I. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, called natural selection, stated that different species originated from shared ancestors, with the differences in the organisms being caused by adaptations to different environments. The environment determines which species are best fit to survive, and the traits of the organisms are passed down to new generations. With enough time, such passages of traits could lead to whole new species. This theory was developed after more than two decades of observations, studying thousands of animal and plant samples, all with extraordinary inferences drawn from observed similarities and differences.
II. Intelligent Design (ID) is essentially a negative argument: the forces at work, whether natural selection or something else, are not sufficient to bring about aspects of life which we observe, such as humans—therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. The appearances of organisms, then, have nothing to do with the survival success of their ancestors, like in natural selection: the intelligent designer brought life about quickly in all the various forms we observe today, as opposed to the slow process theorized in natural selection.
III. Using the evidence I’ve seen for both proposals, I’ve concluded that evolutionary theory better explains the phenomena of different life-forms. I’ll establish why I think so by considering the simplicity, explanatory power, and predictive success of both ideas.
IV. In terms of simplicity, I think that evolutionary theory wins hands down. Speaking about ontological complexity, both ideas incorporate the existence of various life-forms, but with Intelligent Design one must also include the existence of the designer, as well as the tools used in the design. In addition, a problem is raised regarding the origin of the existence of the intelligent designer; since it has abilities far more complex than even the current abilities of human beings, are we to suppose that it too was designed? In respect to dynamic complexity, both theories appear to accept the reproductive capabilities of organisms (I’m not sure about Intelligent Design), but Intelligent Design is the more complex nonetheless. Natural selection would imply the existence of biological processes which explain the similarities between offspring and parent organisms; such a thing isn’t too hard to believe because we can observe reproduction in organisms, meaning that something must be functioning within them which allows for such a thing. But Intelligent Design posits the existence of design processes outside of what goes on in reproduction, which have to be more complex because such designing gives rise to not just one type of organism, like a calf, but a multitude of organisms.
V. Evolutionary theory also wins in regards to its explanatory power. Through the fossil records, the gaps between species are bridged; fossils indicate a transitional stage from one type of organism to another, just as Darwin believed would be the case. Intelligent Design cannot account for such transitional fossils, and every fossil found sheds greater light on the bridges between species and the weakness of ID’s hypothesis.
VI. ID’s argument of irreducible complexity, which argues against evolution, fails to explain life forms because certain organisms have parts which are similar to other organism’s parts, but serve different purposes which lend support to evolution. A great example of this was the bacterial flagellum, which ID posits as an organism with an irreducibly complex motor; its motor has a similar structure to a syringe-like part belonging to the Yersinia pestis bacterium, and this is because they are made of the same kind of protein, but the Yersinia simply lacks the number of proteins need for the motor. Despite missing such proteins, the structure functions as an apparatus for carrying diseases, particularly the Bubonic plague; this is hard evidence that this motor then is not “irreducibly complex.”
VII. Lastly, I think evolution sort of wins by default in regard to predictive success, even though its success is astoundingly positive. ID offers no predictions. After its initial claims regarding the designing of species, it is silent regarding the implications of such designs, if any—meaning that there is nothing for scientists to test. Whereas evolution offers a plethora of predictions, with no scientific discoveries ever found which contradict such predictions in over 150 years. Darwin’s prediction about the fossil record was proven true, and modern genetics has recently proven Darwin’s contention of a common ancestry of humans and apes. In fact, every observation and experiment made, whether in molecular biology or modern genetics, has only confirmed the truth of evolution’s theory. This shows evolution to be an argument with a high degree of predictive success.
VIII. The conclusion then is that whether one looks at simplicity, explanatory power, or predictive success, it is clear that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection trumps the idea of Intelligent Design, and demonstrates a coherent and testable prediction regarding the origin of species.
Notes and References
Some of the material for this essay is from the PBS video “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”
[…] stated that different species originated from shared ancestors, with the differences in thehttps://umso.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/intelligent-design-vs-evolutionary-theory-a-brief-comparison/Evolution/Creation: Which Do You Believe?There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in […]
As a scientist and as a person who seeks to accept all truth objectively without regard to prior philosophical and/or religious presuppositions, I would vehemently disagree with you on all of the points you just made. With all due respect this article is an example of poor research and strawman arguments.
Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to make a point of clarification. All intelligent design theorists do not believe, as you seem to suggest, in a recent creation of all living beings. This is not a central tenet of ID. Many if not most ID theorists are scientists who have rightly concluded that the vast functional complexity easily seen in nature requires a transcendent cause and mechanisms that are beyond what is currently being observed in natural processes. Intelligent Design is not a religious belief. Many ID theorists believe that who or what this transcendent cause is should be left to the field of philosophy and/or theology.
That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to rebut some of the unfounded comments that you made. I would like to start with the simplicity of the two theories. What most evolutionists fail to realize is that both evolution and Intelligent Design rely on axiomatic assumptions about the nature of reality that are beyond the scope of science and lie in the field of metaphysics. Both theories are on equal ground in that respect. ID theory is more compatible with reality in this sense because it recognizes this metaphysical aspect of both disciplines and starts off with an intelligent designer (not necessarily God). Evolution on the other hand chooses to ignore the metaphysical underpinnings of its own theory and deifies ideas like mutation and natural selection. Another problem is in the fact that evolution suffers from incoherence due to its very evident vitalism. Any evolutionist will tell you that humans are the crowning achievement of an essentially blind natural process that created the living world from molecules to man. This assumes that there is a “gradient of intent” as Biochemist Neil Brooms puts it. The idea is that “natural selection” favors those mutations that would ultimately lead to man. This teleological aspect of evolutionary theory cannot be denied. To use an illustration that Broom uses in his book How Blind is The Watchmaker?, it is impossible for someone to climb Mount Everest, or any peak for that matter, without first intending to do so. The correlation is that evolution states that man (Mount Everest) can be arrived at by purely blind natural processes with no underlying intent starting with inanimate matter. This assumption brings up another question that is never fully explained by evolutionists which I just want to state without further explanation because its force is quite obvious. What could possibly be the selection criteria on pre-biotic molecules? In other words, unless the evolutionist claims that “Natural Selection” was aware of and striving for the yet unrealized idea of “life”, the theory of evolution fails at this very basic level. A prominent evolutionist once said that pre-biotic Natural Selection is a contradiction in terms. Neither could the pre-biotic selection criteria be increasing complexity because even as complexity increases we come nowhere near the functional complexity of even the smallest living organism. Snowflakes are very complex and create very interesting patterns, but their complexity does not serve an ultimate purpose inside a living organism. Therefore, the evolutionist is forced to personify the idea of “Natural Selection” and give it the very attributes that the evolutionist rejects in a transcendent designer. Even if Natural Selection could be employed to increase functional complexity in already living beings, which I will argue later that it cannot, it fails to account for the emergence of even the smallest living organism from lifeless matter without a heavy dependence on the unscientific idea of vitalism.
