universe (or any other universe of His creation) God acts by choice and not by necessity. The concept of irreducible complexity and the larger idea of Intelligent Design imply that God is not capable of forming a Universe in which all the wonderful creations can evolve completely naturally. This idea diminishes our understanding of God in a way I believe is wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says God intervened in the universe prior to the emergence of human beings. With us He acts by choice because we are the reason for his creating the universe in the first place. The Bible tells man we are God’s special creation. Now, a rather surprising conclusion we can take from the current scientific understanding of how the universe works is that Homo sapiens (or, man as proxy for all the intelligent life in the universe) are, in fact, unique in the universe in our ability to create with deliberate purpose.

Humans have increased the complexity rate of change in the Universe with the many, many millions of new things we have invented in just a few thousand years. The random creative process which is ubiquitous in the rest of nature, while necessary, is horribly inefficient; deliberate human invention increases the efficiency of the creative process by a huge factor. For example, our invented improvements to optical acuity – microscopes and telescopes – have exceeded the creative rate of natural evolution by a factor of about a quintillion. This inventive power makes us unique.

We represent a chaotic divergence in the natural universe which significantly increases the creative potential of the whole system. My conclusion is that, in our universe, God employed a supremely intelligent design in his effort to produce unique creative beings through a completely natural evolutionary process. Whether the participants realize it or not, it seems that science and the Bible are in agreement over humanity’s status in the universe. For any beliefs to be true, they must be consistent with what our rational minds tell us. God and science must agree. I would love to get opinions about whether my view is reasonable. Take Care.

Dave Paist

[Jac3510]

IOW,

• As tempting as it may often be, it is a mistake to consider the failure of science to explain something as a proof of God's work. Such failures are nothing more or less than a demonstration of how far science has progressed, and a pointer to where some progress still needs to be made. Believing in a great creator means not doubting the quality of His creation. It is ironic that we often try to prove the existence of God by claims that essentially say He isn't such a great creator

Taken from here.

For the record, I'm not a HUGE fan of ID arguments. I go back and forth on it. Sometimes, I find them effective. Other times, I find them awful. I think it depends on which author I've most recently read! In any case, I find classical arguments far more persuasive. Certainly their method is better. *shrug*

[FlawedIntellect]

I would like to add that the Intelligent Design view does NOT deny God's ability to create through evolutionary process to enact his will. Rather, it denies that evolution is the method God chose to use. The question is on the history of God's method of creating, not on his ability. It doesn't follow that just because he could create that way, that he did create that way.

Okay? God's creation was an act of will. Yes, he didn't have to, but he chose to.

I don't find the ID position as a whole to be in any way limiting or diminishing God's creative ability. It's a question of "what happened, and how did it happen", not a question of "how powerful is God"?

If anything, I think of God more as an artist than an engineer, caring more about creating an environment of rules to express his creativity, and creating more to capture wonder, awe, and fascination than efficiency. Life is functional living art, not necessarily an exercise in creating efficiency. While yes, there are many life forms that have remarkable efficiency in how their bodies work, this isn't the case with every creature. I like to think of God as being both rational and passionate in mind, and that we've inherited these qualities from Him by our being made in his likeness. (And why we can admire and appreciate beauty in nature.)

My apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent there.

[crochet1949]

Since you brought up God as more of an artist than an engineer. Consider -- bees / birds etc have been flying a Lot longer than it took man to figure out aerodynamics / how to get a plane to fly. And a catipillar has been changing into beautiful butterflies ever since God created them to be able to. As far as I know -- science Still hasn't figured that out. And God also created the cell -- that's Not a simply structure -- lots of engineering necessary for all the mechanisms to work together
All the various kinds of animals -- all the inner systems working together to allow life. And Our systems -- Lots that work together -- our amazing brain. Ability to learn / speak various languages / memory / recall.
Yes, If God hadn't Chosen to create -- nothing and no one would be here.

[melanie]

The artist uses his paints, brush and canvas to create.
God is the ultimate creative genius.
He created and embodies everything. Architecting every stroke.
He is the colours, the paints, the brush, the canvas and the artist.
He didn't just create, He is creation.

[TheQuestor]

I would like to add that the Intelligent Design view does NOT deny God's ability to create through evolutionary process to enact his will. Rather, it denies that evolution is the method God chose to use. The question is on the history of God's method of creating, not on his ability. It doesn't follow that just because he could create that way, that he did create that way.

Okay? God's creation was an act of will. Yes, he didn't have to, but he chose to.

I don't find the ID position as a whole to be in any way limiting or diminishing God's creative ability. It's a question of "what happened, and how did it happen", not a question of "how powerful is God"?

If anything, I think of God more as an artist than an engineer, caring more about creating an environment of rules to express his creativity, and creating more to capture wonder, awe, and fascination than efficiency. Life is functional living art, not necessarily an exercise in creating efficiency. While yes, there are many life forms that have remarkable efficiency in how their bodies work, this isn't the case with every creature. I like to think of God as being both rational and passionate in mind, and that we've inherited these qualities from Him by our being made in his likeness. (And why we can admire and appreciate beauty in nature.)

My apologies for going off on a bit of a tangent there.

Actually there are new ID arguments, that simply state that evolution, is a creation of God, as evolution clearly happens on a certain level, however evolution can only happen once life is there to evolve. This is current Catholic teaching, I know that not all believe in this, but it seems plausible to me.

[abelcainsbrother]

What I don't like about intelligent design is first that any religion can use it as Muslims use it too against evolutionists.Also it just Polks holes in evolution and accepts a certain amount of evolution.The Gap theory would be way more effective as evolutionists would have serious competition for the thoughts and minds of man when they cannot demonstrate life evolves and then the truth is told about how the evidence of an old heavens and earth and all of the evidence in the earth has been looked at all wrong because of evolution and yet science cannot demonstrate life evolves.We cannot just reject or Polk holes in evolution it is time to pull out the big guns as Christians and expose evolution and explain what the evidence really proves.If young earth creationists can debate evolutionists to a draw the Gap theory would defeat evolution.But most important God's word would be proven true and those who were deceived by evolution will realize it,only the most diehard evolutionists would remain and we could reach scientific minded people with the gospel of Jesus.

[Kurieuo]

There is nothing wrong with Intelligent Design properly understood.
Meyer and Dembski I think are great thinkers if you listen to them or read their books.

People react to ID as smuggling in creation.
The "umbrella" is so big that people have done this (against the wishes of the Discovery Institute).
Likewise, those "under the umbrella" don't think they're pushing creation enough. Not coming out with models, etc.
BUT, ID was never really about creation.

What becomes clear to me in the debate, is the deep philosophical bias that exists within the sciences that can hinder truth.
That is, we must only accept answers that are non-intelligent when it comes to "God-like intelligence" even if the evidence appears to suggest such.
The crickets go silent, when asked "if God really does exist, what kind of features would we expect to see?"

This is a fair question is it not?
Even if you deny specified or irreducible complexity as valid features of something that has been intelligently designed.
Surely there are generic signs of intelligence one can draw from CSI or via an examination of Mt Rushmore?
BUT, the question is seen as unfair because God doesn't exist and philosophical conclusions in or based upon scientific work should not even entertain such.
YET, it is perfectly alright to constantly draw philosophical conclusions based upon "it not being designed" when doing science even if such might stunt progress.

Scientific progress can be stunted when it is just assumed something is not designed (e.g., "Junk DNA").
Scientific progress is also stunted when it is just assumed something is designed.
In other words, scientific progress is stunted the moment one excludes fuller possibilities of truth due to their philosophies.

Science is just about examining the world, it should never be about accepting certain explanations about the world that conform to one's philosophical views.
Whether or not you agree, THAT is what I take away directly from those like Meyer and Dembski rather than from second hand critical sources.

[TheQuestor]

What I don't like about intelligent design is first that any religion can use it as Muslims use it too against evolutionists.Also it just Polks holes in evolution and accepts a certain amount of evolution.The Gap theory would be way more effective as evolutionists would have serious competition for the thoughts and minds of man when they cannot demonstrate life evolves and then the truth is told about how the evidence of an old heavens and earth and all of the evidence in the earth has been looked at all wrong because of evolution and yet science cannot demonstrate life evolves.We cannot just reject or Polk holes in evolution it is time to pull out the big guns as Christians and expose evolution and explain what the evidence really proves.If young earth creationists can debate evolutionists to a draw the Gap theory would defeat evolution.But most important God's word would be proven true and those who were deceived by evolution will realize it,only the most diehard evolutionists would remain and we could reach scientific minded people with the gospel of Jesus.

