Evidence for God from Science

I can see someone standing before God. "I would have believed if there were two seperate tubes, one for breathing and one for eating."
This is a perfect example of the clay backtalking the potter.

Better presumes an objective standard. It also presumes that human life is worth preserving. If there is no God, there is no objective standard, and no inherent value of human life. So, all your 'better' means is you imposing your personal beliefs onto everyone else. What gives you the right to do that? I tell you what, you design a human. Start with........ummm,....... nothing. Create a circulatory system, vascular, nervous, pulamary, etc. etc. and then perhaps we can review and analize your creation, and then maybe, just maybe your claims will have some validity. Oh, wait, you have to also create a cosmos to support the necessary conditions for this life form to function in. You better get to work.

Since we don't have humans with two tubes we really can't make an objective analysis to see the other problems that would and could emerge. The body is made up of individual systems, but all those systems do have to cooperate for a functioning human. Surely as a biologist you've considered this.

I'm not a proponent of the "argument from design", but to play along, how can one recognize bad design unless they acknowledge "design" to begin with? Seems to me that there must be purposeful design in order to recognize any flaws in that design.

puritan lad wrote:I'm not a proponent of the "argument from design", but to play along, how can one recognize bad design unless they acknowledge "design" to begin with? Seems to me that there must be purposeful design in order to recognize any flaws in that design.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winnar!

What if your argument was worded this way:

"I think that one of the strongest arguments against [natural selection] is the argument from bad design...

I had some very nasty choking experiences and they even grew up into fear of choking. I had fear when eating my food. I overcame my fears but... It seems that we really are so badly [evolved] that we just can't had been created by [a process that causes creatures with weaknesses, like choking, to die out of the evolutionary process].

What do you think?"

I think the better argument isn't for humans (because on the whole I think we do pretty well for ourselves), but rather the random creatures that come into existence and die out rather quickly. See: transitional fossils, fossils of organisms that die out quickly, organisms that lose the "genetic arms race"...Did God just create them for fun and to die (according to creationism/ID)? Those are more confusing examples of "design" than the most successful life form on the planet today.

Ivellious wrote:I think the better argument isn't for humans (because on the whole I think we do pretty well for ourselves), but rather the random creatures that come into existence and die out rather quickly. See: transitional fossils, fossils of organisms that die out quickly, organisms that lose the "genetic arms race"...Did God just create them for fun and to die (according to creationism/ID)? Those are more confusing examples of "design" than the most successful life form on the planet today.

I don't believe creationism/ID states that God just created anything for fun and then to die. I personally don't see anything inconsistent with God's methodologies and timing on things.

Then what was the purpose of creating them in the first place? Design implies meaning and purpose, according to ID. So what is the purpose of designing failures and death?

I don't pretend to know the purpose of everything God has or hasn't done. Further, I don't assume that looking back on "transitional forms" provides all the information that would be necessary to make that assumption as you've presented it.

Failures by what standard? Wouldn't a transitional form indicate a purpose to that which it was transitioning to? Do you presume that a strain that doesn't transition or which dies out, doesn't have impact upon the ecosystem in which it exists and in that manner have purpose or meaning?

Please recall that while I am a theist and Old Earth Creationist (and I'm not opposed to Theistic evolution, so much as I just haven't reached a point that I'm convinced that the other options have been ruled out. I don't have a problem with believing that God could put together systems which He then leaves free to function without necessarily making them "efficient" to the standard of Greek Teleology. That's one reason why I'm not an ID proponent, as I believe you'd have to assume efficiency by some measure in all things, and I don't see a need within Christian Theism for that presumption without the influences of Greek Teleological determinism.

Bart, can you explain the last bits of your post more?

If everything is designed except for the universe or creatures, that commits the taxicab fallacy.
I don't see an efficiency problem. All too often, I meet many apologists who wont take an ID position because they lack confidence there.

You don't need to argue for design. Let the atheist or agnostic commit the naturalist fallacy, and you work from there.