Another problem I have with the theory of evolution is in its falsifiability. This is a claim that is most often used against ID theorists by evolutionists who don’t understand the vulnerability of their own theory on this level. Evolutionary theory ultimately cannot be falsified. Even though there have been many new discoveries in the last century about the amazing functional complexity of the living world that should have been a death blow to the theory of evolution, we find that evolutionists just work these new discoveries into a new “just so” narrative of how evolution works. This kind of adherence to the theory of evolution despite mounting problems reveals evolution for what it is, purely a naturalistic faith built on conjecture and presupposition. I would argue that on this level, contrary to what you asserted, ID theory is the simpler of the two theories. Another problem for evolutionists related to this idea is that as evolutionists continue to ascribe more and more duties to natural selection, and attempt to explain the ever increasing levels of complexity found in the living cell in term of natural selection, the explanatory power of the theory decreases. Natural selection itself then has to have great complexity to account for the complexity that it produces in living organisms and is itself in need of an explanation. Perhaps an illustration would best explain this idea. In an aircraft there are certain levers that control certain functions of the aircraft. If one were to take away one of these levers, the function that the lever controls would cease to operate. Now let’s imagine that instead of many levers and buttons, the cockpit of an aircraft just had one button marked “fly”. Pushing this button would perform all the integrated and highly technical operations required to fly the aircraft including taking off and landing. One would be quite naïve to assert that the airplane flies because the “fly” button was pushed. Pushing the fly button merely starts a chain of events that operates the airplanes various systems in conjunction with one another. This kind of operation would require an engineering feat beyond which has ever been seen before. This one button would have to control systems, that control systems, that control systems through many layers of complexity. So we see that this is an apt illustration of what evolutionary theorists are trying to do with Natural Selection. They are ascribing more and more complex biological functions to natural selection. Therefore, natural selection itself is in need of an explanation in terms of the mechanisms that would allow it to perform its myriad tasks ascribed to it by the evolutionist. It is easily seen that something that explains everything actually explains nothing.
Another point I wanted to make is regarding the points you made regarding reproduction. Designs theorists do not state that design is continually operating in reproduction. Design theorists also believe as you stated in the
“existence of biological processes which explain the similarities between offspring and parent organisms; such a thing isn’t too hard to believe because we can observe reproduction in organisms, meaning that something must be functioning within them which allows for such a thing.”
Design theorists do not conjecture the active intervention of the designer in each act of reproduction. However, I believe the way that you stated this point actually entails, instead of contradicts intelligent design. You stated that, “something must be functioning within them which allows for such a thing.” The ID theorists would state that the functioning organism is a product of design instead of blind chance. Just as every machine has a designer, the highly functional “something” that allows an organism to reproduce seems to be very mechanical and orderly. This “functioning” itself is in need of an explanation that transcends natural processes. Also, ID theorists rightly understand that any process has to have a beginning. This is an aspect that you have overlooked in your treatment of this subject. So where did this functioning organism that you propose start to reproduce?
With that being said, I would like to move into your argument about the explanatory power of evolution. I would be the first to tell you that as an ID theorist if there were any unequivocal examples of transitional species found in the fossil record I would gladly concede the point. Charles Darwin himself said that if his theory were correct it would be evident from the fossil record. Hundreds of years later, there has still been no conclusive linking between organisms through fossils. Here I would not fault you for believing otherwise because the evolutionary establishment would have you believe to the contrary with their charts of the “evolution of man” and their idealized drawing of what transitional species would look like. In fact, there have been so few “transitional species” found and so many of the hypothesized lines of descent still remain without fossil representation, that many have turned to touting any fossil that is found as the long awaited missing link. Most of the time these fossils turn out to be an extinct animal that was already known, or they turn out to be elaborative hoaxes. I would urge you before you made such sweeping claims to research both the positive and the negative argument. I think that you would find that the fossil record has been a complete disappointment for evolutionists. There is much more that I could say beyond this regarding what would constitute a transitional species, but that would greatly lengthen this paper beyond which I am willing to commit to at this point in time. In conclusion, I would just ask that you take a clear an objective look at the fossil record and see whether it truly supports evolution as you claim.
Next, on you claim against irreducible complexity. Here you are completely off the mark. The idea that certain organisms have parts that are similar to other organisms no more supports evolution then the idea that certain cars have similar functioning parts because they naturalistically evolved from each other by chance. This can just as easily support the idea of a common designed as it could the idea of common descent. Here again we see a strawman argument being set up. The ID theorist’s claim of irreducible complexity does not state that no other organisms have similar attributes, but it instead states that there is a certain level of functionality that a molecular system or an organism must attain to before it could be operated on by natural selection. Your example of the two species of bacterium actually supports the idea of intelligent design because they are both in need of an explanation of how they seem to function beautifully in the way they do. You even betray your point in stating that the Yersinia Pestis bacterium has a syringe like motor. I can tell you that every syringe I have ever seen has come about not by purely natural processes but by the direct input of a designing agent. The fact that the Yersinia Pestis bacterium has a syringe-like motor that is functional does not go against the idea of irreducible complexity. This motor in and of itself is irreducibly complex. The bacterium has a sequence in its DNA that code for the proteins that make up the motor. This sequence is transcribed into RNA, taken outside the nucleus where this “motor” is built by a very elaborate process involving the complex molecular machinery of the ribosome (which itself is coded for in the DNA) and other apparatuses that shape this protein into just the right shape to function as it does. My counter argument would be that in evolutionary though before this functioning motor “evolved” by chance what would be the selection criteria that would retain the nucleotide sequences that would code for the as of yet non-functioning proteins of the as of yet unrealized motor. Here again vitalism creeps in through the back door. As I bring myself to this point, I am also reminded about the many inconsistencies in evolutionary theory brought to light by the field of genetics. These are beyond the scope of our current debate, but I would recommend Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford for a well reasoned and well researched look at the inability of natural selection at the level of the organism to be dependent on mutations in DNA sequences at the molecular level. This is a very misunderstood aspect of evolutionary theory. The best new research shows that our genome is deteriorating rapidly due to mutation with Natural Selection unable to stop the downward spiral due to selection costs and the disconnect between the DNA nucleotides and organism carries and its overall functionality. It is clearly seen that the vast majority of deleterious mutations continue to build up in the genome and are leading to what genetists call “mutational meltdown”. This fact speaks strongly against the idea that a similar process created the genome. I might conclude by stating the fact that evolution requires beneficial mutations to occur to bring about additions in information at the molecular level of the DNA. After many years of research, no such mutations have ever been observed to happen by chance. Any seemingly beneficial mutations that have been observed are due to a loss of information. Such an example would be low phytate corn which was produced by artificially selecting the strains of corn in which the machinery that produces phytic acid was damaged. This is actually a loss of genetic information. Dr. Sanford also points out in his book that even if a very rare beneficial mutation did occur it could not be selected for because of the increasingly small effect that one nucleotide out of 3 billion has on the overall functioning of the organism. This is a greatly simplified version of what is called “biological noise”. Such beneficial mutations (if there actually are any, the jury is still out on this point) fall in what A.S. Kondrashov calls a no selection region. I have regressed and have much more to say on this subject, but I would direct the interested reader to the aforementioned book among others for further research.
