Who is the designer of life?

Many Darwinists, often thinking they are clever, weakly challenge ID on the basis of the identity of the designer. That’s not a question that we can answer scientifically. Here is a recent exchange that I had with a Darwinist on a message board along these lines:

Can we get back to the original question posed on this thread and away from all this other stuff? I would like to hear from IDers/Creationists tell us what Intelligent Design is or isn’t? What in your view makes ID a science? It’s been said that the creator doesn’t have to necessarily be the God of the Bible. How would it affect your viewpoint if it was proven that the Devil, for example, was the creator, and that’s why life has been so unfair to so many living creatures on this planet throughout the course of time?

Can someone get the ball rolling and enlighten us a little bit on Intelligent Design?

ID is about examining what can be accomplished by naturalistic forces alone versus effects requiring a mind to produce. It has fewer philosophical/religious assumptions than the evolutionary theory because it actually seeks to test the assumption of whether life can arise and evolve through completely naturalistic processes. ID makes use of, and tests, information theory and evolutionary algorithms to examine whether blind processes can result in new complex specified information. Because of their philosophical/religious assumptions, evolutionists never ask IF evolution occurred, but only ask HOW. They don’t seek to delineate what evolution can actually accomplish through the scientific method, as Michael Behe has done in the Edge of Evolution, and as William Dembski and Robert Marks are doing in their evolutionary informatics labs. ID does not make any conclusions about the designer, for that could be ultimately a question of faith. Creationists, obviously conclude that the designer is God. Many IDists conclude the same, but this is a personal conclusion. You are free to conclude that the devil is the designer if you wish, because ID doesn’t speak to that.

——

For those who have followed my blog, it’s clear that I believe is the designer is God. That decision of faith is made on a number of factors which are not as scientific, and most importantly through God’s leading.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. The quote above only proves the scripture true that I quoted on your last post.

    The problem of evil, in the natural world, is what compelled Darwin to seek a substitute answer for God, in the first place. And now his confusing (pseudo-religious) myth compels his worshipers to follow in his confusion and spiritual deadness. This is their choice! So be it!Amen!

    The word of God, when discerned through the Spirit, reveals that man, through Satan’s temptation, and man’s arrogant disobedience to God, caused evil to reign in this world, not God. But man, of course, is not capable of taking responsibility for his wrong thinking and wrong doing! So man, like guilty and impudent children, fabricates his excuses (hypotheses) to prove himself innocent (evolution, big bang etc).

    The fact is, those who are chosen to accept the truth, in this age of God’s mercy, will choose the Truth of our Lord, and those who, through the hardness of their own hearts, reject and hate God will not choose the truth. They will instead, as the scripture points out, remain blind (through “the father of lies,” their father) to the largest portion of reality that surrounds them, day and night: “man is without excuse!”

  2. They don’t seek to delineate what evolution can actually accomplish through the scientific method, as Michael Behe has done in the Edge of Evolution

    That’s not quite right, and the details matter. What Behe did is calculate the probability of two very specific substitutions occurring simultaneously in a protein. The result is that the probability is astonishing low. That shows the ‘limits of evolution’ if, but only if, the best model we have of the evolutionary process is one which requires that that’s what happened. But since we’re not committed to a model of quinine resistance as having happened that way — and I’d be astonished if any evolutionary biologist insisted that it had — Behe’s result is not very interesting. Certainly it doesn’t show that there are “limits to evolution”.

  3. Limits? Seems to me there are no limits to evolution, because all physical reality as we know it is the result of evolution. Can you name one single organism in this material existence (or any other) that is not the result of evolution? Or one single organism that is yet to come into existence (winged humans, anyone?), that won’t be the result of evolution? That sounds pretty unlimited to me… It certainly sounds like the omipotent and ubiquitous god of naturalism (the “Great Nothing”).

    Once again, it’s as Shrink has stated: evolutionary scientists are only interested in HOW evolution occurred, not IF it did. One could hypothesize forever about such things – like, for instance, HOW Jesus resurrected, and never even ask IF he resurrected (possibly because their Sunday school teacher told them so when they were kids, and, well, that settled it forever. No more thinking necessary). By examining the exact same celluar mechanisms as evolutionists do, we may even draw a “conclusion” about the “limits” of a resurrected body. Throw DNA samples from the shroud of Turin (our ‘transitional fossil’?) into the mix and we can have lots of fun making up all kinds of theories, and then proving them to ourselves.

    So, If I could concoct a scientific explanation (analogous to Geocentrism, perhaps?) as to HOW Jesus resurrected, would non-believers care? No. My HOW means nothing to them, because to them the IF is false. My HOW just looks like a bunch of idiots wasting a colossal amount of time. You see, the IF questions are FAR more important! The IF question is everything. The HOW questions only serve to help strengthen the FAITH of the converted. And faith in the Great Nothing by which all things brought themselves into existence is some strange faith indeed…

  4. Mike is correct: “evolutionary scientists are only interested in HOW evolution occurred, not IF it did.”

    That’s exactly right. That’s the subject of 2,000 reviewed papers per year in the journals. Because HOW it occurred is the only basis for scientific knowledge and for practical applications, which are the ultimate reason for science.

    For example, “IF intelligent design happened” means absolutely nothing unless you can show “HOW intelligent design happened.”

    Mike, the error you make is your pessimism: “If I could concoct a scientific explanation (analogous to Geocentrism, perhaps?) as to HOW Jesus resurrected, would non-believers care? No. My HOW means nothing to them, because to them the IF is false.”

    Wrong, Mike. Scientists would be all over themselves investigating your HOW—looking for predictions that your HOW model makes, looking for ways to test your model, looking for confirmations from other fields.

    And, if your HOW piles up enough evidence, you’re on your way to Stockholm for your Nobel. In science, HOW is always the most important question, because IF means nothing without it.

  5. […] Upson Downes said of evolution, whatever evolution may be, that how it occurs is ….the subject of 2,000 reviewed papers per year in the journals. Because HOW it occurred is the only basis for scientific knowledge and for practical applications, which are the ultimate reason for science. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: