On Intelligent Design Part 2

Yeah, I'm making a new version, because the old one got flooded. This will, however, clarify.

Published on April 16, 2008 By erathoniel In Pure Technology

Intelligent Design is proved by two scientific statements: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and Occam's Razor. Basically, nothing can come from nothing, without an outside force.

What I meant by this statement was that due to the Theory or Relativity, everything had to be created somehow and Occam's Razor would mean that any attempt to explain it as a mere co-incidence is more-or-less putting a customized one-person secular theology in. For those who haven't read the article I haven't written yet or anything by anyone else, any belief is a theology if it's taken as a belief of the greatest power. Yes, evolutionists worship evolution.

Also, mind you that we know nothing on the specifics of the Creation. If God willed it, we could have evolved from monocellular organisms, but, importantly, God made the universe.

Yeah, I screwed up my own quote here. Intentionally. The thought ends there. God made the universe within certain constraints, so he could have made us over a trillion years, because, quite simply, a day to him is eternity to us.

He knows what will happen, and anything that has or will happen has been mandated by Him, as are all things happening at this time.

Yes, I do correct my quotes often. This one is pure theology. Basically, God rules, we drool. Our best efforts are menstrual rags to the power of God. Our sacrifices? Paul uses an obscene term in the original Greek. Basically, God quite literally owns us. However, we are given free will. Paradoxial free-will with a pre-destined future. I'll ask God when I die. Too bad I probably won't put up another entry then.

I'm putting this in Science, given the prevelence of evolution in the scientific community. Oh, and keep the comments on-topic. No digital high-fiving.

Comments (Page 7)

SplitPeaSoup

on Apr 26, 2008

I prefer the God that has the power to create everything so that it's able to run on its own without his intervention, like a perpetual motion machine.

If there is a God and he set the world into motion just right, didn't he determine everything to happen just the way it should already? Hence, He would really be directing everyting while doing nothing.

Let's say Suzie prays to God. God set up the world so that Suzie would pray to him, and he also set up the world in a way that would determine his answer.

*this is more conjecture.

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 26, 2008

That is actually a very interesting theory.

Ancientwanker

on Apr 26, 2008

That the initial conditions are set up just right for everything else to unfold is called the Fine Tuning Argument.

Michael Denton, who was once a creationist of sorts, and then joined the ID movement eventually came to espouse this view. Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator.

lulapilgrim

on Apr 26, 2008

Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator.

Is this theistic evolution?

SplitPeaSoup

on Apr 26, 2008

Adam and Eve were created with absolutely perfect in every way genes.

Wrong. My name is neither Adam nor Eve.

Ancientwanker

on Apr 26, 2008

Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator.

Is this theistic evolution?

Yeah, that's a form of theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution might also say that a god intervened later in the process to ensure it developed down a certain path or other variations of that sort of thing.

lulapilgrim

on Apr 26, 2008

Genetic links convinced him evolution was correct and he now supports evolution and common descent but believes that all of the initial varables were set by a creator.

Is this theistic evolution?

Yeah, that's a form of theistic evolution.

Theistic evolution might also say that a god intervened later in the process to ensure it developed down a certain path or other variations of that sort of thing.

Right, it's more like Theistic intervention. Anyway, I don't buy it becasue it's, in reality, a compromise position which has contrived God as accommodating evolutionary theory. No way--- especially given M-Evolution conceptual problems.

Natural selection can no longer be cited in favor of Macroevolution...the mechanism of M-Evolution is still missing....it's known with certainty the M-evolution can't occur becasue DNA has been designed (by Almighty God) so that only variety within kind can occur.

erathoniel

on Apr 26, 2008

Unless you're seriously dosing those poor things, they won't mutate into different species. Sorry to break it to you. And even then, everything but cockroaches would die.

lulapilgrim

on Apr 26, 2008

Another problem is that many people who now use the term ID are really just YEC creationists who are using the term to get themselves another hearing. They know the term "creationist" is a liability so they take advantage of the new name without changing their rhetoric one bit. Some of them, in my experience, don't even know much about the specific claims of the ID movement.

I know what you're saying. It seems as though those who believes Genesis has to walk on tip-toes amongst the science crowd.

I'm a true blue believer in Special Creation and no one has been able to shake me of it. If offers a coherant basis for understanding the earliest events of how the universe and life itself began and for how mankind came to be in a state of confusion and distress.

I accept it on the basis of faith in the revealed God, that Sacred Scripture must be free from error and that empirical science will never discover any data which can conclusively contradict Scripture since they have the same Author. Man, even though finite in his understanding and knowledge, can know something of the unseen Divine Maker and Lawgiver and can discern absolute principles.

The M-Evolution model serves up questions only the Creation model can answer.

100

Ancientwanker

on Apr 27, 2008

Well, believe what you like. As long as you are honest that the bible is your primary source and that learning the evidence is less important. You just can't teach stuff like that in public schools. Even the D institute has given up on it according to Johnson. At least for the forseeable future.

EDIT: Also, nobody needs to "shake you of it". It's up to you to spend the time to learn the evidence. If it doesnt interest you then you won't. Only you know how much time youve spent learning both sides of the issue. Most creationists only know the rhetoric that creationist preachers, websites or books provide them. They don't look for a counter argument because they don't really care.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!