Lastly, the ideas that you propose in saying that evolution wins by default in predictive success are absurd. Some of them I have touched on in other portions of this paper, but I would like to conclude by drawing the distinction between function and purpose. Modern science has been very successful in giving us a lower understanding of how living organisms function down to even the tiniest cells, but it can never begin to explain the purpose of those organisms of why they work like they do. The naturalist’s best attempt at such an explanation is the theory of evolution, which has been tried over and over again and found wanting. Your conclusions in point V represent a completely un-researched and biased assumptions that are so prevalent today in people who have been taught evolution as fact since their primary education. I would ask that you come up with a single example to support your assumption that evolution has so much experimental support. The only experimental support evolution has is because evolutionists continually tweak their theory to fit the facts. Also, many of these apparent experimental successes that you speak of can be just as well, if not better, understood in terms of a creator/designer, but evolutionists are philosophically even religiously committed to naturalism, and will never allow such an idea to creep in and taint what they like to call “science”. I would like to conclude with a quote from Nobel Laureate and Harvard Biochemist George Wald which I thing aptly summarizes this idea.
“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.”
Greetings: this is the poster of the essay on “Evolutionary theory vs. Intelligent Design.”
I don’t believe any scientific theory can stand without an underlying perspective on how things operate–a certain metaphysical view of reality. Even “truth” presupposes a certain relationship between reality and human beings.
I am not a scientist, but a philosophy student, one concerned with seeking the truth through my observations of facts and inferences drawn thereof.
Consequently, my understanding of evolutionary theory is very limited, but I thought it was sufficient to write a short paper for a logic course comparing it to ID theory. I still believe that it was sufficient, because ID has so little to say.
In my view, ID is not science, but an unfounded metaphysical exercise. In absence of observation or means of testing, certain people claim that some being (designer) somehow designs certain biological systems. This is ridiculously unsatisfactory for a supposed scientific theory (I may not be a scientist, but I do know the distinctions between hypothesis, theory, and law). It explains nothing regarding how biological systems come into existence, or how they are different from one another, by merely positing that “some intelligent designer made them.” Science is concerned with discovering the causal mechanisms of all the phenomena we observe; ID is not a theory concerned with discovering the cause, but with merely showing that evolution can’t explain the cause, thereby showing the validity of the “designer” thesis.
Take the example of “irreducible complexity.” Let’s assume that some things are, in fact, “irreducibly complex”; this tells us nothing regarding the thing’s origin, whether it occurred by some yet undiscovered natural occurrence, or if something/someone actually designed it. In this context, it doesn’t matter what natural selection’s stance on this issue is, even if it’s wrong, because the (assumed) fact of irreducible complexity doesn’t prove ID; to claim that it does because natural selection couldn’t (or will never be able to) account for it is to commit the “argument from ignorance” logical fallacy.
The claim of “intelligent design” is just as arbitrary as the claim of the existence of aliens, and for the same reason: we have no evidence of the existence of such things. The ID theory offers absolutely nothing for scientists to consider, and should be discarded by anyone concerned with discovering the truths of biology.
Roderick Fitts
Dear Sir while I do enjoy a lively debate on this topic, I must admit that you have not tried to respond to any of the objections that I brought up in my rebuttal to your arguments. I do commend you for understanding as you say that every scientific system relies on metaphysical views of truth and reality. You have admitted a fundamental truth that many origin of life scientists refuse to admit. The philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory is the baseless philosophy of naturalism. Naturalism is a presupposition for many if not all science. Therefore, the evidence for a designer is all to often ignored or brushed a side with some “just so” evolutionary story among scientists who are committed to philosophical naturalism. These stories are proposed so that the scientific dilettante who believes in evolution may rest assured that the more educated evolutionists have the problem all figured out. That could not be further from the truth. Science is supposed to be a discipline where the results of an experiment determine the inferences drawn thereof. However, it has become a field in which philosophical naturalism presupposes the inferences that are allowed to be drawn by experiment in order attempt to save the failing current paradigm.
You’re assertion that ID theory has so little to say, is just as baseless as the arbitrary philosophical underpinnings that attempt to support evolution. ID theory is and can be a fully testable scientific theory using quite obvious inferences drawn from our understanding of information theory and our observation of the world around us.(let’s remember that evolutionary theory has had over to 150 years to solidify its methods and seek to explain biological complexity and information in terms of them and has met with complete failure). The criterion that William Dembski proposes is sufficient for such a task. Dembski gives every opportunity for evolution and naturalism to vindicate itself in his criterion. He says that we can only attribute design to something after every possible avenue of naturalistic explanation is exhausted. His model of specified complexity in inferring design is quite blatantly obvious when applied to any other field, but once it is applied to biology it elicits such a strong emotional (unscientific/uncritical) response. As your assertion that “ID theory has so little to say” betrays you as one who has not read Dembski’s book, I consider it necessary that I briefly summarize his design criterion here. I will begin by quoting directly from Dembski’s book Intelligent Design:
“Whenever we infer design, we must establish three
things: contingency, complexity, and specification.
Contingency ensures that the object in question is not
the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent
process that had no choice in its production. Complexity
ensures that the object is not so simple that it can
readily be explained by chance. Finally, specification
ensures that the object exhibit the type of pattern
characteristic of intelligence” (Dembski, 128).
We have here a very robust method for determining design. One that only infers design when it is the only viable explanation. This criterion is readily testable in determining design. The evolutionist would tell us untested and untestable “just so” stories of how evolution proceeds over time, but would then accuse the ID theorists of not having a testable criterion for inferring design. I find this the sickening pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, ID theory, contrary to your claims, does a better job in explaining how biological systems came to be than does the theory of evolution. This is because ID theory understands the necessity of a designer (which is transcendent of the physical universe) whereas the evolutionist just scratches his head and lulls the believer to complacency with some fairytale about how Darwinian mechanisms created the amazing complexity and diversity of life that we see all around us. I do hope that you would take the time to read about the absolute inability of mutation and natural selection (Darwinian mechanisms) to even secure the genome from further deterioration, let alone build the genome in the first place. This is an example of somewhere that the idea of specified complexity can be applied. Secondly, on this point, I would like to draw attention to a slight mistake you made in the aspirations that you attribute to science. Science is not concerned with discovering the causal mechanism of all the phenomena we observe. Science is concerned with the observations themselves and using these observations to determine relationships of correlation (not necessarily cause and effect). Science gets beyond its boundaries when it tries to test an unobserved, non-repeatable occurrence somewhere in the distant past; therefore, the theories of evolution and intelligent design are on the same platform. Intelligent Design though has the advantage in that it realizes that this deeper understanding of reality is beyond the ability of science to provide, so it describes a criterion to infer design in observing currently functioning biological system, and then leaves the who, what, when, and how of said design securely where it belongs, in the field of metaphysics, the domain of the philosophers and theologians.
Next, I want to draw attention to something you said in your next paragraph. Irreducible Complexity is quite simply a means by which we can infer that a system could not have come into being by currently accepted darwinian methods (ie. stepwise mutation and natural selection). Dr. Behe in introducing the idea of irreducible complexity applauds the furtherance of research into any possible naturalistic mechanisms that could create said systems. This does in fact tell us about the “things” origin. It shows us that some thing must have designed it. It is humorous to me that you suggest that such a system could have come about by “some yet undiscovered natural occurrence”. The very idea of irreducible complexity shows the inability of such a “natural occurrence” and the criterion of specified complexity lends further support to this conclusion. What I find most amusing though sir is that your reliance on “some yet undiscovered natural occurrence” seems to me to be exactly the same as the “argument from ignorance” that you so vehemently attribute to the ID theorists. The argument from ignorance in intelligent design would state that intelligent design is true because it has not yet been proven false. However, the argument from ignorance of evolution would state that even though evolution has failed on every level to explain the specified complexity of living things there may yet be an “undiscovered natural occurrence” that does explain them. So you commit the same fallacy that you ascribe to the ID theorists. Here I would like to quote evolutionary molecular biologist James Shapiro in his review of Micheal Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box:
“there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinianism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject -evolution- with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity” (James Shapiro as quoted in Dembski The Design Revolution, 215).
