I have heard it said, "With God, all things are possible." If God truly exists, why could He not have used evolution as a means of Creation? No matter how strange the concept is to you, surely God is powerful enough to have mastered it.
Intelligent Design VS. Evolution (Be Convinced of the Truth)
- Thread starter Hemoo
- Start date
- Replies 90
- Views 12K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
I have heard it said, "With God, all things are possible." If God truly exists, why could He not have used evolution as a means of Creation? No matter how strange the concept is to you, surely God is powerful enough to have mastered it.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Let's put it this way.. While working on my masters in Molecular biology I had to redo an experiment synthesizing CDNA from mRNA templates 11 times, just to have it complement the bases in single strand of choice of a messenger RNA. Every single time though, even though I concede, I was a novice! but in my defense was working on it with the chairman of the Dept. Dr. C. something always went terribly awry... At the end we almost gave up since a few nano-ml of Taq DNA Polymerase cost $40, that plus the costs of other equipments and chemicals needed for the whole process to take place ... just to get ONE strand complemented... Surprisingly there was a man (the chairman) with a couple of Doctorates who called out for G-D every time the experiment failed
.Imagine how many times "mother nature" or whomever people wish to attribute to all this glory painstaking task to get everything right, the very first time around, as I explained in earlier posts, just one mere enzymatic error in just the urea cycle, not heme metabolism, not collagen synthesis, not glycolysis, not fat storage, not cori cycle, not purine salave pathway, not in Electron transport chain, not pyruvate metabolism, not Gluconeogensis, not pentose phosphate pathway shunt, would lead to the demise of life we know it. People can't even memorize the enzymes or the pathway.. most I am willing to bet my bottom dollar don't even know which cycle goes before which... yet it works for them tirelessly, symbiotically, harmoniously everyday, round the clock... until illness befalls m and then people take notice.
What can I say.. if there is "no proof" there is no proof, we and the environment we live in are a billion perfect chances... ha what are the odds?... I am in awe...
akhi
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Not a strange concept (NO)... just an unlikely one, given what I have explained earlier!... But you are right.. many of my colleagues believe evolution to be the handy work of G-D... To me it is full of Gaps a mere substitution...
I can theorize about a number of things as I have done with the "Diamonds aren't forever" episode --"to suggest that we as a specie will keep evolving for the better as evolution suggests and at some point be so brainy as to be rid ourselves of religion all together" is silly?... well I say, as chemistry suggests we could possibly devolve back to a primordial soup... I can't prove it... but so dictates chemistry ---isn't carbon after all the "backbone" of everything?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=diamond
"It is interesting to note that while the sp3 bond of diamond is extremely strong, physically speaking, it is not the most energetically stable chemical bond that can occur between carbon atoms. The carbon-carbon bond with the most stable energy is instead the graphite bond. Hence all diamond crystals will in time convert to graphite, to the crystal structure with the optimal energy conditions. This transformation is very slow (on the order of millions of years), but the phrase "diamonds are forever" is clearly unjustified - if you wait long enough, you will find that your sparkling diamond in your engagement ring has turned into a dull slab of gray graphite. If you are not patient enough, then you can speed up the process by subjecting your ring to elevated temperature (around 1000 C), which will quickly transform your gem into graphite."
So why not? it is another scientific theory-- why is it not mentioned by "evolutionary" biologists? Maybe, I should start my own cult of "devolutionary" biology? :hmm:
Anyhow.. enough of this topic...
peace
Peace PurestAmbrosia,
I find it hard to believe that is a theory of chemistry. At any rate, you can't just create your own scientific theory without proper research and experimentation, which has already been done with evolution for over a century.
It seems to me that you simply do not want to believe it, so therefore, you won't regardless of the facts at hand. That is your choice, and although I respect it, I have to say it is surely your loss in the extreme.
Peace and good wishes to you.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Go ahead and ask any chemist http://chemistry.fas.nyu.edu/page/home
I didn't create it, it is a known fact ( and can be reproduced).. follow the link above and ask the dept. chair... it might not be knowledge readily available to lay-man, but a fact nonetheless!
Actually it hasn't-- that is why it is called a theory!
Would gladly believe it, if it were reproducible!
It isn't a fact-- it is a theory! just like us devolving back is a theory!
