What is Darwinism? (or why Do ID proponents use this term)

Perry Marshall and "Language theory"

The Perry Marsahall variation on the Argument from Specified Compexity

ID: Origin of Species - Options

ID Options (Cornelius Hunter)


((Special Creation))

Ex nihilo and de novo creation meant the creator formed the species out of nothing, or out nonliving matters respectively. The species were not formed as derivatives from preexisting species. This is the most interventions of all approaches, and there has been substantial religious ((metaphysical)) feeling against it for this reasons. Many feel that God would not be so involved with the details of creation. The fact that the world in not always harmonious has served to increase the opposition. Despite its metaphysical opposition, I believe this approach continues to provide the best empirically based and parsimonious explanation for the origin of species.

((Descent with design))

And approach that requires slightly less intervention might be called descent with design. Here the evolutionary process is modified or guided along the with exterior inputs. Design is injected into the process. This idea is motivated, at least in part, by the paradigm of perfection. What we believe are suboptimal designs are viewed as designs that not been updated or replaced. For example, similarities in different species that do not seen optimal are viewed as unmodified by the design process.

((Kirk Note: At least one prospect of living in a fallen universe is the idea of biological degradation, or simple information loss leading to either variation of subsequent speciation.))

Front Load

An approach with even less intervention is the front-loaded creation idea. Here all the design in injected into the first living cell (or cells), and the evolutionary process takes over from there. The potential of all the species in implicit in the first organism, and it is realized by the action of natural law.

((Kirk Note – This sounds kind of like a variation on the stem cell….but with exponential potential. Only problem, it seems that we have never seen such a cell))



Secondary Causes:

Finally, there is design via secondary causes. Here there is no detectable injection of design. Design in not imputed at all at the beginning or the da discrete points along the way. Instead, the design is in the initial arrangement of matter and the action of natural laws. And we should not under-estimate the power of those natural laws, given quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and who knows what else that will be discovered in the future. Those laws may be able to control and manipulate creation in far more subtle ways that we have imaged. Indeed, some may argue the design via secondary causes in an interventionist approach every bit as much as ex nihilo creation is. … Natural laws and the systems they operate on are so complex that it could be that God can actively control the world without violating what we perceive to be the action of natural laws.

These are but a sampling of the metaphysical ideas that lie behind ID. Each idea can be said to be consistent with biblical creation, although different levels of symbolism may be required…



Kirk Addendum

Though inferred, ID does not operate with an either/or mentality. In addition to the scenarios described here, ID/Creationists are open to “melds.” For example, a genetically rich created “kind” might serve as a “fountainhead” for subsequent species, which in turn are the product of descent with modification. But unlike “mere” naturalistic evolution, mechanisms might include information loss, natural selection, directed selection, programmed mutation, or even secondary acts of special creation.


In God (A suprising way of thinking though implamentation)


Gpuccio (blog comment #14)

Indeed, while human beings certainly interact with the external world through their physical bodies, their personal consciousness certainly interacts with their body (and in particualr with their brain) in some other way. I beleieve that the best model for the direct interaction between consciousness and brain in human beings is based on QM principles, in the line of Eccles.


So, if consciousness can directly interact with matter in humans, there is no reason why another consciousness (let’s call it an immanent non physycal consciuosness of some other kind of conscious intelligent being) cannot do the same with biological matter. This is my favourite explanatory scenario.

The possible answers to 2) are many. I can just tell you my personal favourite. My personal favourite is that the design implementation is continuous in time, but with rather sudden “acute” implementations in special occasions (OOL, Cambrian explosion, and similar). That’s the scenario which better explains observed facts. And I do believe that the design implementation is nprobably realized starting form what has already been implemented (common descent).

But, certainly, there are important discontinuities both in time and space in the general implementation plan.
So, I am rather for a “Gould like” view of design implementation.

And I believe that no basic physical law needs to be violated for design implementation to occur.

What is Intelligent Evolution?:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/testable-hypothesis-id-1/

How does ID differ from Creationism

Creationism

Begins with Special Revelation



ID Begins with either General Revelation

(or some personal blend) Note: A commitment to Special Revelation likely drives many ID-advocates interest in the Origins debate, but it is not the starting point of the ID argument.



Creationism:

Employs Specific Biblical Text, with strong commitment to a particular school of interpretation.