Take a page from WLC's book.
"Worst than magic"
"Of nothing, from nothing, nothing comes"

It simply isn't rational. They put their head in that guillotine. Drop it on them.

Tell me what efficiency problems you are facing or their objections and i'll help you. That's what I am here for, brother.

Hi Domo. I'm sure my thoughts on this are somewhat disorganized.

I'm an Old Earth Creationist but I'm not opposed to evolution as a process by which God in whole or part accomplishes (because I see God's creative process as still in play) His ends. Death in terms of world-wide entropy to me isn't an issue, because I don't accept the argument that there was not physical death in the world before the fall. Physical death is a necessary part of the food chain and maintaining balance. The fall as I understand instituted spiritual death for man and probably physical death for man as well, but physical death within the rest of the creation was to my understanding already present and evident to Adam or else God's warning to Adam and Eve that in the day they eat of the fruit they would surely die, would have had no observational or experiential meaning to them.

The argument used by some against Theism and Creationism is in my mind one of those arguments where Christians have handed others the stick to beat them with. I don't see there being a Biblical reason why we would need to assume absolute efficiency in the creative process from a human perspective. That's a greek philosophical value (a la Plato's Cave) which defines perfect in a teleological sense to where the process itself must be without inefficiency and with no extraneous elements to it.

That's not a given in my mind. I believe is sovereign and over all of creation. I don't believe God has chosen to exercise that degree of control over His creation, instead leaving many elements of how things work (and also some impact in terms of the fall) free to develop or emerge within the perameters of the system he's created and toward His ultimate ends.

Many Christians and Theists however import the values of Greek teleology into the creation as well as the theorhetical standard of Plato's "pefection" which is appealed to as a given in terms of how God operates and frankly I don't think it's consistent with the understanding and world view of the times and culture in which these passages, particularly Genesis were written.

I believe God's creative process and designs are exactly what He intends then to be and will lead to precisely what He intends, but I don't believe that He has to a level of hard determinism established every element. I don't doubt God's ability to do this if He so chose. I don't believe He has chosen to do it in the manner appealed to.

So when I hear an appeal, such as Ivellious has given earlier to inconsistency within the creation in terms of evident life that either served as a transition (which I don't grant that it's evidence of the necessity of the process that materialism assumes within it's framework) what I hear is not a valid argument but rather a turning of the same argument that far too many Christians presume, in their presentation.

The idea of two separate tubes is a really bad idea, since when you had a cold, you would die from an inability to breathe. Occasional chocking is better than dying from your first sinus infection!

Its rather long winded, but I do get what you're saying, Bart.

I once had someone argue that "natural evil" is a flaw of God design and proof that there isn't one.
Essentially trying to argue that perfection wouldn't have need for hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, flooding, famine, etc. This viewpoint is extremely naive.

I suppose its proper to ask if they think perfect is efficient or why they expect perfection?
The universe was intelligently designed to be temporary and sustain life. Some are so naive that they believe because we are advancing technology to improve life that we somehow one upped God. God made us able to improve life and all credit goes to God. Sounds like a God of the gaps there but it really isn't. It makes as much sense as biochemist curing a disease than say they did it without being taught or guided by an intelligent biochemist.

Its rather amazing don't you all think how our ego gets in the way? Somebody taught ALL of us EVERYTHING we know. Some people get older and wiser. Others get older and arrogant.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Hi Domo. I'm sure my thoughts on this are somewhat disorganized.

I'm an Old Earth Creationist but I'm not opposed to evolution as a process by which God in whole or part accomplishes (because I see God's creative process as still in play) His ends. Death in terms of world-wide entropy to me isn't an issue, because I don't accept the argument that there was not physical death in the world before the fall. Physical death is a necessary part of the food chain and maintaining balance. The fall as I understand instituted spiritual death for man and probably physical death for man as well, but physical death within the rest of the creation was to my understanding already present and evident to Adam or else God's warning to Adam and Eve that in the day they eat of the fruit they would surely die, would have had no observational or experiential meaning to them.

The argument used by some against Theism and Creationism is in my mind one of those arguments where Christians have handed others the stick to beat them with. I don't see there being a Biblical reason why we would need to assume absolute efficiency in the creative process from a human perspective. That's a greek philosophical value (a la Plato's Cave) which defines perfect in a teleological sense to where the process itself must be without inefficiency and with no extraneous elements to it.

That's not a given in my mind. I believe is sovereign and over all of creation. I don't believe God has chosen to exercise that degree of control over His creation, instead leaving many elements of how things work (and also some impact in terms of the fall) free to develop or emerge within the perameters of the system he's created and toward His ultimate ends.

Many Christians and Theists however import the values of Greek teleology into the creation as well as the theorhetical standard of Plato's "pefection" which is appealed to as a given in terms of how God operates and frankly I don't think it's consistent with the understanding and world view of the times and culture in which these passages, particularly Genesis were written.

I believe God's creative process and designs are exactly what He intends then to be and will lead to precisely what He intends, but I don't believe that He has to a level of hard determinism established every element. I don't doubt God's ability to do this if He so chose. I don't believe He has chosen to do it in the manner appealed to.

So when I hear an appeal, such as Ivellious has given earlier to inconsistency within the creation in terms of evident life that either served as a transition (which I don't grant that it's evidence of the necessity of the process that materialism assumes within it's framework) what I hear is not a valid argument but rather a turning of the same argument that far too many Christians presume, in their presentation.

Well said Bart - totally agree with all you just written.

domokunrox wrote:Its rather long winded, but I do get what you're saying, Bart.

I once had someone argue that "natural evil" is a flaw of God design and proof that there isn't one.
Essentially trying to argue that perfection wouldn't have need for hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, flooding, famine, etc. This viewpoint is extremely naive.

I suppose its proper to ask if they think perfect is efficient or why they expect perfection?
The universe was intelligently designed to be temporary and sustain life. Some are so naive that they believe because we are advancing technology to improve life that we somehow one upped God. God made us able to improve life and all credit goes to God. Sounds like a God of the gaps there but it really isn't. It makes as much sense as biochemist curing a disease than say they did it without being taught or guided by an intelligent biochemist.

Its rather amazing don't you all think how our ego gets in the way? Somebody taught ALL of us EVERYTHING we know. Some people get older and wiser. Others get older and arrogant.

Long-winded is my middle name, I work on it, but that's me.

The concept of "perfect" is significantly different between a western and an eastern mindset.

Perfect to the west means without flaw, efficient, unable to improve upon in any manner and it's illustrate in the classic example of Plato's cave.

Perfect to the east means mature, complete, entirely suitable to it's intended role or use.

There's bleed over within Scripture as you have the OT from an almost entirely eastern, semitic frame of reference and you have both influences in most of the New Testament.

(That's as short as I get .... )

The universe was intelligently designed to be temporary and sustain life.

Absolutely. To truly understand the WHY of the design God put into the universe, we'd have to be able to understand His purpose for each living creature. And scripture teaches that EVERYTHING in THIS place/earth, in THIS time/universe is designed to be temporary. This would include all but what is spiritual (man), and only the spiritual part of him.

I am an old-earth creationist. But I do not believe in macro evolution (for either man or animals), but do believe in micro evolution. Everything from fossils to plate tectonics have been crucial to life on earth. Man's rise has been brief and only possible upon an earth that is likely about 4.5 billion years old (universe about 13.73 billion years old). The extinctions (and imperfect forms, if you will) have been crucial to man's rise.

Below is a link listing 154 parameters and processes showing the necessary fine-tuning of earth for life. And for those whom read media articles suggesting that if water is found on another planet of the right size, proximity to a star, etc - that there's a good chance life has evolved there as well - the list linked below reveals just how complex are the parameters that led to and allow life on earth to even be possible.

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-earth-june-2004