Oh how so? I already have my doctorate, believing in evolution or not, hasn't impacted my life in the least..
and same to you =)
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Last edited:
Yes, you are correct that with God all things are possible. He could have easily used evolution to create the existing life forms and species. The issue is whether a Higher Power used Intelligent Design to direct the process or whether it all happened by chance with the most infinitesimal probability claimed to be a certainty given enough time. As a plant geneticist, I know enough about the intricacies of life that this claim of chance evolution is absurd to me.
This was a good post to show the traditional evolutionist point of view.
Yes, there is no physical evidence of God, but yet we believe. I don't see it as "prior commitment to dogma", but as to what is most logical to me.
Yes, you concisely point out the limitations of science. Science can go only so far before it comes up empty with no answers to the really important questions such as "WHY?" Creationist and ID evolutionist arguments use either faith in Holy Books or logical conclusions based on objective data to point to a Creator. The Creation clearly shows the existence of a Creator to those with an inclination to believe - this is not reliance upon apriori dogma.
I strongly disagree. The answers are completely inadequate and do not satisfy my mind.
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
I don't see where 'chance' would be involved at all if God is invoked anywhere in the process.
Assuming, for sake of argument, that the evolutionary mechanism itself was designed by God, surely it would be perfect, i.e it must inevitably produce exactly what God wanted it to produce without the need for further intervention, and any 'chance' factors that might be involved He would have had perfect knowledge of beforehand.
If the mechanism itself is perfect, no subsequent tinkering in the form of 'intelligent design' would be necessary. Any occurance of same must demonstrate that the original design was not perfect, i.e that God did not create it.
Yes, that was my point.
You are making illogical assumptions that God created a process - He created and continues to create species of life, perhaps through the process of "evolution". To me the evolutionary theory is not perfect and chance factors can't explain the creation of new species from an original "common ancestor" without the direct intervention of a Creator. If God creates new species through so called evolutionary principles over a long or short period of time, His continued involvement in the process does not demonstrate its imperfection.
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
Sorry, didn't express myself well. My point was simply that, to eliminate any need for chance, it is sufficient to assume that the evolutionary mechanism was designed by God. There is no requirement for Him to intervene in it subsequently.
I don't see where I am being 'illogical'. If there is an evolutionary process, and there is a God, then directly or indirectly He must be responsible for its design. You seem to be saying that God's continued intervention is required not by the mechanism of evolution, but by our (necessarily imperfect) understanding of that mechanism, which makes no sense at all. Or to be accurate it only makes sense in the context that God is just as much a human construct as the theory of evolution, and while I might well subscribe to that I doubt very much that you do!
I am not saying that 'the evolutionary theory' is perfect. I am saying that if there is an evolutionary process at all it (as opposed to our current understanding of it), designed by God, it must be perfect. A perfect design would require no further intervention in the form of intelligent design. To me, the whole idea of ID is logically incoherent on theological and philosophical grounds, let alone scientific ones.
You have the following options;
- Simple creationism.
- A purely natural evolutionary process that did not and does not require a God, and that any 'gaps' in that theory are there solely because we don't understand it properly. Yet.
- A perfect evolutionary process created by God to achieve His design that needs no further intervention. As God could design it not to require such intervention, why would He design it so it did? It's like designing a car engine you know will break down at regular intervals when you could design one that never does.
- An evolutionary process designed by someone/something other than God, that God chooses to tinker with from time to time. I think we can forget that one as opening a huge theological can of worms.
ID falls in 'none of the above'. If God designed evolution itself, there surely is no need for 'intelligent design', and hence any 'theory' that includes it must be flawed?
Last edited:
to you who are convinced with evolution theory.
tell me what is this theory telling about the first kind of life that existed on earth, how this kind of life even existed?
how can something be created from nothing?
can you create something or anything from nothing in labs?
and as scientists in the video talked about the dna and its structure inwhich the DNA is like a huge DATAbase of information and instruction for the cells to act upon.
how did this information come to be formed ?
if you left your computer opened for millions of years even if there is a program wich generates random codes, what is the chances that this random codes will form an intelligent Operating system or even a dumb system like Windows ?
i think all that you must do is to study Statistics .... and Statistics will show you how far are you from the truth..
tell me what is this theory telling about the first kind of life that existed on earth, how this kind of life even existed?
how can something be created from nothing?
can you create something or anything from nothing in labs?
and as scientists in the video talked about the dna and its structure inwhich the DNA is like a huge DATAbase of information and instruction for the cells to act upon.
how did this information come to be formed ?
if you left your computer opened for millions of years even if there is a program wich generates random codes, what is the chances that this random codes will form an intelligent Operating system or even a dumb system like Windows ?
i think all that you must do is to study Statistics .... and Statistics will show you how far are you from the truth..
