Does God exist? Intelligent Design

great God. faith in God.

Lawrence you have written a splendid argument for your case. I believe in God, I read the Bible and value it for what it is, a religious text, not a science or history book. Could it be that God created the DNA, left it alone, and the forces of evolution took over from there? I think the creation story is a parable, designed to teach a religious lesson. I study nature so I see so many creatures that are different species but must have had a common ancestor. A crow and a Raven, for instance. I see no conflict between faith and science. I think the answer lies somewhere between intelligent design and evolution.

Once agsin, beautifully articulated piece of work and even though we might differ in our points of view I hold your right to your opinion sacred.

Hello. I just happened upon this post. Started out looking up an old buddy from the Marines, found some Hubble site, and eventually wound up here. Did I mention ADHD? Even at 61 it still catches me by surprise.

:-)

I've always been fascinated w science. Short of it is, after being saved in 76, I came across a book by Dr Hugh Ross titled "The Fingerprint of God." To this day I still haven't finished it...did I mention ADHD? But it made me aware of the young earth vs old earth creationists. For my part I've gone w the old earth view, tho I do not totally agree with all of Dr Ross's views (such as the local vs global flood, but I do understand his reasoning).

More recently I've been reading Dr Meyer's books, tho as is part for the course, I've not finished either. At 61, between the VA & grandkids it's challenging.

:-)

I'm glad I happened upon this. As I've studied a little about the ID issue, it brought back memories of a creation/evolution debate I saw eons ago at the UW, Madison. I was glad it was going to happen. Unfortunately, at least for me, I was disappointed. I don't remember if it was Dr Morris or Gish (I cd be wrong on both accounts). Anyways, the evolutionist presented nothing convincing. However, despite his statement to do otherwise, neither did the creationist. Instead of focusing on the scientific evidence, he proceeded to try & undermine the evolutionist. While I can understand this for part, I could not accept it for the whole.

Since then, I have watched, at least in my opinion, far better debates. And I'm sorry if I step on toes, but much as I have tried, I have found it almost impossible to follow the logic of most evolutionists. Their assumptions, which alone are ofttimes more incredulous than those expounding simple faith in God (or at least some form of intelligent design), are simply...well, let's just say that they require much more faith to believe than the mustard seed of faith Jesus spoke of.

I'm not against the theory (& despite all their gainsaying it is still just that, a theory, for as we all know, while evidence of microevolution exists, there still fails to exist evidence of macroevolution, one kind changing into another) being presented as just thst, a theory, but along side other theories, including ID. Students should be allowed to decide for themselves. To prohibit other theories not only denies what education is all about (my late 2nd stepfather taught at the UW Madison. He loved teaching. Got his PhD at University of Chicago, after his high school teacher told him he'd never make it. His motto was, he'd tell me, "the job of a teacher is to bring the students up to where they're at, so that they can go on from there. He died in his classroom right in front of his students, exactly where he wanted to be.), but in essence is promoting a religion as well. Religion? Well, atheism is a religion. It requires faith to believe there is no God. Evolution has its followers. It requires faith to believe in its tenets, bc they can't prove it. I realize that's a simplified form but at 61 you learn to get down to the brass tacks. I myself look at the odds of evolution (as the main theory holds), & as you mentioned, the odds of even the most basuc, simplest protein molecule being formed have reached the impossibility level.

In my limited sojourning on this planet, as well as learning (including studying science at the UW & a private college...microbiology was my favorite), I've encountered 2 types of atheists.

The one, which you might call an agnostic of sorts, does not believe in God, but also accepts, acknowledges the fact that they don't know everything, & it's possible that there might be something more than what they see. They do research w an open mind to seeking the truth, answers, as best they can.

The other is the close-minded sort who, no matter what the evidence shows, absolutely refuse to believe even the remote possibility of something greater, a designer, whatever you want to call it. They cd be standing vis-a-vis with God & still deny Him. Sadly they are spoken of in the bible. I'm reminded of those who still deny the holocaust. I mention this bc there you have the evidence of an event from our time & people in denial of it. If they can delude themselves of the existence of such an event, then it is not inconceivable to imagine those who can deny God even if He were right in front of them. These individuals (I'm just going to refer to the scientific community) have tainted their research before they even start. The very principles of the scientific method require us to keep an open mind about the results. But if we have formed in our minds one & only one conclusion, outcome, despite the actual findings, then we have violated those principles of scientific discovery. That's my take on it anyways. If one is afraid of ID being taught in the schools, then in my view they border on hypocrisy bc they are doing the same thing they accused the "right" (I'm just using that as a reference, starting point, example for the sake of argument) of doing when some were trying to ban certain books "back in the day" as they put it nowadays.