The fact of the matter is that a well known evolutionary biologist calls these just so stories of evolutionary pathways “wishful thinking”. Also with all the expert research, funding, and testing of Darwinian theories of evolution over the years these problems still remain. Dembski later goes on to correctly assert that Darwin’s theory has failed in accounting for biological complexity and there are no other naturalistic theories “waiting in the wings” to start from where Darwinianism fails. So expecting such a theory to emerge is “wishful thinking” and also constitutes and argument from ignorance.
Again your concluding paragraph is quite sensationalized. The fact is that ID theory is nothing like the claim for the existence of aliens. ID theory is a testable working hypothesis that is observed daily in the amazing specified, functional complexity of biological systems and biological information. The ID theorists have made a very succinct case that specified complexity in biological systems cannot evolve using currently propagated theories of naturalistic evolution, so the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to show another viable naturalistic pathway to biological complexity or to show, contra the ID theorists, that Darwinian mechanisms can account for biological complexity. Again here we see that you are making baseless claims about the viability of ID theory as a scientific hypothesis. These are the same claims that I have heard over and over by the more prominent opponents of ID theory and are regurgitated here without supporting documentation, obviously without research, and with the same emotional (instead of critical and orderly) response so often exemplified by ID theory’s detractors. Again, I would encourage you to look into the issue, research it thoroughly. Research both the pros and cons of the subject and I believe you will find the absolute beauty, simplicity, and blatantly intuitive aspects of ID theory.
Joel Guess
As I said, I’m a philosophy student, not a scientist (nor an aspiring scientist); I simply do not have the knowledge necessary to challenge your scientific claims. If that is what you’re really seeking, please contact any available evolutionary biologists.
If you’re willing to discuss the metaphysical basis for each theory, then we could present our views. One of the topics I’d like to look into eventually is how my philosophy (Objectivism) is related to naturalism, including both metaphysical and methodological naturalism (the kind you disagree with).
But back to the philosophy of ID theory:
What does it mean to “transcend” the physical universe? If indeed ID theory believes that such a being is possible (you say “necessary”), then how does this being go about “transcending” realms? The only “intelligent beings” I’m aware of are conscious organisms, and such beings live within this universe and don’t “transcend” reality in the religious sense of the word (admittedly, I know of no sense of the word which could apply here besides the religious one).
I won’t be able to send a more comprehensive reply, so I’ll say one more thing:
I did not commit the “argument from ignorance” fallacy, because I did not commit to evolution’s correctness. I was merely making claims based on the assumption that “irreducible complexity” was correct. If an evolution theorist (or anyone) claimed that evolution was true because ID was false, then they’re committing the fallacy.
I don’t have time to research either theory, but perhaps I’ll do so in the future.
Roderick Fitts
Roderick –
It is pointless to engage Joel and other advocates of “intelligent design” (which for accuracy should always be called “ID *creationism*”) on point-for-point scientific arguments. The reason is that the whole movement was built upon a contempt for reality and rationality.
No ID creationist believes in something so vague as an “intelligent designer.” What they believe in is quite specific: Yahweh, a.k.a. the God of Abraham. When they criticize “naturalistic” assumptions, they are actually criticizing any worldview that elevates the Law of Identity over a Bronze Age sky-wizard.
Existence and identity are not optional “presuppositions” subject to uncertainty or revision. Neither is the efficacy of human perception and reason. As proper axioms, they underlie all cognition. ID creationists try to muddy the waters here to open up a gap for Thor … er, Yahweh to squirm his way through. Their arguments amount to a denial of reality, an appeal to the arbitrary, or both. We Objectivists need to call them out on this irrationalism, clearly and repeatedly.
In fact, ID creationists deserve no debate other than to be called out on their brazen irrationalism. And of course, they must be opposed in their primary battlefield, which is politics.
For the dishonest goals and tactics of ID creationism, I recommend this lecture by Kenneth Miller: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com/2008/05/devastating-take-on-intelligent-design.html . (Dr. Miller is a Catholic but doesn’t pretend that religion is science. You will notice, however, that his compartmentalization weakens some of his arguments.)
when are the evolutionists going to wake up?
sdfdfdfdf says “when are the evolutionists going to wake up?”
To what? To the baseless claim that living organisms on earth were “created” by a “transcendent” designer?
You imply that evolution-supporters (and presumably those who don’t support Creationism) are ignorant to some set of facts which demonstrate your position (hence the phrase “wake up”); well, what are those facts? What “facts” can point to such a being?
Hi Roderick,
It is not clear that you have employed any sound principle of philosophy (the perspective from which you wrote) in your submissions. If you entered a hypothesis claiming to be “scientific” (darwinian evolution) and yet could not stand up to its scrutiny offered from a scientific perspective, one should seriously wonder what in fact you set out to accomplish in the first instance.
It makes me wonder that you shied away from Joel Guess’ pointer summations, viz: “Dear Sir while I do enjoy a lively debate on this topic, I must admit that you have not tried to respond to any of the objections that I brought up in my rebuttal to your arguments.” And your response to that was “I simply do not have the knowledge necessary to challenge your scientific claims”?!? Did I miss the fact that you acknowledged indeed that Joel’s arguments were rather ‘scientific’? So, where does your adulator’s (Dalton’s) supposition come in to mistake ID for a movement built upon “a contempt for reality and rationality”? Was Joel not being rational – if you could indeed acquisce that his objections were “scientific”?
Well, I don’t know what essentially you have attempted here (if you could not defend them ‘scientifically’); nor do I assume any contempt either ways. I don’t think the accusations were necessary, though. . . but these are my observations – respectfully submitted.
kind regards.
Anyone who denies Intelligent Design being creationism is either a fool or a fraud. ID suspiciously surfaced shortly after the Supreme Court ruled the teaching of creationism in public schools to be unconstitutional. It is part a fundamentalist Christian ploy known as the “wedge strategy” to sneak their version of Christianity into government.
Yes, in fact the fundamentalist ploy is clearly demonstrated in that Kenneth Miller video that I linked to in my previous post.
This is the reason why it is pointless to argue with ID creationists on narrow scientific issues. The fact is, they do not argue in good faith. They are following an originally Leftist template of concealing their true nature, while trying to infiltrate and subvert government institutions. The Orwellian-named Discovery Institute is their primary front group for this infiltration.
Like all religious apologists, the ID creationists do not see reason as a means of understanding the world. Instead, their “reason” is a social tool for tricking other people into believing what the religionists think they ought to have accepted on faith in the first place.