Last edited:
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
The theory of evolution is intended to provide an explanation of how species develop, not the origin of life.
and this in my opinion is a big gap in the evolution theory, that can only be solved by the intelligent design.
because how can they build this whole complicated assumptions upon a thing that they don't even know what was it.
you must have the basis before you build your logic.
Edit: i just like to add what this professor of biology said :
The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.
(Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007)
Last edited:
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
It's not a 'gap' at all. It is outside the theory's remit. You are confusing 'intelligent design' (a quite specific concept) with creationism.
If you mean the origin of life, it isn't built on it - see above.
Many 'evolutionists' are quite happy to accept that life itself was, or could have been, originally created by God. Accepting that does mean you have to accept 'intelligent design' - indeed I have argued in a previous post that accepting God as initial creator leads to a good reason to reject the idea of ID.
Schwartz is not stating that the evolution itself is a hypothesis as opposed to a theory. He is merely stating that particular evolutionary pathways cannot be 'proven', a fact that is self-evident even to dedicated 'evolutionists'. It is sufficient that the theory of evolution allows for and explains those pathways.
okay trumble, thanks for your polite reply
it is a good thing to have good speech manners as you do.
but i still have some gaps inside the evolution theory which makes me still deny it, may be i will post them later.
it is a good thing to have good speech manners as you do.
but i still have some gaps inside the evolution theory which makes me still deny it, may be i will post them later.
Last edited:
For me evolution is not a self-sustaining system, but, if that is the mechanism the God uses to create new species, I believe that it requires continuous direction and intervention by a Higher Power. To go from a unicellular "common ancestor" to all exsting plant and animal life forms is too much for me to accept without the process being directed.
Yes, it makes perfect sense to me that evolution requires continuous intervention.
You lost me there.
I have to disagree here. You are putting limitations on God by saying that if he created the process of evolution (as you understand it) then it would be "imperfect" to require His continued intervention. I don't see it that way.
Quran 27:64 Just think who originates creation and then repeats its production, and who gives you sustenance from the heavens and the earth? Is there another god besides Allah? Say: "Show us your proof if you are telling the truth!"
Your insistence that a "perfect" evolutionary system would require no intervention beyond the creation of the process is forcing the Creator to fit your system. There are too many gaps in naturalistic evolution for me to accept at face value. I choose to believe that God fills in those gaps, while you seem to choose some as-yet-undiscovered-scientific explanation. That is the point that I have been trying to make about both being a belief system.
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
The point is not whether it is too much for you, but whether it is too much for God! You seem to think it beyond His power to design that perfect engine.
Whatever 'gaps' there may be, they are only in our understanding of evolution. If evolution was designed by God there would be no gaps in reality, and hence no need to plug them with ID or anything else other than our complete understanding of the self-sustaining process. The idea only makes sense if one flawed human construct, evolution as we understand it, is patched up with another human construction, God, as opposed to seeking that complete understanding.
If continuous intervention is required, God must have designed it that way. For ID to be taken seriously, there needs to be a plausible explanation of why God would design evolution to need such intervention, and the only one I have seen so far seems to be purely to accommodate ID for it's own sake.
Last edited:
You may be right. God could have created a self-sustaining evolutionary process, but I can't imagine how the creation of something advanced (humans) from something very basic (bacteria) could happen without direct intervention by a Higher Power. My knowledge of genetics and molecular biology, though not as great as some members of the forum, puts me in such awe of the creation that I can't imagine that it happened by naturalistic evolution without the intervention of a Creator. But then again God could have created the perfect process sort of like the process of photosynthesis whereby plants convert solar energy into stored chemical energy. You may be right that what may be the limiting factor is our own limited understanding of the process that takes us only so far - we have only as much knowledge as Allah has willed for us to have.
That is IF God created the process in the manner you indicated. I don't see God as being a "human construction" rather the other way around, but then again that is from a religious point of view.
Yes, He could have designed the process to require His continuous intervention just as you propose that He created it as a self-sustaining one. Perhaps, you are the one limiting God by forcing Him to fit within your admittedly flawed theory.
I continue to be in awe of Allah's creation from the incomprehensible large expanding universe down to the transfer RNA that transports amino acids to messenger RNA linked with ribosomes to form proteins. Unless you put forward a more logical argument than I have heard, you will never convince me that all of this "just happened".