ID:

Avoids referencing Biblical Text

Individual ID advocates show strong tendency to literary over literal interpretations of the opening chapters of Genesis.



Creationism:

Assumes Design, Argues FROM Design.


ID

Argues “to” Design.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.


Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Notes from Perry Marshall

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/




http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

This guy is brite... and scattered.  One could wish Perry might present his ideas with a little less ramble, but you have an idea his brain is working with more than can easily fit out of his mouth.

ID: What is the Law of the Conservation of Information?

Natural causes can only transmit CSI (Complex Specified Information) but never originate it.

ID: Is it science? (Critical voices)

The scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science. Wikipedia, entry on Phillip Johnson.

ID: Testimonials ;)

They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened because their fossil record shows that. Look, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines.  (Novelist Kurt Vonnegut, in an interview on NPR)

ID: What is Information?

The appearance of life constitutes a revolution in the history of matter. A vast gulf separates the organic from the inorganic world, and that gulf is properly characterized in terms of information. The matter in the directly under your feet and the matter that makes up you body is the same. Nevertheless, the arrangement of that matter- the information-vastly differs in these two cases. Biology’s information problem is therefore to determine whether (and if so, how) purely natural forces are able to bridge the gulf between the organic and the inorganic worlds as well as the gulf between different levels of complexity within the organic world.

ID: What is Specified Complexity?

Or... What is Complex Specified Information ....or who is William Dembski?

"Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."  (Paul Davies)

ID: What is Irreducible Complexity?

Behe DBB, p 39)

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.     (

What is Irreudicble Complexity (or who is Michael Behe?)


Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[1] It is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]


(Wikipedia: Irreducible complexity *IMHO Wikipedia showcases a consistent and visible hostility to ID and any form of Creationism)

ID: Complex Specified Information (CSI): Notes

Chaos theory: no help for evolution


Occasionally it is claimed that the discovery of patterns of order in seeming chaos is a bright star of hope for evolutionists. They feel it holds promise for their struggle to explain how disordered chemicals could have assembled themselves into the first self-reproducing machine, in opposition to the relentless tendency to universal disorder.

However, present indications point to this being an illusory hope. One of the classic examples of such ‘order out of chaos’ is the appearance of hexagonal patterns on the surface of certain oils as they are being heated. The minute the heating stops, this pattern vanishes once again into a sea of molecular disorder.

These patterns, like the swirls of a hurricane, are not only fleetingly short-lived, but are simple, repetitive structures which require negligible information to describe them. The information they do contain is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, not requiring any extra ‘programming.’

Living things, on the other hand, are characterized by truly complex, information-bearing structures, whose properties are not intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances of which they are constructed; they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell.

This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes do not write programs.

Any suggestion that the two issues are truly analogous denies reality.

(Marths Blakefield: Order or Chaos)   http://creation.com/order-or-chaos

ID: Design Notes

The argument of Bad design.

Responses:

by Brad Sargent, PhD  (Excerpt)  Reasons to Believe 7/9/10

The panda’s thumb and the human eye are prime examples of misunderstood designs. The more we study them, the more they exhibit good design. For example, the panda’s thumb doesn’t have the versatility and capability of the human thumb, but it works well for the repetitive motion of stripping bamboo leaves. The human thumb couldn’t take that kind of constant stress.3


As another example, the high density of rods and cones in the human eye requires an increased blood flow to the retina. This requirement means the neural connections must face outward, toward incoming light.4 We now know that the human eye elegantly compensates for the inverted retina with special cells that channel light past the neurons and down to the rods and cones.5 Some researchers theorize that the inverted retina provides better blood flow to the rods and cones and allows for better neural processing.6

Both of these examples should serve as a warning to avoid being hasty in declaring a design “bad” simply because it wasn’t engineered the way we think it should have been.  http://www.reasons.org/design-purpose

Specified Complexity (notes)

A Review Of The Case Against A Darwinian Origin Of Protein Folds By Douglas Axe, Bio-Complexity, Issue 1, pp. 1-12

By Robert Deyes  ARN Correspondent


In his latest critique Biologic Institute molecular biologist Douglas Axe has raised the ever-pertinent question of whether Darwinian evolution can adequately explain the origins of protein structure folds given the vast search space of possible protein sequence combinations that exist for moderately large proteins, say 300 amino acids in length. To begin Axe introduces his readers to the sampling problem. That is, given the postulated maximum number of distinct physical events that could have occurred since the universe began (10exp150) we cannot surmise that evolution has had enough time to find the 10exp390 possible amino-acid combinations of a 300 amino acid long protein.