[…] Intelligent Design vs. Evolution – A philosophy student at the University of Michigan started the topic, and then a debate followed. To be far, the philosophy student was not properly armed to really engage the debater in favor of ID. I include this link not to discredit Evolution, but to provide some information for what the ID argument is. […]
Good day guys of both intelligent design and evolution’s theory side!
i was reading your posts and was quite impressed by the way you presented your views. But there is one thing which i want to share and anybody may share his/her thoughts about this.
it sounds that most of the minds today are too influenced by scientific mindset. it is very evident in the arguments regarding intelligent design and evolution’s theory. though i don’t want to discredit science, it is also important to consider the other side of the coin. in some, if not in all your posts, i can sense a tone of rejection of the idea of a “transcendent” in a religious sense which for Roderick, “something that cannot be proven (scientifically).” Let me remind you guys that you we on the verge of becoming too proud of ourselves.and we must caution ourselves always of this. This is a tendency to anyone who yearns for learning and has learnt much. if we are always to take a scientific mindset, then how can we account for the veritability of the existence of possibilities. Or what is there in the dark part of the universe which has not reached by the light until now? does anyone know fully oneself? these are just some of the questions that though others may have answered, but i’m sure that their answers are inadequate. reality is so vast that it cannot be put into our limited minds.
even if science would say that everything comes from a single subatomic particle or whatsoever, the question still persist– from what sort of substance, matter, being, etc., this single subatomic particle or whatsoever came from?
living is not just a question of “how” but most importantly of “why.”
thanks!
To “bords,” [sic]
Science is the unbiased pursuit of knowledge in nature – in our bodies, in our surroundings, and in our universe. It is a no-spin zone for unlocking the secrets of everything from supernovas to subatomic particles in the events of the past, present, and future. One of the primary aims of science is to help the human race. Our best chance at helping the human race is to distill and work off of the most scientifically grounded material, but that’s besides my purpose. I wish to remind you that one of the key battles between evolutionary and ID theorists is whether ID should accompany, or even supplant evolution theory in the SCIENCE classroom, not the philosophy classroom. So yes, whether God or some other designer sits in the sky and has designed all that we know is a hot topic for debate in a metaphysics seminar or fundamentalist Sunday School, but it will never be a valid discussion in a Science curriculum, being taught as a core academic to children like myself.
‘Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, called natural selection, stated that different species originated from shared ancestors, with the differences in the organisms being caused by adaptations to different environments.’
I see but would the theory of evolution care to explain where did these so called ancestors came from? did they just came into being like ‘pooof’ here we are appearing into this world out of no where and now we are going to evolve into some other new creatures? where is the research into this important aspect? Did the organisms started to pick and choose for themselves what functions they need and what they don’t in order to evolve into other creature according to the environment they are living in, My my, that would require more intelligent mind than modern human being!! Did these organism had these kind of and qualities and powers? how come we living beings don’t have these powers now?
Oh yes I totally agree with Joel Guess, he definitely makes sense!
@Benjamin
Any one who ‘rules out’ or denies the Intelligent design competent theory saying ‘it’s just creationism’, has ‘NO SCIENTIFIC SPIRIT’ they are coward and afraid of the challenge finally going head to head with it. Evolutionists just want to live in their wonderful bubble of theory called evolution, they have got too comfortable with what they have created, they have started to believe it to be facts which is utterly ridiculous behavior. All these years it has not even been proved yet that it’s actually the Truth!
Scientist should come to this topic with open mind Not narrow mind that I say this theory is correct because I say so! where is the proof for every thing you say? They should work together to actually find the ultimate reality!
The greatest misconception that Satan has ever put in the minds of the human race is a disbelief in his existence. The second greatest misconception that Satan has put in the minds of the human race is the belief that ‘If evolution is true, then Genesis would have to be false- and therefore the Bible not true.’
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both “evolutionists” and “Creationists,” should be: “Do evolution and Genesis concur?” In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
There are six specific categories of life formed in the six�day account: …
The order of their listing in the six�day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence: …
The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence.
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls� what difference is there between man’s soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. …
…The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, …
If Adam was the first primate to genetically evolve in intelligence sufficiently to have a free will- only at which point he could be held responsible for his actions, then it would be critically essential for his mate to have an identical set of chromosomes. Yet Adam was unique, being the first to reach this level.
How did God solve this problem?
And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21�23)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam’s offspring.
This is an appealing view of a process with an inherent tendency to drift toward an organic goal but it doesn’t explain how a random system can suddenly turn into one capable of replicating itself. It is not clear that an evolutionary process without replication must inevitably, or can indeed ever, lead to one that does include it. …The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
For a complete and concise treatment of this subject, visit:
amessageforthehumanrace
Atheists- Come, let us reason together:
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:
Given the vastness of the universe, eons of time, and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
What are the implications of such a conclusion?
Such an entity would in all practicality be:
1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.
Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.
For a complete, logical, and concise explanation of the purpose of man, visit:
amessageforthehumanrace
What is the purpose of “evolving” from basic element to complex organism?
Whether by ID or Evolution Theory, why, this to me is the question.
Scientific Method or Theological Regard or Philosophical Pondering who cares what method is imployed. All these lines of inquiry are self limiting if they will not embrace the realm of the other. None of what is said in above arguments is open and inquisitive. It is self promoting and inward looking, even circular.
If you can not explain or predict all events, you job is not complete and you don’t have the answer. All these arguments above rely on the Greek ploy of letting the gods down on a rope to solve the “unsolvable” with their special powers.
None of you knows the answer you all rely on some other unknown,unknowable force-( vitalism,other wordly intelligence or a being out of time ).
Roll your sleeves up and get back to work.
I for one am happy to admit I love the data but I still can’t see an over arching pattern.
The visible, temporal (involving free will) points the way to the eternal, while leaving room for faith. There are things which our finite, limited mind cannot fully comprehend. Can your mind understand how it is that predestination and free will are both true, even though they are mutually contradictory? Eternally, God has a will- a choice- and from His point of view it’s all been said and done. However, that would not be righteous. So here within the constraints of a temporal universe (to allow free will), eternal salvation is available to “as many as received Him”. Can your mind comprehend how the same entity can be in more than one place at the same time; or how more than one entity can occupy the same space at the same time? NO! Because it is incomprehensible by the laws of our physical universe. The church, which is His Body, is identical to Christ yet a separate result of free will in order to perfectly return His love for eternity. We cannot comprehend God with our finite brain individually. BUT we can apprehend Him, with all those who have opened their being to receive Him. Man was created to contain God, and has a human spirit for this. BUT you must recognize what He has done for you in His incarnation- your need of Him- and ‘set the mind on the spirit”.
Creationist dogma cannot be quietened by evolutionist dogma that fails to address the issues raised by intelligent design theory. What one needs is a more subtle approach that grasps the difficulties involved between the two and is prepared to make a different conclusion.I feel that the problem is to do with failings on both sides that are avoidable if we drop the condition of necessity of laws in the universe. I invite you to read a blog post I have written on this subject that may be useful
Without valid universally applicable (and agreed upon by all participants & observers), there can be no valid derivations or conclusive parameters. You have rational uniform constructs; or you have totally individual subjective reality (Solipsism) which is inherently irrational. Please read Chapter One : The Axiom (only 2 pages long), in amessageforthehumanrace.org
This book is a cohesive, logical explanation with empirically deduced conclusions that are validated by the relevent scientific evidence and also scripturally substantiated. It encompasses virtually every field of knowledge and explains the purpose behind everything pertinent to man. Sounds grossly egotistical and ostentatious, right? Let the reader be the judge! WARNING: whereas it is pro-Christ, it is also anti-religion. FYI for the prophecy buffs: no Mayan nonsense nor Nostradamus hindsight, scientific. Cosmology: yes, probably life throughout the universe. But UFO’s though real are NOT extra-terrestrial.
Guys Lets all agree that Jesus is LORD, the CREATOR of all! Lets call upon HIM in everything!
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:14:52 +0000 To: achristian1985@hotmail.com
“Guys Lets all agree that Jesus is LORD, the CREATOR of all! Lets call upon HIM in everything!”
no, and no.
It is clear from the first two paragraphs of this work that writer Roderick had already made up his mind about his subject before writing about it. Like many dedicated Darwin followers he or she clearly attempts to make the case for evolution at the expense of creationists. If I were still in the university system I would have to give him or her an F for his attempt to compare evolution to intelligent design. He has done both faction a disservice. The honest truth would be appreciated by many researchers, readers and writers…
Mr. or Miss. Roderick, please explain where you get your information about evidence of the evolution of one species into another different species? Where are you hiding your “transitional” fossils and where in nature can I find a living transitional animal if your theory is correct? Last time I checked there are none!
Moses wrote sometime within 40 years before his death in 1405 BC that Adam was made from the “dust of the ground” by God. Now I don’t pretend to know who God was or is, but neither do you or anyone else. Remember that account was written as early as 1445 BC by Moses. At that time and for thousands of years after that date humans did not even know what chemical elements existed in the dust of the ground, nor did they know what chemical elements existed in humans, and all other life forms on Earth. It wasn’t until 1868 that precursors to DNA was discovered. It was even later in the next century that we figured out that indeed Moses was right, the human body is made up of the same chemical elements as the “ground” as written in the Book of Genesis. It’s the same chemical elements as seawater, which has been used during wartime as a substitute for human blood, and the chemical elements are the same as all other life forms on earth. This is proof that the Book of Genesis, written by Moses at the direction of God is a true and accurate history of the earth and humans. It also established a high technical and capable civilization that existed before the worldwide flood of 2345 BC. Why do I say that? Because suddenly many high technologies sprang up after 2344 BC including domestication and hybridization of plants and animals which take generations and thousands of year to accomplish. Today we are slowly discovering high tech artifacts deep in the earth which could not have gotten there by any other means but a great flood with its earth crust churning action by earth quakes, volcanoes and tidal waves that reshaped the Earth.
How it really happened!
Before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.
A giant Cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so silent and peaceful that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Ohm. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.
The night had ended, Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. he awaited the Lord’s command.
Vishnu spoke to his servant: “It’s time to begin”, Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: “Create the world”. A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished.
Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. with the third part of the flower he created the skies.
The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created animals and the insects to live in the land. He made birds and many fish. To all these creatures he gave the sense of touch and smell. He gave them the power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sound of Brahma’s creation.
I don’t much care who is offended by this but I really wish we would stop calling this a debate. A debate more or less requires a somewhat workable argument from both sides. “Should taxes be re-worked?”, “What role should America have in Israel’s policies?” ect ect ect. However if someone came up to me and said “I’m going to argue against the sperm theory of conception in favor of the stork theory.”
At this point it ceases to be a debate and more of a farce, a burlesque or at best a parody that lampoons debate. However when the maddening (and mind numbing) idiocy actually is believed by one of the two parties it looses its comical appeal.
(un) Intelligent design has absolutely no basis beyond a highly biased speculation that is also based on ignorance. However evolution has in fact proven itself at every single turn over and over and over and over again. It yet to fail a single challenge that has been laid before it. Every experiment, every discovery and even conventional logic that is so simple that children in elementary school can understand it. All of these are tale tell signs of the right answer.
If any scientist had a legitimate discreditation of evolution they would receive the Nobel Prize. Seeing as that hasn’t happened yet Its safe to assume there isn’t a single shred of evidence to the contrary despite a mass social rejection of a scientific truth.
Absolutely correct. ‘Creationism’ and its disguised makeover ‘Intelligent Design’ are attempts to justify traditional, religious misconceptions which are scripturally incorrect. Anyone promoting these should see the documentary of ‘Dover Board of Education’ ASAP. Fact: If the Bible is the word of God, science will validate this- not conflict. Any apparent discrepancies are due either to misconception & ignorance; or to a lack of details in scripture in order to not interfere with free-will necessary to faith. Just as the ‘Big Bang’ is confirmation of Genesis 1:1; there should be correlations in Genesis that are undisputedly evolutionary. For details: http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org, Ch. 6.
[…] a heads-up, Plagiarism is not allowed on Religious Forums. […]
Wolf VS Dog + de-evolution
Not plagiarism: I am A Christian, author of A Message for the Human Race.
Please read the cogent synopsis related to the origins/causes of the E vs C argument. The 6 day accaount is allegorical, not literal-chronological. But Genesis in toto is evolutionary. My apologies for not replying sooner, circumstances caused me to not check this email account for several months.
Joel Guess, what kind of scientist are you and where did you attend school?
The Specific Cause of the “Evolution vs. ‘Creationism'” Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible
1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.
2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.
3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.
4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.
This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.
5. For example: “Behold the Lamb of God”. Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here. ‘The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb’. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don’t you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?
Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.
Life, like electricity, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.
6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.
To my dear brothers and sisters: When did ‘Creationism, et. al.’ become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me finally, firmly, and completely clarify my position regarding ‘Evolution vs. Creationism, et. al.’ :
It is absolutely vain babbling (spiritually speaking) to speculate about man’s origins. Such speculation is totally from the wrong tree- the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and as such it is totally incapable of conveying spiritual nourishment and edification.
I have no motive whatsoever to attempt to validate ‘Evolution’.
However, I am 100% against any and all persons (regardless of purity of motivation) who in any way make the disbelief in Evolution a tenet of the Christian Faith, a Faith given once to all whom God has chosen to be His people.
I challenge anyone to dispute the following assertion: “It is completely possible to believe in ‘Evolution’ and to receive Christ as one’s personal Savior, becoming genuinely born again.”
To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be ‘wise and prudent’ for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the ‘ark’ symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.
if the complexity of the cosmos demanded an intelligent designer, then who or what is that designer?
I’ve seen people of different religions claim that intelligent design makes the most sense, and then add, “therefore my religion is true…” So if we just grant and assume “intelligent design,” what then? Is that supposed to bring us to religion? which one?
And who deigned the designer? If the complexity of the cosmos means that that it must have been designed and created by something intelligent, then doesn’t that also mean that the creator/designer would need to be intelligently designed and created, since it would also be extraordinarily complex and unique?
In human history we’ve seen things like lightning, earthquakes and planetary orbits as being believed to be directly caused or worked by god, only to later discover the natural and physical processes behind them. Perhaps one day the same will happen for the universe’s catalyst – unless the universe itself and matter are eternal – if god can be eternal without a creator or designer, then why cant the universe? god doesn’t settle the question, it just pushes them back one more step.
And if evolution has been disproven (which it hasnt), the bible has certainly been proven to contain scientific errors (a seed must die before it grows, rabbits chew cuds, etc), historical errors (jermiah saying the medes would destroy babylon), and internal conflicts (genealogies of christ, gospel accounts, etc).
…so, even if intelligent design… now what?
