Intelligent Design / Evolution podcast

[fuddam]

here's a thought. life springs from single celled organisms? prior to these, we have something else

here's a question: tell me how a motor, operating at speeds of 100,000rpm, can exist inside the cell, and function in order to promote homeostasis in the cell, and develop spontaneously from an earlier life form? and that is just ONE of the complex entities within a cell required for it to function as a cell

or DNA. It contains genes. Can someone tell me how those genes came to have information stored in them? It is not the existence of genes that is so important but their combination that matters.
Another appeal to infinite combinations somehow getting it right, for the first life forms?

am truly curious as to your fascinating theories (despite the intellectual pride)

[G4Z]

fuddam, what on earth are you going on about?

Even if I support your assertion that there are currently no satisfactory explanation for these things (I will research after posting this), why would you assume that there has to be "intelligence" involved, what evidence is there of that? the default assumpion there should be "I dont know, maybe if we do some research..." not "oh well there you have it , god!"

I take it that is what you are getting at with your distraction of a post, you never answered any of the questions put to you by others and I.

I will have a look for explanations of these things, and answer your question, but I think in turn you should actualy reply to some of the posts here, particularly Iranus that you have ignored as I said you would,

[fuddam]

Why did Copernicus suffer? He was right, he had proof. We know he was right. The reason he was persecuted was because the truth did not fit with the Catholic doctrine of the time. To question the church was to question it's absolute authority, therefore it was a challenge to it's power. ID is exactly the same. A way to hide the truth because the truth does not support that particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible, it reduces the power of said organisation. You may aswell teach people that Harry Potter is real and that we should take wizardry seriously.

Our society has come so far because we have shacken off the shackles of religion and the small minded, pre-concieved ideas that it promotes. It really is time for the western world to regard religion as no more than an association of individuals like a book club or a cycling club.

smug. very smug. as are most of the peeps responding to this thread, but there you go. Anyway, you want to be so smug about your scientific position, I'll post a response (not my own) in its entirety, since the smug lot generally only follow links that indulge their own perceptions:

THE HISTORIC ALLIANCE
OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE
By Kenneth Richard Samples

The influential British mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell once remarked, "I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." In his popular and controversial work "Why I Am Not A Christian," Russell leveled the charge that Christianity, in particular, has served as an opponent of all intellectual progress, especially progress in science.1 Since Russell's time, other outspoken advocates of a naturalistic worldview have echoed Russell's claim, asserting that Christianity is incompatible with-even hostile to-the findings of modern science. Many in our culture view Christianity as unscientific, at best, anti-scientific at worst.

Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity's positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged.2 I would like to turn the tables by arguing for Christianity's compatibility with - and furtherance of scientific endeavor and arguing against the compatibility of naturalism and science.

(1) The intellectual climate that gave rise to modern science (roughly three centuries ago) was decisively shaped by Christianity.3 Not only were most of the founding fathers of science themselves devout Christians (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal),4 but the Christian worldview provided a basis for modern science both to emerge and to flourish. Christian theism affirmed that an infinite, eternal, and personal God created the world ex nihilo. The creation, reflecting the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. Further, humankind was uniquely created in God's image (Gen. 1:26-7), thus capable of reasoning and of discovering the intelligibility of the created order. In effect, the Christian worldview supported the underlying principles that made scientific inquiry possible and desirable.

Eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki has argued that science was "stillborn" in other great civilizations outside Europe because of prevailing ideas that stifled scientific development, e.g., a cyclical approach to time, an astrological approach to the heavens, metaphysical views that either deified nature (animism) or denied it (idealism).5

(2) The principles underlying the scientific method (testability, verification/falsification) arise from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The experimental method was clearly nurtured by Christian doctrine.6 Because the Christian founders of modern science believed that the heavens genuinely declare the glory of God (Ps. 19: 1), they possessed both the necessary conceptual framework and the spiritual incentive to boldly explore nature's mysteries. According to Christian theism, God has disclosed Himself in two dynamic ways: through special revelation (God's redemptive actions recorded in the Bible - "God's book") and through general revelation (God's creative actions discoverable in nature - "God's world"). Puritan scientists in England and in America viewed the study of science as a sacred attempt to "think God's thoughts after Him."7

While Christians have plenty of room to grow in the virtues of discernment, reflection, and vigorous analysis, the wisdom literature of the Old Testament consistently exhorts God's people to exercise them, and the New Testament teaches the same message (see Col. 2:8; 1 Thes. 5:2 1; 1 Jn. 4: 1). These principles served as the backdrop for the emerging experimental method.

(3) Some of the philosophical presuppositions foundational to the study of science include these: the existence of an objectively real world, the comprehensibility of that world, the reliability of sense perception and human rationality, the orderliness and uniformity of nature, and the validity of mathematics and logic.8 These necessary preconditions of science are rooted in Christian theism's claims of an infinite, eternal, and personal creator who has carefully ordered the universe and provided man with a mind that corresponds to the universe's intelligibility. This Christian schema served as the intellectual breeding ground for modern science. It sustained science and enabled it to flourish. How does naturalism compare? Does it explain or provide fertile ground for the birth and progress of science?

Consider how a naturalist might answer the following questions: How can a world that is the product of blind, non-purposeful processes account for and justify the crucial conditions that make the scientific enterprise even possible? How does naturalism justify the inductive method, assumptions about the uniformity of nature, and the existence of abstract, non-empirical entities such as numbers, propositions, and the laws of logic if the world is the product of a mindless accident? According to naturalism, isn't even the human mind one accident in a series of many accidents?9 If so, how can we have any confidence it steers us toward truth? How could such a concept as truth even be conceived?

Christian philosopher Greg L. Bahnsen argues not only that naturalism fails to justify its underlying presuppositions but also that naturalists illegitimately rest their scientific endeavors on Christian theistic principles. Naturalists borrow from Christianity. Consider this insightful observation by physicist and popular author Paul Davies:

People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.10

One may wonder if science would have arisen had the dominant metaphysical views of the time been naturalistic and materialistic. Would naturalism have been able to sustain the scientific enterprise that Christian theism generated? The eminent Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga gives his opinion: "Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."11

(4) The prevailing scientific notions of big bang cosmology and the emerging anthropic principle seem uniquely compatible with Christian theism. Since the universe had a singular beginning, we have a logical right and reason to inquire about its cause. Gottfried Leibniz's classic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" seems even more provocative in light of what we now know about the big bang universe. Is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing by nothing or that, as the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

[Kumagoro]

Maybe ID is right maybe god is behind it all. How else can we explain the
absolute, never seen before, stupidity of fuddam.

Hoist by your own petard.

[G4Z]

Right, firstly no idea what you are going on about with regards to a motor in cells doing 100,000 rpm, please clarify in plain english so I can work out what the hell you are on about. As far as I can see homeostasis is nothing to do with energy production in cells, it is about maintaining a state of balance. i.e osmosis and other processes.

As for the second question about the evolution of DNA and genes, well I couldnt find any free sources but it seems somebody has thought about it and has some ideas that dont involve a god.

http://www.eurekah.com/abstract.php?...id=67&catid=27

[G4Z]

Got to be honest, what are you trying to say with that lengthy quote?

It says nothing about the church's real agenda of power that Iranu talks about, it just talks about the good christianity has done for science. i would argue christianity has done nothing for science but many christians have.

[G4Z]

Another one for you, just as you present us with 'scientists' who say creationism is for real, I would like your comment on our very own CoE Archbishop, http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...735732,00.html

Clearly a commited christian, yet he thinks ID should be kept out of science classrooms and.

"I think creationism is ... a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories ... if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories ... My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it,"

[fuddam]

Our society has come so far because we have shacken off the shackles of religion and the small minded, pre-concieved ideas that it promotes. It really is time for the western world to regard religion as no more than an association of individuals like a book club or a cycling club.

my emphasis in bold - a specific response:

when you are a little bit older (not that I'm suggesting you are a child, or even a teenager), maybe you will realise that the most important facets of a person's life revolve around one aspect: relationships

of course, you might reply that it's just my opinion - go ahead.

anyway, there is nothing more profound, or meaningful, or valuable on the face of this planet, for the continued existence of mankind, than the messages espoused by Christ. NOTHING.

dismiss them as small minded, but love, peace, compassion, charity, sacrifice, family are all centred on relationship. And before anyone responds that they exhibit such love without being Christians, let me ask what impact your particular behaviour will have on earth? will anyone know about, much less care about you in 100 years time? 50 years? 20?

Christ came to spread that message, uniquely, and demonstrated it uniquely. Scoff all you like, but 2000 years after his death, people are still going into crack dens, orphanages, hospitals, slums (etc) to care and love for people in His name, for no earthly reward.

And you? sitting on your ideology of scientific prowess and progress, what will you amount to?

There is no conflict between science and Christ. There is only a perceived conflict within your own paradigms. Bully for you.

There is not much point in arguing incessantly, especially with people who know all the answers. As you might have noticed, these threads tend to expire with a heap of non-Christians congratulating themselves about how they have driven off the stupid, the idiots, the gullible.

We retire out of choice, not because we are defeated, but because we have staked our claim, and that is what matters. I put up this thread in the first place NOT for people such as you, since you have made up your minds already, REGARDLESS of any evidence that might arise. God might bless you with a personal visitation one day that will leave you bibbering with fear at your conviction, but the next day you'll just argue yourselves back into disbelief. I would hope not, of course, but time will tell.

There is a battle going on, and the Christians know what it is about. It does not come down to discussions or arguments such as these. Scoring points doesn't mean a thing.

One day you WILL see it. The beliefs you belittle contribute a great deal more to the happiness of millions of recipients of Christian charity and love, than all the science in the world.

Go on, scoff away.

[G4Z]

Bloody hell,

Ok Scoff coming.

I feel I have to reply to these threads so that there is an alternate viewpoint and to present another side to the argument So that people who really have not looked into these things are not fooled into thinking the rubbish you came out with there to support the view that ID is a valid theory.

The reason you give up replying is because you cant answer the questions posed to you in a logical and rational manner and always resort to simply ignoring points and then preeching away like you just did.

"anyway, there is nothing more profound, or meaningful, or valuable on the face of this planet, for the continued existence of mankind, than the messages espoused by Christ. NOTHING."

Come on give me a break, those things were around long before Jesus and will be around as long as there is an evolutionary need to keep them. Just like all the bad stuff and war and slavery was there before Jesus and continues to this day.

Also you seem to assert that athiests do not contribute to the community and it is only people with the spirtual guidence of Jesus and a wish to get into heaven that do.

That is a stupid suggestion and you know it, Christians really are not any more compassionate than any other group of people you care to mention. You people really think you are better than everybody else and you know somthing others dont. Its sad because you are just so wrong.

By the way, im 25 and I use relationships all the time, its how I do business, I understand the importance of a social structure for a social species, what is the relevance exactly?

[TeePee]

That long quote is just christian propaganda. It's not relevent.

You are so quick to call others patronising, fuddam, you should look to yourself sometimes. People constantly respond to your posts with questions and reasoned arguments, and you reply with BS, irrelevent christian rhetoric, and demeaning remarks.

You say this post isn't for people like us? I say anyone who posts something in support of child abuse should be made to look like such a fool as you.

[fuddam]

Right, firstly no idea what you are going on about with regards to a motor in cells doing 100,000 rpm, please clarify in plain english so I can work out what the hell you are on about. As far as I can see homeostasis is nothing to do with energy production in cells, it is about maintaining a state of balance. i.e osmosis and other processes.

um, the motors are required for, amongst other processes, homeostasis. in terms of specific energy production, ever looked at the structure of a mitochondria? gettit?

There are a number of bacteria, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli and some Streptococci, that use sophisticated propulsion mechanisms. In these diagrams we present the electrical motor-like bacterial flagellum used by the E. coli bacteria to swim. These extremely efficient motors very much resemble in their construction the electrical motors invented by men only one hundred years ago. Scientists still do not completely understand how these motors work, but studies have revealed the components shown in these diagrams. These motors are about 25 nanometers in diameter, that is, they are 3,000 times smaller than the diameter of the human hair. The motor shaft rotates the flagellum, which acts as a propeller, with speeds up to 100,000 rpm. In addition, these motors are reversible. Using this propulsion, the bacteria can travel ten times its body length in a second, which is equivalent to a human running at 40 mph (64km/h) speed.

and

no one has ever seen a machine that put itself together without a designer, and no cell could possibly live without a good number of miniature molecular machines all present and functioning.

Why not?

Cells would just be goo dissolving into the water if it were not for the membranes that enclose them. However, a membrane's ability to hold the cell in, also holds nutrients out. Therefore, even the cell's membrane must have machines, little pumps made out of several different proteins folded into complex shapes to work together. They pass the right nutrients through the membrane and into the cell. Any cell without these nutrient pumps would starve to death. The proteins that form the pumps are made by other machines. Without these protein making machines there would be no pumps. Pumps and protein-making machines, like all molecular machines, are made according to the intelligent plans included in the cell's information. This contradicts the theory that a first cell was put together by chemicals with no intelligent input whatsoever.

Where do cells come from?

Evolutionists point to simpler things like amino acids, water and crystals that will form in nature outside of cells, and claim that the chemicals from which molecular machines are made (proteins, DNA, RNA) must have formed that way, too. These substances, however, are so complex they never form in nature except in already living cells.

For a cell to live, it must have these three very complex materials, plus many of its molecules must work together to form all of these essential machines. When evolutionists claim that, since water and amino acids form in nature, cells had no creator, this is like pointing out that because iron ore forms in nature, therefore SUVs were also formed by nature without any intelligent input.

Judges and the media pontificate: "The theory that chemicals evolved until they formed a first cell is scientific. It's the only thing schools may teach!" But the fact is that every machine is a product of intelligent design. No cell could live unless many machines were present from the very first

and another link (more scientific, too) here

interesting in the latter how the system has memory. How did this memory come to be in the first instance?

ho hum

[fuddam]

"anyway, there is nothing more profound, or meaningful, or valuable on the face of this planet, for the continued existence of mankind, than the messages espoused by Christ. NOTHING."

Come on give me a break, those things were around long before Jesus and will be around as long as there is an evolutionary need to keep them. Just like all the bad stuff and war and slavery was there before Jesus and continues to this day.

never said or even hinted otherwise. BUT can you please point me to anyone else who has put them into words even close to that which Christ did? No, don't argue now about what he said or did not say. Second, can you point out where such words have led to people continuing to act on such words even after thousands of years?

Iranu belittled the role played by religion, for which I put forward Christianity.

Also you seem to assert that athiests do not contribute to the community and it is only people with the spirtual guidence of Jesus and a wish to get into heaven that do.

your mistaken assumption. stop jumping to conclusions.

That is a stupid suggestion and you know it, Christians really are not any more compassionate than any other group of people you care to mention. You people really think you are better than everybody else and you know somthing others dont. Its sad because you are just so wrong.

mistaken assumption. Christians know they are no better than anyone else, which is exactly why Christ forbids anyone from judging anyone else. No-one is qualified to judge. Likewise NO-ONE is qualified to get into heaven, or ever will no matter what they do. Not the supposed saints, not Mother Theresa, not any Pope, not the kindest, gentlest soul you've ever met on the street of any belief. BUT I know who to follow to help me become a better person, and not through my own efforts.

By the way, im 25 and I use relationships all the time, its how I do business, I understand the importance of a social structure for a social species, what is the relevance exactly?

Christianity is all about relationships, and those that serve humankind best (albeit not always exemplified by Christians individually), and love being the foremost component thereof. When you have kids of your own (assuming you don't currently have any) and they start going off the rails (hopefully they don't) or you get married and your marriage starts breaking down (hopefully not), you'll start looking for help, from family, from self help books, from any source that makes sense. That very religion that Iranu belittled has the most authoritative, insightful, powerful solutions to such problems. Without question. And logical, rational solutions at that.

[TeePee]

More junk science from some christian website. The simplest cells we have today have had a few million years of evolution. There are many theories of how the first simple cells came to be. If you have any interest in REAL science, have a read through this website: http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/index.htm

As you have been repeatedly told, science is about the search for an answer, using proof, reason and logic.

Religion has it's answer and no proof, reason or logic to the contrary can change it.

[G4Z]

The old flagellum one, that idea that the flagellum could not have evolved has been debunked many a time, I refuse to entertain it again, there is no argumnent there, it could have evolved, your wrong.

[G4Z]

should also point out at no point did you explain why these things should be assumed to be a product of intelligence you just tried (unsucessfuly) to de bunk the current theories.

[fuddam]

That long quote is just christian propaganda. It's not relevent.

You are so quick to call others patronising, fuddam, you should look to yourself sometimes. People constantly respond to your posts with questions and reasoned arguments, and you reply with BS, irrelevent christian rhetoric, and demeaning remarks.

Pot? kettle? black?

Earlier in this thread you called me stupid, AND agreed that I had not called you such before.

You say this post isn't for people like us? I say anyone who posts something in support of child abuse should be made to look like such a fool as you.

go ahead. I don't mind looking the fool. at all. This post was for people who have a sense of awe AND a sense of humility. Your condescension speaks for itself.

furthermore, one day I hope you realise that you are as bound by ideology as any religious believer that has existed. Unfortunately you seem to think Science is the arbiter of truth. The very words, the language you use to communicate (ie English in this case) is as much a limiter of perception as your supposition that religion is one to the masses.