[Vision2020] Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 2 15:57:22 PST 2005
Michael,
Thank you for your kind and in depth responses to my
argument.
I think you misunderstood that Joe Campbell is in
disagreement with Intelligent Design, so you would be
more in agreement with me who believes in both.
--- Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:
"Personally, it's hard to understand why someone
would, in a common sense fashion, think that people
came from fish, or that my great grandfather was some
slime on a rock (so to speak)."
Well, a couple of things here. We are talking about
many more generation than your great grandfather. My
great grandfather is buried in the Moscow Cemetery, so
I know he was not a fish. However, there is ample
evidence to indicate that modern humans have changed
biologically over millions of years, and before they
humans, they were something else. For example, how do
you explain multiple organs and physical features on
humans that are not needed. Some of these include
things like, lenses in eyes, and even organs in the
body, like the appendices? Why would an all knowing
God put a bunch of organs in us that we do not need?
There is also other obvious genetic factors such one
in about 2000 babies still being born with tails (they
are removed at birth and it leaves only a tiny scare
in most patients), and most people are still being
born with a tailbone, which serves no biological
function in the human body. We share 87% identical DNA
as chickens, 93% as pigs, and 98.5% DNA as Pigmy
Chimpanzees. We are closer relatives to a chimpanzee
than a chimpanzee is to any other animal.
"If evolution did in fact take place the way current
scientific institutions claim, then there is no need
for God to explain anything."--MM
Yes there is! We need God to explain to us how to
treat one another. We need God to teach us about the
meaning of life, how to love, how to care, how to make
our lives worth while. We do not need God to explain
to us how to make an airplane, travel to the moon,
drive a car, or how an octopus makes ink. He gave us a
brain for that. I need science to know how to make a
gift and wrap it. But I need God know who to give the
present to and why.
"It runs by itself, with no purpose, design, or
teleology; 'humans' might be ugly brains in vats
flying space ships 100,000 years from now. Donovan
would apparently agree with this, considering that God
wants 'us to change with the environment.'" --MM
Mike, obviously God makes people different in the
world physically to deal with their different
environment, right? People that live in colder
climates, (like Norway, Russia, Ireland, and Britain)
are stockier, and have less pigment in their skin than
say people that live in central Africa, that are
generally darker and thinner. God made them that way
in order to deal with the climate of the place. In hot
environments you need to have more pigment in your
skin to protect from the harsh sun, and you want to
have as much of your body surface exposed to the
outside to keep cool. If a person lives in a cloudy
environment, they do not need pigmentation, but they
need to lessen the percentage of the body exposed to
the surface to remain warm, so they have shorter
stockier frame. Eskimos, have longer noises than most
other people because it warms the freezing air before
entering the body. So if God designed people different
based on their environment now he would also have done
it for people in the past, right?
"There is also an enormous problem intuitively
accepting the kind of probability involved with life
coming about from chaos--or however it is one must
describe it these days."-MM
Here is the flaw in thinking, trying to assign science
to the task of proving there is a God. It is a
fruitless endeavor. The probability is 100% that
humans would come into existence given enough time
because all events have a probability of greater than
zero. If I have a 1 billion sided dice (theoretical
dice), with 999,999,999 million sides with a two, and
the other remaining side with a one, given enough
rolls, it will eventually land on the one.
Science cannot prove intent, it can only offer
evidence that we interpret as being indicative of an
intent or lack of intent. If people want to believe in
God, they will try in vein to look at the evidence
that proves there is a God, while those that wish not
to believe in God will look at evidence that satisfies
their criteria for there not being a God.
The errors I see on both sides of this issue:
Evolutionary Atheist: "There is not God because how
could he allow such suffering a misery in the world"
This argument is very flawed. It makes the assumption
that the person knows what is evil and not evil. It
makes the assumption that God is not preventing a
large evil from occurring. It assumes that God is
willing to take away a person's freewill to inflict
his will. If a person decides not to send a check to
the starving children, is it God that hurt the
children, or is it the people that choose not to send
the check? Should God force people to write the check
and send it? If all consequences of any action we take
has no negative effect on society or people in it, who
is to say that me punching someone in the nose is not
wrong, for God would not allow the suffering of the
person I punched because he loves them. On the other
hand, if God veered my fist from hitting anyone he
loved is it my fist now of God's, so what is the point
of my existence if I have no free will?
Anti Evolutionist Genesis:
"Evolution is not true, it has not been proven, the
Bible tells us how the First humans were made."
First, which story of creation do you follow? The
first or the second story? How do you explain the ice
age, dinosaurs, the formation of crystals, oil, and
seeing the light from the stars that takes millions of
years to get here? How could we see them if it takes a
millions years to get here and they have only existed
for less than 100,000. They must of left before they
were born. Either that or they are really way closer
than they appear. There are just too many things that
are unanswered that contradict what is obviously true.
The danger in teaching that Evolution is against God
is that many people feel they must believe many things
that are untrue in order to believe in God. That is a
bad thing to teach people—especially children.
“Telling children and young adults they got to
believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans or
they are atheists going to hell is a bad theology and
practice.
I believe that science is how God does something, and
faith is what gives it intent, meaning, and purpose.
Many times we get both wrong, but we have to keep
trying.
Thanks,
Donovan J Arnold
> I'd have to agree more with Joe Campbell on this
> one.
>
>
>
> Donovan Writes:
>
>
>
> "To me, it is obvious that evolution took place, and
> is taking place, just
> as it is obvious that it was done with intention and
> purpose."
>
>
>
> Me:
>
> But it is obvious to many that evolution did not
> take place. The issue of
> basic "intuition" regarding 'origins' has always
> been fascinating to me.
> Even Darwin himself thought design by kinds was
> obvious before he made his
> 'discovery.' Personally, it's hard to understand why
> someone would, in a
> common sense fashion, think that people came from
> fish, or that my great
> grandfather was some slime on a rock (so to speak).
> There is also an
> enormous problem intuitively accepting the kind of
> probability involved with
> life coming about from chaos--or however it is one
> must describe it these
> days. (Although this last point might be mute for
> Donovan's
> theistic-evolution).
>
>
>
> Secondly, not only is it not obvious to current
> scientific institutions that
> evolution was "done with intention and purpose," it
> seems obvious to most
> that the non-intentional and purposeless nature of
> natural selection is the
> very glory of evolutionary theory. If evolution did
> in fact take place the
> way current scientific institutions claim, then
> there is no need for God to
> explain anything. It runs by itself, with no
> purpose, design, or teleology;
> 'humans' might be ugly brains in vats flying space
> ships 100,000 years from
> now. Donovan would apparently agree with this,
> considering that God wants
> "us to change with the environment."
>
>
>
> Donovan Writes:
>
> " Most Christians that I know, do not take Genesis
> as literal. I do not see
> how anyone could take it that way. To me is symbolic
> and put in terms so
> that anyone, from anytime, can read it."
>
>
>
> Me:
>
> I can understand attempts to take the bible
> symbolically where a literal
> reading would seem to conflict with accepted
> science. I don't think this is
> a good approach, but I can at least understand why
> this would be done.
> However, I do not understand how one could read
> Genesis from beginning to
> end and conclude that a fully symbolic reading of
> Chapters 1 through 3 is
> the most natural. The genre of direct statement of
> historical fact is
> seamless, from creation, through the family lineage
> of Adam and Eve, to the
> history of the pre-flood world.
>
>
>
> Donovan Writes:
>
> "It is meant as a spiritual guide to help us toward
> building a personal
> relationship with God."
>
>
>
> Me:
>
> Again, I am perplexed. Does the bible itself
> anywhere speak of its own
> nature as limited to or in precisely these terms?
> Is this how the prophets,
> God, Mary, Jesus, or Paul speak of biblical
> revelation? If not, then by
> what kind of authority do we decide "how to take the
> bible," when the bible
> itself claims a very particular kind of authority?
>
>
>
> I did like Donovan's take on the sufficiency of
> scientific explanation.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Metzler
>
>
>
> >
_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list