PREHISTORY
… Thus saith Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him: (Zechariah 12:1)
I. THE “CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION”
CONTROVERSY, OR: “MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING”
…The more famous subject of Darwin’s uniformitarianism, usually termed “evolution,” comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasiscientific manner. 128
In dealing with the subject of this section, I will endeavor to avoid the above pitfall by being as logical and objective as possible. Let the reader be the judge of whether or not I succeed in doing so. I shall first discuss the merits and foibles of the “pro-evolution” argument and show where objectivity ended and human error began.
… The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
… Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the “pro-Creation” argument.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both “evolutionists” and “Creationists,” should be: “Do evolution and Genesis concur?” In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.
If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a “natural,” progressive means of forming man. What is time to God other than a necessary process? Time is not the barrier to Him that it is to us. Why should we not expect God to have used eons of time to bring about life as we know it? Why do some people insist that God brought about life instantaneously: would such a means really be any more miraculous?
Furthermore, in any supernatural manifestations to man of a magnitude that would leave archeologically verifiable traces, we should expect that God would likewise use a natural means of accomplishing such stupendous events a means in accordance with the laws of the physical universe.
According to the ramifications of free will, then, whenever traces of God’s actions are of a nature or magnitude sufficient to leave verifiable traces, He will accomplish these actions in conformity to the laws of the physical universe. Thus, we should logically expect that evolution was used by God to form man and that catastrophism was used by God in His major supernatural dealings with man. Also, just as any skillful artist will personally put the final finishing touches on a great masterpiece, we should expect to find subtle traces of direct divine intervention.
In the three following subsections, I will put forward both Scriptural and scientific evidence substantiating that all three of these processesevolution, catastrophism, and direct divine intervention have indeed occurred.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground.
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.
Probably some lines of Neanderthal man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162
This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the preAdamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam’s immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the “first man” of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem?
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him…. And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 2123)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman.
The sixtyfour dollar question: Who was Cain’s wife?
It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain’s wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?
Cain’s wife was one of the offspring of Adam’s heterozygous contemporaries.
If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn’t God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church’s defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
Who can say that God is not everywhere else in the universe where He has created habitable planets raising up intelligent life by the same processes and for the same Divine Purpose that He has done so here on Earth? This is why we have not heard from these other civilizations.
What about the incarnation of God as a man?
else must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice himself. (Heb. 9:26)
How could this verse be true, if God is doing the same thing elsewhere in the universe? He only incarnated into the fourdimensional physical universe one time. Wouldn’t the working out by God of His Divine Purpose elsewhere in the universe also require His incarnation elsewhere? Yes! Wouldn’t this contradict the above verse? No!
According to the laws of our fourdimensional physical universe, God can incarnate on other worlds at other points in time and still have only incarnated from a spiritual universe into the physical universe only once. Besides, the reference in Hebrews 9:26 evidently applies only to our world, the Earth. But even if it is in reference to our physical universe, there is no contradiction. Thus, there is nothing scriptural to preclude the identical working out by God of His purpose through extraterrestrial life forms on other planets in the universe.
Incidentally, the reasons why the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not directly mentioned in the Bible are: First, we do not need to know; second, such knowledge would violate free will since it would be direct indication of knowledge that could not be obtained by objective means.
AUTHOR’S NOTE:
If God is indeed consummating New Jerusalems elsewhere in the universe, then there will be evidence of the sudden emission of increased amounts of energy (seven-fold, mainly in the visible spectrum) emanating from a singular source. This could explain otherwise (scientifically speaking) inexplicable phenomena. Whether or not these phenomena are detectable with our current astronomical capabilities, I do not know.
Man, you search the physical universe in a vain quest for answers that cannot possibly fill your emptiness or satisfy your longing. These answers can only be found within you, and then only by turning back to your Creator and receiving Him. All else is truly vanity of vanities, temporal and finite.
amessageforthehumanrace.org
The long debated question about Intelligent Design finally has a definitive answer.
The Intelligent Design of Creation is a fact of Reality. It is not a woo woo, has a specific purpose, is dirt simple, is infinitely powerful and is based on only a few simple principles. Anyone can understand it.
A brief summary of the Design can be found at http://www.revelatorium.com/summary.html.
Thanks and bless,
Dsl.
Doesn’t matter how we got here, that is a distraction, not part of the faith, and is unprofitable. It does matter to remove mental misconceptions which keep unbelievers from receiving Christ.
http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org
Evolutionary? Hah! We cats and lions, wolves and dogs, and man along with prime ape’s. The slow process may of held water, but there is still leftover stuff. e.g. the stages of ape to man, there were several stages and yet I only see two in real time.
Well put, all of you! This scientific essay proves to be very intelligent from my perspective. Well said and to the point, it would help any young scientist or even just a curious mind. I would recommend my students to this website in case any additional help was required, so a huge thank you to your time and effort towards this!
Design requires a designer, for example a car needs blueprints of a concept car then is made to a person requirements,with a.c.,doors,seating etc yet something far more complex like dna,a cell a atom or even a protein requires far more intelligence for it to pass as chance. The chances of protein forming by itself are many billions to one and even the right amino acids being present at the right time have a far higher odds. Both evolution and creation beliefs need faith,but evolution requires a lot more faith. Why. Because its based on chance.What are the chances that the wind would blow a pile of dust into a perfect habital house with a water supply a heating unit a protective roof with a larder full off food? Impossible, it needs thought and design, yet a far more complex earth that’s supports human life with a sun and moon millimeters in their right distance from the earth with a water cycle and a protective atmosphere and magnetic field. Please do not attribute this to chance, we are all answerable to an intelligent designer who in his great wisdom reveals his personality through creation including ourselves, we love to create things to ,we feel emotion we get sad we feel happy just like our creator. The fossil record dates back to the Cambrian period where life came into existence at one particular time, ummm I thought life evolved over millions of years according to the theory of evolution, then why does the fossil record show that life came into existence at one particular era in the earths life? Might I add that if we say that from the earth beginning representative of 1% and today the day you read this article is 100% in the history of the earth,then we can say that the Cambrian period started at 92%. What was evolution doing between 1 -92%? Is it not more obvious that life was created when the earth was prepared for life to be sustainable during the 92% of earth life.Many scientists have changed their view on evolution to creation, due to their expertise in their particular field whether it be biology,robotics or physics( for reference to these stories check JW.ORG).Mankind has copied many designs from nature for I.e seagulls wings and eagles wings for aeroplanes,box fish for a more efficient aerodynamic car,whales fins for ships,shark skin,clams glue,spiders webs the list goes on, but what we are doing is coping a design from a far more intelligent designer. Why are people all afraid of saying there is a God? Because those who claim to represent him are doing a horrific job so people look for different answers(evolution). The backbone is in most livings things! That is a trade mark of the designer or did evolution decide to keep with it as its a great design feature for all life to live on earth with its gravity. You decide.
I would like to mention that in Darwin’s research on the Galapagos Islands with fruit flies and finches he found that both species had adapted to each particular Islands, to take advantage of the variety of foods available,finches beaks where different making them able to take advantage of the different seeds and fruits available. Yet even though the flies and finches where capable of adaptation according to their environment they still remained finches or flies, there was no evidence of any animal isolated to one particular Island changing species as evolution suggests, they still remained in their species or genius group.