We should accept the fact that we don't have all the answers, that teaching other theories does in fact not violate the presumed separation clause (if only they taught history these days, & not the PC revision history...maybe they should call it creative history, to go along with the creative math & creative spelling schools promote these days...& then they wonder why these poor kids...& adults, can't give you the correct change when the register fails...). But opponents of ID, if you look at what happened, didn't argue based on science, but rather tried, & unfortunately (bc ultimately the students lost out) succeeded by trying to make it a religious issue. They didn't argue from the science POV bc they would have lost that argument. In its purest form ID is totally as scientific as...the theory of evolution. That is, if we don't look at the consistent, ongoing failures of Darwinism to provide a scientific answer to the origins of life (which it does continue to fail at, as new scientific research shows), if we just look at their basic premises, each a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life, then they are, in this sense, equal.

Now I'm sorry if those of you who are proponents, or followers as I sometimes call them, of Darwinism are offended by my statements. I try to be civil. Sure, I cd blame it on the ADHD, but that wd be, honestly, an evolutionary ploy, whereas I believe I'm responsible for my actions. Which includes proofreading my comments before posting, which sadly, despite numerous attempts, I've failed to acquire such skills, often to my demise amongst emails to my closest friends who have lovingly endured me. However, as I've mentioned earlier, I have tried in earnest to follow the logic of most evolutionists, without success. Their logic not only defies logic, it defies plausibility & possibility. I apologize for not having examples at the moment bc most of my books are still in storage from my move here. I can only remember Richard Dawkins offhand. I have a few others I've attempted to read & understand but as I said, w/o success. On the other hand, as I've been plodding thru Dr Meyer's recent publication, "Darwin's Doubt," I find the arguments he presents regarding the attempts to downplay the Cambrian explosion (as well as the pre-Cambrian findings) quite understandable, not to mention logical.

Having said that, I myself wish that therr would be, not only ID taught along side evolution (thereby not only giving students the fact that there are opposing ideas, but letting them learn to discover, come to answers themselves...), I wish there would be ongoing lively debates in the schools from both or all camps, civilized drbates, each side presenting their views, their evidence, etc. Too often I've seen debates where one side simply dismisses another side as "pseudoscience" without actually scientifically debating or debunking it, w facts. They throw out some vague, unsupported stmt as "fact" when it's not. I've run out of space.

I do believe in Intelligent design theory.. Not for the complete creation of organisms though. But my theory is limited to the evolution of human beings. I believe that it is far more logical than the creationist and evolution theories. I also believe that it is the only theory that can reconcile evolution and creation theories.

The God/Nature: Only single name for the absolute place or Nature or God or Dark energy or absolute time sole dimension or sole dimension of power of the things of the universe, great space or the location the center of the connectors between the great world or the great universes, location of the beginning or ending or the most deepest place, same location of place period or the matter, location of the big black hole or primordial black hole or before big bang, huge reserve of the natural force etc, is Nature (The God).

Big Bang: At the time of the beginning of the creation or from the absolute zero of time or from the God or big black hole or a black hole or Nature, part of the power of the Nature became divisible as a result of the big bang. The part of energy had been divided in the beginning of creation from the large field of energy, which is below 50% of total energy. In the most of natural power reserved in big black hole from which, the world of gravitation become influenced. See at https://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/05...

Evolution: “Everything of the world of matter including the present visible unit is the result of evolution from the big bang”. The changing function of everything in the universe is going on always. The present scenery was not similar with past and also will not resemble with the future, the present and past space-time energy absolute zero of absolute time. As per formula of evolution; See at https://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/01...

See- God or Dark Energy, Big Bang, Evolution and Early Universe, My DEMO Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYcnbwUKUEM New Discovery of the Universe: can be found at http://lnkd.in/Sn6wPK the Universe creation or creator or religious- can be found at http://t.co/OQDPbAg

I won't get into it, either, other than the fact that science is connected to everything. This was a great piece, as both sides are included here.

Very interesting and professional article. You have covered a difficult topic very well. Thank you.

Thanks, Lawrence! I look forward to reading more, and hopefully one of these days, I'll have another hub of my own for people to peruse! :-)

Sorry to visit your hub so late in the game, Lawrence. It's been a very busy last couple of days!

Unfortunately, it's kind of late for me to jump into the discussion that's already grown here. However, I do have a couple of items to note:

First, I may be mistaken, but I suspect you've used the names "Fred Hulme" and "Fred Hoyle" interchangeably. If I recall, Fred HOYLE is the physicist who was the most notable proponent of the "steady state" universe, and who mockingly coined the phrase "Big Bang" for the alternate (and now predominant) model.