The battle cry often heard in response to this apparently insurmountable barricade is that even though probabilistic resources would not allow a blind search to stumble upon any given protein sequence, the chances of finding a particular protein function might be considerably better. Countering such a facile dismissal of reality, we find that proteins must meet very stringent sequence requirements if a given function is to be attained. And size is important. We find that enzymes, for example, are large in comparison to their substrates. Protein structuralists have demonstrably asserted that size is crucial for assuring the stability of protein architecture.

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds

Douglas Axe

Abstract

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. The huge advances since that time call for a careful reassessment of the issue they raised. Focusing specifically on the origin of new protein folds, I argue here that the sampling problem remains. The difficulty stems from the fact that new protein functions, when analyzed at the level of new beneficial phenotypes, typically require multiple new protein folds, which in turn require long stretches of new protein sequence. Two conceivable ways for this not to pose an insurmountable barrier to Darwinian searches exist. One is that protein function might generally be largely indifferent to protein sequence. The other is that relatively simple manipulations of existing genes, such as shuffling of genetic modules, might be able to produce the necessary new folds. I argue that these ideas now stand at odds both with known principles of protein structure and with direct experimental evidence. If this is correct, the sampling problem is here to stay, and we should be looking well outside the Darwinian framework for an adequate explanation of fold origins.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

Where is design evident?

Using a very broad brush, there are two major areas where "Design" advocates suggest we look for intelligent causation. 

1) The construct of the Physical Universe

2) Biological Complexity.

On rare occasion I read the words of a person who accepts the propect of design in one area, but not the other.  It would appear that Theist and evolutionist (but not a theistic evolutionist?)  Fracis Collins accepts the idea that God, as an intelligent being, set up the contants of the physical universe in such a way as to provide a foundation for life.  On the other hand, he seems to favor Darwinian (unguided) evolution.  He's an odd bird, something of a Christian apologist, and micro matterialist at the same time.   As a rule, however, you will find that folks who site God as active in the set up of the Universe, also find him capable of innovation at the level of life and biological complexity.


Design expressed in:

Fundamental Physical Laws (the problem of Universals)

Universal Constants

Atomic Structure

The attributes of particular materials (example: water)

The distribution of materials

The origin of Life

The complexity of DNA

The complexity of the Cell

The Complexity of organ systems, and the integration of the cellular

The particular attributes of individual species.

The Mind of Man

The Social relationships of Man (Ethics)

********SECTION - THE CASE FOR DESIGN

The Case "to" Design (Intro)

When I first encountered the phrase "argument to design" in the writings of Anthony Flew (Atheist turned Deist) I thought he had made an error in grammar.  Wouldn't it be an argument from Design.  But according to Flew, the argument to Design, is one which leads to the inference of design (which in turn can be used to infer Intelligent Agency).


Dawkins on Flew
Anthony Flew speaks



There are so many arguments to design, that it is hard to know where to begin.  But the astronomical caseload of design samples only reinforces the basic disagreement between those who embrace design, and those who do not.  Proponents of Design, see design most everywhere, where those who reject intelligent design, see only the appearance of design.  (or the assumption of design) 


In a nutshell, arguments to design focus on four or five major areas.


1) The structure of the Universe
2) the Origin of Life
3) the complexity of the Cell or of  particular structures
4) the formation or attributes of individual species. 
5) the larger connectedness between species (ecosystems)








Design in DNA:

For example, the genetic code that we see in almost all organisms today is remarkably optimized. It allows for redundancy that reduces the chance of DNA mutations causing changes in protein structure, but on the other hand, the most common mutations due to the intrinsic chemistry of DNA lead to amino acid changes that increase hydrophobicity, increasing the likelihood of secondary structure and protein-protein interactions. There is also no evidence for precursor codes, and the variants that do exist (such as the mitochondrial code) are better explained as divergent from the universal code rather than primordial remnants. The numerous mechanisms within the cell to ensure the fidelity of DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation, when compared with what we know about codes in general, are also good evidence for teleology in biology. Even more intriguingly, some bacteria have a mechanism for increasing the rate of mutations in their genomes in response to certain stresses, which along with the general trend toward hydrophobicity in proteins suggests that evolutionary mechanisms may be co-opted by organisms to increase their complexity and chances of survival. http://missionterritory.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/the-problem-of-design/

Physical Constants


Nancey Murphy. Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Here is one point where greater knowledge of the natural world bears on a theological problem. Since the writings of Brandon Carter in 1974 we have had increasingly detailed knowledge of the way in which fundamental constants and physical laws appear to be fine-tuned to produce a universe that supports life. Change any of the numbers slightly, and the development of the entire universe would have gone quite differently, making the evolution of life impossible. For example, the ratio of the strength of gravity to one of the other basic forces, the nuclear weak force, had to be adjusted as accurately as one part in 10 to the 100th power to avoid either a swift collapse of the universe or an explosion.


These scientific developments can be used to argue that, if there is a designer God whose purpose for the universe includes life, especially intelligent life, then the laws and constants had to be almost exactly what they are. Thus, if we are to be here, the natural world must contain almost exactly the amount of danger and destruction that it does.  (a part of this quote is given to the problem of destruction and pain in the universe.)

Owen Gingerich (Templeton Essay)  Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Only gradually did I come to appreciate how magnificently tuned the universe is for the emergence of intelligent life. Carbon atoms, with their self-bonding properties, provide the immense variety for the complex cellular machinery–no other atom offers a comparable range of possibilities.


But carbon did not emerge from the big bang of creation. It was slowly produced, over billions of years, in the cores of evolving stars. Had some of the basic constants of nature been only slightly different, there would be no major abundance of carbon. And it is extremely difficult to imagine intelligent life without something like carbon.

One swallow does not a summer make. But in the fine-tuning of the universe, the abundance of carbon is only one of many such remarkable aspects. There are enough such "coincidences" to give thoughtful observers some pause. Scientists who are loath to accept a fine-tuned universe feel obliged to take notice. Of course, if the universe were any other way, we wouldn't be here to observe it, but that is hardly a satisfying answer.

Bruno Guiderdoni (Templeton Essay) is an astrophysicist and the Director of the Observatory of Lyon, France

Modern science has produced something quite unexpected. Even to a scientist such as myself. It turns out that the observed features of the natural world appear to be fine-tuned for biological complexity. In other words, everything from the mass ratios of atomic particles, the number of space dimensions, to the cosmological parameters that rule the expansion of the universe, and the formation of galaxies are all exactly what they need to be to create stars, planets, atoms, and molecules.


But where does this apparent fine-tuning come from?

Is it the manifestation of a plan for the universe? An arrangement by a superior will to prepare the way for complex creatures? Is it God's signature? People of faith believe it is so. They read purpose in the universe as a painter sees beauty in a view on the ocean.

...  The fact that these fundamental theories ((Multiverse etc.)) are even accessible to our brains, which, in a purposeless universe would be nothing but a by-product of our ability to find prey (and avoid being prey), in the millennia of Homo sapiens' evolution is something I find quite ... puzzling.

The reality is that we are able to contemplate such questions. And the bigger the questions our brains can ponder, the more unlikely that the cosmic drama we are all participating in is simply a cosmic lottery.

Design Notes: Hugh Ross, 4 Spheres of fine tuning

Astronomer and Progressive Creationist Hugh Ross divides attributes (or constants) required for the support of physical life into four categories (based on the scope of the challenge) and with each, comments on the statistical probablity of such attributes occuring through "chance" occurance.


Part 1: Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe — lists 140 features of the cosmos as a whole (including the laws of physics) that must fall within certain narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of physical life's existence.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part1.pdf

Part 2: Fine-Tuning for Intelligent Physical Life—describes 402 quantifiable characteristics of a planetary system and its galaxy that must fall within narrow ranges to allow for the possibility of advanced life's existence. This list includes comment on how a slight increase or decrease in the value of each characteristic would impact that possibility.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part2.pdf

Part 3: Probability Estimates for Features Required by Various Life Forms—identifies 922 characteristics of a galaxy and of a planetary system physical life depends on and offers conservative estimates of the probability that any galaxy or planetary system would manifest such characteristics. This list is divided into three parts, based on differing requirements for various life-forms and their duration.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf

Part 4: Probability Estimates on Different Size Scales for the Features Required by Advanced Life—presents a breakdown of the characteristics required by advanced life (from Part 3) as they must occur, separately, in the galaxy cluster, galaxy, star, planetary system, planet, moon, planetary surface, and ecosystem where advanced life exists.

http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part4.pdf

What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics

What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how, or in what manner does it apply to the larger origns debate?