Many people see it clearly, that either God created everything, or that evolution created everything. My religion Catholicism, believes in evolution, as evolution can only happen, after life exist, to evolve, so really there is no issue, or problem with this, as evolution actually necessitates God. Evolutionist are well aware of this, and have no answers.

[abelcainsbrother]

There is nothing wrong with Intelligent Design properly understood.
Meyer and Dembski I think are great thinkers if you listen to them or read their books.

People react to ID as smuggling in creation.
The "umbrella" is so big that people have done this (against the wishes of the Discovery Institute).
Likewise, those "under the umbrella" don't think they're pushing creation enough. Not coming out with models, etc.
BUT, ID was never really about creation.

What becomes clear to me in the debate, is the deep philosophical bias that exists within the sciences that can hinder truth.
That is, we must only accept answers that are non-intelligent when it comes to "God-like intelligence" even if the evidence appears to suggest such.
The crickets go silent, when asked "if God really does exist, what kind of features would we expect to see?"

This is a fair question is it not?
Even if you deny specified or irreducible complexity as valid features of something that has been intelligently designed.
Surely there are generic signs of intelligence one can draw from CSI or via an examination of Mt Rushmore?
BUT, the question is seen as unfair because God doesn't exist and philosophical conclusions in or based upon scientific work should not even entertain such.
YET, it is perfectly alright to constantly draw philosophical conclusions based upon "it not being designed" when doing science even if such might stunt progress.

Scientific progress can be stunted when it is just assumed something is not designed (e.g., "Junk DNA").
Scientific progress is also stunted when it is just assumed something is designed.
In other words, scientific progress is stunted the moment one excludes fuller possibilities of truth due to their philosophies.

Science is just about examining the world, it should never be about accepting certain explanations about the world that conform to one's philosophical views.
Whether or not you agree, THAT is what I take away directly from those like Meyer and Dembski rather than from second hand critical sources.

I like Intelligent Design and it is important and is effective probably more than any other creation theory right now but I was just trying to make a point that the Gap theory would be even more effective against evolution than intelligent design is and intelligent design blended with the Gap theory would do serious damage to atheism in science and evolution.

[TheQuestor]

There is nothing wrong with Intelligent Design properly understood.
Meyer and Dembski I think are great thinkers if you listen to them or read their books.

People react to ID as smuggling in creation.
The "umbrella" is so big that people have done this (against the wishes of the Discovery Institute).
Likewise, those "under the umbrella" don't think they're pushing creation enough. Not coming out with models, etc.
BUT, ID was never really about creation.

What becomes clear to me in the debate, is the deep philosophical bias that exists within the sciences that can hinder truth.
That is, we must only accept answers that are non-intelligent when it comes to "God-like intelligence" even if the evidence appears to suggest such.
The crickets go silent, when asked "if God really does exist, what kind of features would we expect to see?"

This is a fair question is it not?
Even if you deny specified or irreducible complexity as valid features of something that has been intelligently designed.
Surely there are generic signs of intelligence one can draw from CSI or via an examination of Mt Rushmore?
BUT, the question is seen as unfair because God doesn't exist and philosophical conclusions in or based upon scientific work should not even entertain such.
YET, it is perfectly alright to constantly draw philosophical conclusions based upon "it not being designed" when doing science even if such might stunt progress.

Scientific progress can be stunted when it is just assumed something is not designed (e.g., "Junk DNA").
Scientific progress is also stunted when it is just assumed something is designed.
In other words, scientific progress is stunted the moment one excludes fuller possibilities of truth due to their philosophies.

Science is just about examining the world, it should never be about accepting certain explanations about the world that conform to one's philosophical views.
Whether or not you agree, THAT is what I take away directly from those like Meyer and Dembski rather than from second hand critical sources.

I like Intelligent Design and it is important and is effective probably more than any other creation theory right now but I was just trying to make a point that the Gap theory would be even more effective against evolution than intelligent design is and intelligent design blended with the Gap theory would do serious damage to atheism in science and evolution.

Nothing is needed to be against a fictional non existent warm pond, that exist only in the minds of those who want to be born of mud.