Second, I would argue that it is far and away creationists who most widely champion "intelligent design," and I fear you've overemphasized the role of atheists in its formation. In fact, in the Dover case you referenced, it was discovered -- through an editing error -- that the "intelligent design" textbook that was being used ("Of Pandas And People") contained, almost verbatim, the same verbiage that an earlier, creationist text used, merely replacing "creation" with "intelligent design." I don't remember the particulars of the error, but I could probably find it if anyone's interested.

Most opponents of "intelligent design" perceive it (and, I believe, rightly so) as an underhanded means of getting around the legal precedents (based upon the Establishment Clause) that have outlawed the use of "creationist" (explicitly religious based) textbooks in the past -- a 're-branding' of a dogma that doesn't pass the constitutional smell test.

Aside from that, I applaud the work you've put forth on this hub. Though I disagree with some of your conclusions, I say "good effort!"

Thank you Lawrence, I find that you contribute some very valuble hubs of thought, as you can see I am more direct in my comments , It is a wonderful veriety of people here on HP, thanks for your kind and encouraging reply.

Thank you Lawrence, I find that you contribute some very valuble hubs of thought, as you can see I am more in my comments , It is wonderful veriety of people here on HP, thanks for your kind and encouraging reply.

"(whatever we propose for the distant past needs to be shown to happen today)"

In the case of the origin of life however we have early Earth conditions, atmospherically especially, being very different than they are today. We're also talking about a process that took around a billion years to take place, so it is likely not something that happens every day and even if it was happening who knows where it's been happening on Earth. Every time we send a science team to the jungle or down to the depths of the ocean they come back with new species to report, who knows what microbial developments they've missed because no one is looking.

"but for life to be the product of 'chance' is too much a stretch for me!"

Surely you understand though that chance is just a euphemism you're using. Nature isn't pure roiling chaos, it is observed to behave in certain ways, one of the ways that chemicals naturally behave is called life.

An ancient person 10,000 years ago may have felt the heat from the sun, watched plants in the sunlight grow while plants in shade wither and die and not felt comfortable that the sun was there by chance. After all, if it was by chance why should it be there at all?

Here's a video that might offer some food for thought about nebulous ideas like design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM

This is a wonderful article. And I agree with Jodah in that science and religion can find a middle ground. I firmly believe that all things exist in relationship. I don't know, but perhaps evolution is part of the grand design.

I've known more than one scientist who believes in God though their belief is more spiritual and they truly believe that "God is love." We have no concept of time, or the symbiotic relationship of all living things. It breaks my heart to see how we are hurting the very environment that supports us, and each other. One is inextricably linked to the other.

First of all congratulations you have done a good job. Big bang theory is indeed the starting of the universe and it all happened because god did it. Everything didnot came into existence out of nothing it came into existence out of the supreme soul. This is my view point. You can agree or disagree. One more important point is that god is not something that you can prove in a lab, it will never work this way. God is in you and you have to start praying to find him or in our culture we do advanced meditation to find god and understand him fully. You can do as you wish but if you do not try then you will never ever prove god in a lab. Again great hub.

Very professional very good hub, I have to say that we are given the name of the designer, it was written long ago, no one else claims being the designer but him.

De 4:35 You yourselves have been shown these things so you will know that,( Tetragrammaton YHWH) Jehovah is the true God; there is no other besides him.

Isa 45:12 , I made the earth and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands, And I give orders to all their army.”

So if man can make robots, androids with the imperfection of the human mind,

Then it surly would not be impossible for a perfect genius who is way ahead of us in creating all the things of order , when we arrived here through the order of birth, for he is a God of order.

remember man uses what God has already made to create with, the materials were already provided. So what did man create ?

"the fact that it's been shown that it's impossible for DNA to have self assembled by chance,"

I don't think you'd find many scientists who say that it's IMPOSSIBLE that a self-replicating molecule like DNA emerged naturally. Keep in mind that RNA, which is admittedly more simple than DNA but is similar, has been produced in experiments using conditions that would have been present on the early Earth. It is not a huge leap at all, from this, to say that it's possible DNA could have formed.

I also do not understand the use of the word chance here. I assume you're using it as a substitute for "through natural processes". Nature is not chaotic or random, it behaves in certain ways that scientists document and study, there is an order to the way it behaves. So it's not as if life would have assembled by random chance.

You say ID isn't fallacious because it isn't a full conclusion but that is irrelevant. ID makes a claim, namely that an intelligent agent is involved in the origin of life. It puts forth this claim with the only piece of real evidence being "life forming on its own is improbable" (you say impossible). Such a claim is an argument from ignorance.