(Note: Much more here to be applied)

Thermodynamics


Any evolutionary model of the universe must conflict with one of the most fundamental laws of science, namely the second Law of Thermodynamics. This law formalizes the observed fact that, within those regions of space and time which are accessible to observation, the universe is decreasing in complexity and availability of energy. The evolutionary model must, however, postulate a universe that has instead evolved upwards toward higher states of order and availability. Since the Second Law always appears to hold true in observable space and time, and evolutionary model must include some component which negates the Second Law in non-observable space and time. The steady state theory supposes that energy or matter somehow came into existence out of nothing far out in non-observable space. The big-bang theory supposes that energy or matter somehow came into existence out of nothing (or at least out of some state of things completely incommensurate with the present state of things) far back in non-observable time. There is, of course, no way of testing any process which operates in non-observable space and time! (Morris/Gish ed The Battle for Creation V2 p188)

Who designed the Designer?

Who designed the Designer:

The jist of the argument. (Get Dawkins actual words.)
The Universe is complex.
It is improbable (but not impossible) that a world like ours should exist by chance.
A god capable of designing the universe must be more complex than the universe itself.
If it is improbable that our universe should exist, it is even less probable that being who is more complex than the universe should exist.
Given Occam’s razor (the simplest explanation is to be preferred), it makes more sense to affirm the self existence of the universe, than to affirm the self existence of God.

What is the Theistic argument from First Cause

If we conclude that the universe had a beginning, we must then ask whether that beginning was caused or not caused. The Bible’s position that the cosmos was created by God clearly recognizes that there was cause, and identifies what that cause was.

The “Thermodynamics” of Spirit.

The “Thermodynamics” of Spirit.




In the realm of physics, we note that systems “lose” power, and that energy always moves in the direction of “concentration” to toward “dissipation” (or toward greater entropy)

Unless new energy is added to a system

Heat cools

Sound dims

Light fades

Water runs downhill.

Bodies decay

Systems move from higher organization to lower states of organization.

The Greater gives birth to the lesser.

The general framework of naturalistic evolution moves against the grain of numerous physical laws and postulates that disorder gives birth to order. Death gives birth to life. Chaos gives birth to purpose.

On the other hand, When we begin with the eternal God, the “flow” matches the idea we experience both in observation and by intuition: ie. -- that which is greater both precedes and feeds that which is lesser.



That which is LIVING gives birth to life.

God who is Personal, gives birth to personality

God who is VOLITIONAL – gives volitional capabilities to man

God who is CREATIVE – gives gifts of creativity to man

God who is Omniscient – gives knowledge to man

God who is Omnipotent – give power to man

God who sees, hears, tastes? Touches? Smells? Give birth to the sensory in man

God who is love – gives man emotive gifts.

God who is holy, endows men with various gifts ranging from wrath to governing authority.

Bible: What is the Fall?

Question:  What are the implications of the Fall, if -- according to every old earth model, death and suffering was a normal part of the pre-Fall Universe?


A review of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller
Dutton, New York, 2008

reviewed by Lita Cosner  (Creation Ministries 7/9/10)

Evolutionary stance makes for flawed answers on suffering

Keller is a theistic evolutionist, which causes him to give wrong or incomplete answers to some of the questions he attempts to answer in his book. For instance, in his chapter on pain and suffering (ch. 2), he says that God sometimes allows evil to happen in order that He may turn it to good in some way, and that Jesus died on the cross undergoing tremendous suffering to save humanity, proving that God’s reason for allowing suffering is not that he does not love mankind. He also points forward to the hope of resurrection and the end of all suffering.

The starting point should have been that humans go through pain and suffering because we are all fallen and sinful, and fallen people are capable of committing acts of tremendous evil.