Few biologists dispute that natural selection produces small-scale “micro-evolutionary” changes such as those in the size and shape of Galapagos finch beaks (also featured in the series). But many now doubt that the Darwinian mechanism explains the large-scale “macro-evolutionary” innovations necessary to build new organisms (such as birds) in the first place. Theory lacks DNA “Roots” which now reveal true origins of “Information”!
[…] Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Theory: A Brief Comparison http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ […]
wow, this is just really not worth reading, He proves that God does not exist, with a lot of circular reasoning. You also assume that God is some sort of being, related to the same dimension as us, where he is subject to time and therefore must have had a simple beginning.
[…] Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Theory: A Brief Comparison […]
[…] Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Theory: A Brief Comparison […]
There is much more to understanding evolution besides the debates between Darwinists an ID advocates . . . for example there is Aristotelian teleology. I have written an extensive blog paper entitled ‘Emergence of Species and the Ascent of Man’ which discusses, in depth, the doctrines, history, disputes and consequences of Darwinism from both a scientific and philosophica perspective.
Here is the link: https://bioperipatetic.com/notes-on-darwinian-evolution/
BOTH ‘Creationism’ nor ‘Intelligent Design’ are inherently disqualified as disciplines, since they BOTH incorporate supernatural mechanisms- incapable of replication. Scripturally incorrect dogmatic religionists attacked Evolution like they were defending the faith. Result: they made Christians look ignorant and scientists look omniscient! If the Bible IS the word of God, then science cannot help but validate it: ANY apparent discrepancy must be the result of 1. Finite human mind, 2. Lack of evidence (usually to preserve free will. There is NO conflict between Evolution and Genesis: 1. The 6 days were NOT 24-hour days 2. It is an allegorical account, NOT in chronological order.
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.
…The more famous subject of Darwin’s uniformitarianism, usually termed “evolution,” comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasiscientific manner. 128
Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields has consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.
Modern humanists, increasingly antiGenesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the JudeoChristian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.
Voltaire was somewhat typical of the antispiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly antiChristian and antiJudaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.130
The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more antiGenesis than they were proscientific.
Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.
The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):
1. In the past decade (1990’s) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.
2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).
3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.
4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.
“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.
The second mistake, resulting from the same antispiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.
The only distinct meaning of the word “natural” is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.132
The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term “natural selection.” The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.
I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone…. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. 133
(These are Charles Darwin’s own words here)
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the “pro-Creation” argument.
The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
Today, to be pro-spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo-Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be antiscientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.140
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church’s defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.
If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a “natural,” progressive means of forming man.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.
Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142
As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the “big bang” theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.
Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?
Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145
The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.
What does the scientific record say?
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149
Scientific evidence and Scripture concur!
And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)
Probably some lines of … man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162
Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!
What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrewspirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)
In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)
1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.
2. The Hebrew word translated ‘breath’ may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.
What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): … “The first man Adam became a living soul…. The first man is of the earth, earthy:”…
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls what difference is there between man’s soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).
Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153
The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low braintobody ratio and a high level of “adaptive capacity” neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.
It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167
The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?
It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man’s intellectual powers gave him a free will.
This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the preAdamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam’s immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the “first man” of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem?
The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the Xchromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 Xchromosome and 1 Ychromosome; normal females have 2 Xchromosomes. 178
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him…. And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 2123)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam’s offspring.
The sixtyfour dollar question: Who was Cain’s wife?
It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain’s wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?
Cain’s wife was one of the offspring of Adam’s heterozygous contemporaries!
If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn’t God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
DEDICATION:
To the only wise God, Who is love,
and Who desires that all men be saved .
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Totally irrelevant. Get the message!
A MESSAGE
FOR THE
HUMAN RACE
Copyright © 1985 by A. Christian
All Scriptural quotations are from the American
Standard Version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted.
All Rights reserved, including the right of
reproduction, in whole or in part, in any form.
A. The author retains full copyright authority over any and all printed for sale (book) mediums, in all languages; and
B. Any excerpts taken from these materials shall be limited to a minimum of one whole paragraph. Anyone can distort the truth by quoting material out of context, and this restriction is necessary to assure fair and honest evaluation of the material herein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One. TheAxiom p.1
Chapter Two. An Extrapolation p.3
Chapter Three. The Logic of It All p.11
I. Divine Purpose
II. The Necessity for a Secondary Will
III. Free Will
IV. Further Steps Necessary for the Attainment of Divine Purpose
V. Correlations to Sections I-IV:
A. Divine Purpose (I)
B. The Necessity for a Secondary Will (II)
C. Free Will (III)
D. Further Steps Necessary for the Attainment of Divine Purpose (IV)
Chapter Four. What Is Man? p.17
I. The Parts of Man
A. Physical Body
B. The Human Soul
C. The Human Spirit
D. The Heart
II. Ramifications of Free Will
III. The Effects of the Fall on Man
IV. God’s Solution to the Fall: Christ
V. Regeneration
VI. Transformation (and Transfiguration)
Chapter Five. The Remote Past p.53
I. Spiritual Beings (Angels)
A. Abilities and Characteristics of Spiritual Beings
B. Present-Day Manifestations of the Fallen Angels
II. Another Race
A. Abilities and Characteristics of Demons
B. The Origin of Demons
C. Present-Day Manifestations of Demons
D. The Source(s) of Para psychological Phenomena
Chapter Six. Prehistory p.87
I. The “Creation versus Evolution” Controversy; or: “Much Ado About Nothing”
II. The Methods Utilized in Divine Creation:
A. Evolution
B. Catastrophism
C. Direct Divine Intervention
Chapter Seven. Past History: The World System p.125
I. The Material System
A. The Origin of the Material System
B. The True Purpose of the Material System
II. The Religious System
A. The Source of Religion
B. The World’s Religions
C. The Jewish Religion
D. Christianity, the Religion
Chapter Eight. The Kingdom of God p.187
I. The Kingdom – Here Today in a Hidden Way
II. The Church: The Expression of the Kingdom on the Earth
III. The Coming Full Manifestation of the Kingdom
Chapter Nine. Future History: Revelation p.219
I. History from the Ascension of Christ to His Literal Return
A. History from the Ascension of Christ to the Beginning of the Tribulation
B. The Rapture
C. The Beginning of the Tribulation
D. The Antichrist and the False Prophet
E. Events Occurring during the Tribulation
F. Ar-Mageddon
G. The Future of the Nation of Israel
H. Some Indicated Predictions
I. When Will These Future Events Probably Happen?
II. The Judgment Seat of Christ
III. The Millennial Kingdom
IV. The Great White Throne Judgment
V. The New Jerusalem: The Ultimate Fulfillment of Divine Purpose
Chapter Ten. Personal Application for the Reader p.307
I. Your New Life
II. Clearance of the Past
III. Household Salvation
IV. Growing in Christ
A. Eating in the Spirit
B. Drinking of the Spirit
C. Daily Life and Dealing with Your Conscience
D. Preaching the Gospel
E. Prayer
F. Maturing in Christ
V. Seeking Fellowship
Appendices(I.-XIV.) p.337
Bibliography p.401
Index of Footnotes p.403
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
The author wishes to express his true appreciation to Kregel Publications for the use of the material from G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages and from A. Garstang, The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua—Judges.
Thank you for this opportunity- Don’t confuse Christ with Christianity