"but in the last five years the amount of 'Junk DNA' we have is actually less than 1%."

I assume you are referring to the fact that some of our junk DNA does in fact code for things or serve a function. I would like to see where you get the 1% number as I have not heard it. Is there a body of scientific evidence for that number? Much of our DNA IS junk, some of it is viral DNA from viruses that have basically sewn themselves into the human genome over the course of our evolution.

Either way the amount of junk DNA is irrelevant to whether the earliest lifeforms were designed or evolved naturally.

"but the experiment was found to be faulty in that it presupposed an atmosphere of Ammonia, Methane and Hydrogen but later research showed that the earth's early atmosphere was actually Nitrogen based"

By no means was that experiment the last one of its kind performed. Later experiments fixed the atmospheric discrepancies. Either way, whether they got the ingredients in the atmosphere correct or not, they showed that the basic building blocks of life could form NATURALLY.

Now you might say to that, "but an experiment isn't NATURAL". I disagree. In this context we are talking about supernaturalism vs naturalism and which one best explains the origin of life. Nothing the experimenters used was outside the bounds of the natural. Unless you are going to advocate for aliens being the ones to create life (although they themselves would need an explanation).

"ID's main argument isn't that one or the 'other' made it but that the whole system is too complex to have come about by accident!"

Again we have the word accident being used as an analogue for "by natural causes".

We have two arguments here, either some supernatural agent created life OR life arose naturally via natural processes. Given that life is natural, that life on Earth is made up of the same stuff Earth is, and that experiments have shown amino acids and other basic building blocks can form naturally I see absolute NO reason to invoke any external agency.

To throw up our hands and simply declare "it's just TOO COMPLEX" seems premature doesn't it? We can't possibly think of another explanation so we're going to say that some nebulous designer swooped in and made the first cell and then disappeared?

See here's the thing, we know how evolution works. What ID proponents who accept evolution are saying is basically, "We're okay with going from single cells to a human in three billion years but we're not okay with going from simple organic chemicals to a bunch of single cells in a billion years."

I'm sorry but a lack of knowledge, a gap in our understanding where things look too complicated, is not an excuse to plug in something so nebulous, ill-defined and impossible to falsify as a "designer".

"If you prove that it did happen by accident then the theory would fall over"

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the very nature of the claims we are looking at. We're talking about an event that happened 3 and a half billion years ago. There is no proving for certain exactly how it happened with an event this far back. Basic structures like RNA, DNA, they don't produce fossil evidence, our earliest fossils are of single celled organisms.

This isn't the sort of thing that could be easily proved or disproved. What scientists are doing is showing HOW it COULD or MIGHT have happened. They are showing that it is POSSIBLE to do with the natural ingredients present on Earth at the time. And I don't know of any scientist, at least one without ulterior motive, who would say that it is "IMPOSSIBLE" to get DNA.

Basically such a scientist's claim would amount to DNA being a synthetic molecule, something produced in a lab (even a heavenly one). Short of finding the ancient science lab that invented DNA and pulling out the patent file such a claim seems, to me, worthlessly unfalsifiable and built on fallacies not on scientific facts.

Doesn't sound pragmatic at all, way too much to lose to wait till it's too late.

It's always interesting to read these discussions. I'm a bit more pragmatic....I guess I'll find out when I die and the mystery will be solved. :)

Have a great week!

bill

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. That is all it is and all it is meant to be.

As far as concluding anything about any "god" or "The God of the Bible" belief in the theory of intelligent design can tell you absolutely nothing about either other than, if the theory is true (not whether you believe it is) and the universe IS best explained by an intelligent cause, NOT an undirected process such as natural selection, the cause is not by chance but by design.

This is why I had to answer your poll question "Does an argument like Intelligent design 'prove God' to you?" NO, because it doesn't prove God at all, but if true could be used as one evidence for God. One clue does not solve the problem of who or what God is. Ultimately, only HE can do that and he has in His Word which science, over and over demonstrates that it is the truth. http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

I always like the alien theory because it just leaves you with "what created the aliens?" and does not solve a thing. Your article lays out what I understand which is that we, as of yet cannot understand it. If there is ID then I don't think it matters much, really, what you call the designer. That just seems to be the passion of the one naming it.

I know what I call the designer.

I totally 100% believe in Intelligent Design. Things like symbiotic relationships where one species could not exist with out the other being designed in perfect sync. is too widespread to be a random occurrence.

To me the "Big Bang Theory" is just a TV comedy show.

Whether all life on Earth was created by a God or an Alien race I have no way of knowing, but it as intelligently engineered.

The "Creation" website and magazine offers very interesting articles and points of view where science and religion can often actually find a middle ground. Great hub, Lawrence.