While there is nothing necessarily wrong with this answer, it is still incomplete, because he does not address the reason for pain and suffering—the Fall.3,4 The starting point should have been that humans go through pain and suffering because we are all fallen and sinful, and fallen people are capable of committing acts of tremendous evil. God is, of course, capable of overriding human will, but does not always do so, because He values human voluntary will (although it is impossible, of course, to know just how often God does intervene in situations). Another aspect of the Fall is that things do not work correctly at times, including our bodies, leading to disease and death. When these things happen and we feel as if it is wrong, as if it was never supposed to be like this, it is precisely because things are all wrong. Any answer to the question of pain and suffering that does not include this sort of explanation is seriously lacking.

Incompetent exegesis of Genesis creation account:

Keller’s incomplete answer to the question of pain and suffering was an error of omission, but his chapter on science and religion (ch. 6) contains many errors of commission. He handles the issue of miracles versus science well,5 but cites the predictable theistic evolutionist line on the Bible and evolution. He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate,6 and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism (p. 87).

What is the Anthropomorphic Principle?

Question: What is the Anthropomorphic Principle?

Answer: The Anthropomorphic Principle suggests that the Universe appears to be find tuned to support human life…or that it was prepared for human beings.

If not ID: Ten Billion Monkeys in Ten Billion Rooms

The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory.


Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible...It's actually happened!

It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There's even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities!

I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

Some people believe in God with a capital G.
And some folks believe in Chance with a Capital C. 

(Perry Marshall)

"Bad" Design

Neil deGrasse Tyson (The case for Bad Design)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCnGf37iiKU&feature=player_embedded

The Case to Design - Fine Tuning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY7iCkK2Kqw

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/universe.html

The Implications of Naturalism: No Free Will

The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will. […]  as living systems we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf+html

The limits and domain of Science

The difference between physics and metaphysics. . . is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory. (Carl Sagan)

YEC (Critique)

For a larger defence of Young Earth Creationism (and a response to the question, why does the Universe look old.) Albert Mohler (Pres Southern Baptist)

http://biologos.org/resources/albert-mohler-why-does-the-universe-look-so-old/

One of three questions asked by Karl of BioLogos

http://biologos.org/blog/how-should-biologos-respond-to-dr-albert-mohlers-critique-karls-response/

3. You speak of the apparent age of the universe as a logical necessity and I fully agree with you, up to a point. Certainly, if we were to wander into the Garden of Eden two weeks after the creation was completed, we would see two adults who looked at least 18 years old. But there are many other indicators of age that don’t lend themselves to this sort of explanation. Why would God create radioactive elements in the proportions to suggest the earth is 5 billion years old? Why would God create stars with half of their nuclear fuel already used up? Why would God pepper the heavens with debris that looks exactly like it came from stars that exploded billions of years ago? Why would God create continents that look exactly like they were joined millions of year ago?



Notes:

“How can an institution of higher learning permit the teaching of an aberrant misinterpretation and what I would consider an intolerable representation of the truth?” asks Swan. “What we’re faced with is a very interesting intellectual morass. What do you do with a professor who has gone wrong?”

For Swan, academic freedom is no defense for teaching creationism.

“If this is academic freedom, almost any bucket will go in. I can talk absolute nonsense to my class.”

“Do geologists allow a flat-earth advocate to teach? Would astronomers like astrologists? But this (creationism) differs because the evidence for it is not scientific, it is religious. Does a professor have the right to teach anything he wants? Can society afford to deny science?”

Creationists’ attacks on the holes in evolutionary theory enrage Swan who claims they employ a “You don’t know, therefore God” argument.

Douglas Post, professor of ecological and systematic biology, agrees, saying, “I don’t think there is any positive evidence to prove creationism. They rely on negative evidence. Their main argument is that you can’t prove that Darwin is correct. But I don’t think that just because you can’t prove Darwin you can automatically conclude that creationism is correct.”    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/dean-kenyon-a-y.html

http://scepsis.ru/eng/articles/id_2.php

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

... try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8816

The Galileo Challenge

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. Galileo Galilei

Faith and Science (Links)

Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete? (1 of 4) by JP Moreland (Easily Digestable for the Non-scientist.)

The claim that "there is no knowledge of reality outside of the hard sciences", is self refuting. (Since Science itself cannot support this claim.)

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwI6KX_XJqM&feature=related


Argument that the Universe had a beginning, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Fine Tuning of the Universe.

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVh5w7UfJEc&feature=related
Biological Evidence:  Biological Information

Part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Md28jmhCw&feature=related
Conscious thought
(this claim seems the least credible to me...I tend to think of mental processes as anchored in physcial realities, undo the physcial, undo the conscious.

Science and certitude

"You’d think that, for a website devoted to reconciling faith with the facts of science, the idea of Genesis as inspirational fiction would not be negotiable. If anything is absolutely, rock-bottom true, it’s that life evolved, beginning about 4 billion years ago, and that the creation myth of Genesis can’t be true."

Faith and Reason Part 2

What is the role of reason in the acquisition of wisdom?
What is reason?
What are the limitations of reason?
Is reason the sole means by which we seek to discover truth, or is it part of a bundle?
What role does reason play in our reading of holy writ?
What role does reason play in apprehending faith?

What is the role of faith in the acquisition of knowledge?
What is provisional assent? How does faith differ from provisional assent?
What roll does faith play in giving credence to reason?
What role does faith play in taking us beyond reason?
What distinguishes good faith from bad faith? (Is all Faith equal?)
Is it possible to reason righty, or fully without Faith?
Faith occupies a realm which does not intersect with reason -- or NOMA


Most scientists, believers and nonbelievers alike, probably agree with the Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) view articulated by recently deceased Stephen J. Gould. In this view, science and religion should confine themselves to different domains. Science should deal with material world, while religion should deal with morality.

Richard Dawkins has pointed out that



• A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

He also notes that

There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism: these are religious matters and therefore outside the domain of science. But you cannot have it both ways. At least, religious theorists and apologists should not be allowed to get away with having it both ways. Unfortunately all too many of us, including nonreligious people, are unaccountably ready to let them.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Incompatibility.html

Faith is not reasonable (nor desirable)

Faith is not reasonable (but is desirable)

Faith is something to be held in opposition to Reason

Case Study: Soren Kierkegaard.

Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/

“One should expect, if one is a believer, that with God all things are possible, even things which are physically and logically impossible (Anderson 48).”

But while having faith is tremendously difficult, Kierkegaard stands in awe of it: “to be able to lose one’s reason, and therefore the whole of finiteness of which reason is the broker, and then by the virtue of the absurd to gain precisely the same finiteness – that appalls my soul, but I do not for this cause say that it is something lowly, since on the contrary it is the only prodigy (Anderson 60).” (Philosophic 271).

It is difficult to find flaws with Kierkegaard’s argument and description of religion, since he is not speaking in rational terms, and not trying to convince his audience through the methods of logic. He does seem to be taking faith as a prima-facie good, and since the whole of his argument basically stems from the idea that faith is inherently worthwhile and beneficial, it’s a bit of shaky ground to be on. But that’s not really the point: faith, like Abraham’s situation, cannot be mediated, simply because it is by definition irrational and inexplicable. If I had not had direct experience with the kind of faith that Kierkegaard is talking about, I doubt that I would be able to understand him at all. But I know what it is to gain something by giving it up, and I know how you have to lose yourself in order to find yourself. It’s all subjective and it’s all irrational, and it’s something you’ll just have to take my word for. My word and Kierkegaard’s at least.

Faith and Reason (Questions)

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.

Blaise Pascal

A Theology of Creation.

If we are to understand the nature of reality, we have only two possible starting points: either the brute fact of the physical world or the brute fact of a divine will and purpose behind that physical world.  

John Polkinghorne

“BIG MART” 5/27/02

I was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day;
(Whether in my mind or out of it I can not tell.)

What is Man?

I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand.    Oliver Wendell Holmes.

What is Faith?

The world of sense intrudes upon our attention day and night for the whole of our lifetime. It is clamorous, insistent and self-demonstrating. It does not appeal to our faith; it is here, assaulting our five senses, demanding to be accepted as real and final.

Genesis: Alternate Readings

Old Universe - Young Earth (Modified Gap Theory)

http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/oldyoung.html


Sailhamer (Modified Gap theory)

Critiques of Sailhamer's position.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/rules.asp

http://www.mctsowensboro.org/mcts-blog/piper-sailhamer-and-creationism/