- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 3/9/26 at 1:38 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 3/9/26 at 1:38 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:Atheists might rely on that, but the theory of evolution doesn't, if that's your implication.
I remember being taught in junior high school that spontaneous generation (that living creatures could arise from non-living matter) had been proven to be false...yet atheists rely on a version of to to explain the beginning of life.
0
Posted on 3/9/26 at 1:43 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
If you have to ask…
Cute, but why don’t you explain it? I find the “liberal” description funny in and of itself, but why automatically assume that someone is a “liberal” if they don’t subscribe to a literal reading of Genesis? Do you read it literally?
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:07 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Why doesn't it work?
It does “work.” But it’s not the only thing that works. The very pliable and seemingly infinitely durable theory of UCA (universal common ancestry) is well supported by the current scientific paradigm- the lens through which evidence is evaluated (and that which controls the funding and publication).
UCA makes bold predictions, whereas ID “merely” provides post-hoc rationalization. Where UCA sees common descent, ID sees a common design that points to a common Designer. Neither position is irrefutably unfalsifiable. I know UCA proponents claim that this, that, or the other (pre-Cambrian rabbits )“could” falsify UCA, but there have been many challenges that have been reinterpreted and absorbed, or, dismissed outright, in the interest of preserving this mostly sound theory (but what is the interest of this theory?).
I admit- the science escapes me. But, the logic and the human reasoning does not. What I see, is a situation in which every direction requires faith. The desired outcome precedes the hypothesis. Logically, you can make a correct prediction and still be wrong about the cause.
Bottom line: UCA (via materialism, atheism etc) fails to account for a lot of our undeniable lived experience (the immaterial reality that we all experience- aka reality). Morality, consciousness, love, etc. cannot be adequately accounted for by sheer naturalism. Love cannot be physically measured. That means something. It seems safe to say that love is perhaps the most important aspect of our existence. I’d love to hear a good case against it. That said, I don’t see naturalism as being able to adequately define love, or even describe it. If meaning itself is immaterial, then I would not look to materialism to define it.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:34 pm to Prodigal Son
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The comment of mine you replied to was a response to someone who claimed evolution “doesn’t work,” and your reply mostly pertains to philosophy or sociology of science, not about the biological theory itself.
Whether consciousness, love, or morality are fully explained by naturalism doesn’t really bear on whether common ancestry explains the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence.
Likewise, concerns about funding, publication, or scientific paradigms are arguments about institutions, not about whether the theory’s predictions match the data.
So I’m not clear what your actual claim is.
Are you arguing that the evidence for universal common ancestry is incorrect?
Or are you arguing that naturalism as a worldview is incomplete?
Those are very different discussions. My question was about the first one: if evolution “doesn’t work,” what prediction of the theory fails when compared to the evidence?
Right now it sounds like you’re making a philosophical critique of naturalism rather than a scientific critique of evolution?
Whether consciousness, love, or morality are fully explained by naturalism doesn’t really bear on whether common ancestry explains the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence.
Likewise, concerns about funding, publication, or scientific paradigms are arguments about institutions, not about whether the theory’s predictions match the data.
So I’m not clear what your actual claim is.
Are you arguing that the evidence for universal common ancestry is incorrect?
Or are you arguing that naturalism as a worldview is incomplete?
Those are very different discussions. My question was about the first one: if evolution “doesn’t work,” what prediction of the theory fails when compared to the evidence?
Right now it sounds like you’re making a philosophical critique of naturalism rather than a scientific critique of evolution?
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’ve never understood why the religious zealots refuse the notion that God created life through the natural processes we’ve discovered/hypothesized.
I've never undcerstood why the atheist zealots refuse the notion that the complex natural processes point to an intelligent design, aka God.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:45 pm to bgtiger
quote:Uh... because they're atheists.
I've never undcerstood why the atheist zealots refuse the notion that the complex natural processes point to an intelligent design, aka God.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:49 pm to bgtiger
quote:
I've never undcerstood why the atheist zealots refuse the notion that the complex natural processes point to an intelligent design, aka God.
Why would you suppose that someone has to be an “atheist zealot” (whatever that is) just because they would want to focus on scientific explanations for natural phenomena? It’s weird and speaks to some sort of insecurity.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:49 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Uh... because they're atheists.
That too.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 8:53 pm to Mo Jeaux
Worse than that, he just said he doesn't understand why a subset of people defined by a word that literally means not accepting claims about gods refuse a claim about God.
Posted on 3/9/26 at 10:51 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 6:21 am to Mo Jeaux
homo lol
Posted on 3/10/26 at 7:21 am to John somers
quote:
John somers
Stupid fricktwat.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 6:38 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
quote:
your reply mostly pertains to philosophy or sociology of science, not about the biological theory itself.
Mostly, yes. I’m not arguing that the evidence doesn’t support UCA. I’m saying that the evidence also supports ID (from my limited understanding), and that both are philosophical views at their core.
quote:
Whether consciousness, love, or morality are fully explained by naturalism doesn’t really bear on whether common ancestry explains the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence.
I agree. But it does point beyond naturalism/materialism.
quote:
Likewise, concerns about funding, publication, or scientific paradigms are arguments about institutions, not about whether the theory’s predictions match the data.
Agree again. But it does often provide a shield against challenges, as well as a strong motivation to stay in line. Challenging UCA is career suicide.
quote:
Are you arguing that the evidence for universal common ancestry is incorrect?
No. I’m arguing that evidence requires interpretation, interpretation is inherently biased, and that UCA is not the only logical explanation of the evidence.
quote:
Or are you arguing that naturalism as a worldview is incomplete?
Yes- in my opinion. Naturalism requires many brute facts and at least two miracles (the existence of the universe and life from non-life). Christianity requires one brute fact (God exists) and just a few more miracles. Naturalism can’t account for the most important things in life- the origin of life, consciousness, objective morality, logic, math, and love to name a few. I’m not saying that someone who holds a strict naturalist view doesn’t or can’t have all of these, but that naturalism/materialism is not the right tool for the job of identifying them. These things are immaterial, and they are as real as the air we breathe.
quote:
if evolution “doesn’t work,” what prediction of the theory fails when compared to the evidence?
Evolution, defined as change over time through natural selection and adaptation, does work. It’s UCA that I’m saying is a philosophical claim about unwitnessed historical events that requires at its foundation, a leap of faith (sound familiar?).
quote:
Right now it sounds like you’re making a philosophical critique of naturalism rather than a scientific critique of evolution?
Yes and no. I’m not qualified to make a scientific critique of UCA. My only contentions are that UCA is not the only explanation of the evidence, and that worldview bias informs our interpretation of evidence. So when 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists- that’s not nothing. I’m not arguing for a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. I’m just pointing out that atheists can’t afford to be wrong, and that 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists.
There are many challenges to UCA. I won’t go into them- as I’m an idiot. What I will say, is that I see equally credentialed people of equal intelligence coming to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence.
All of that said- UCA, if true, doesn’t preclude the existence of God (though it would require some major recalibration for the majority of Christians), nor does it preclude ID in general. ID, if true, doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God, nor does it exclude evolution. But if UCA winds up being true- I’ll stand in amazement at how God did it.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 7:12 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:Just to be clear about my position, I’ve consistently argued only that the evidence strongly supports both evolution and a LUCA. I haven’t made any theological or philosophical claims.
Yes and no. I’m not qualified to make a scientific critique of UCA. My only contentions are that UCA is not the only explanation of the evidence, and that worldview bias informs our interpretation of evidence. So when 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists- that’s not nothing. I’m not arguing for a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. I’m just pointing out that atheists can’t afford to be wrong, and that 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists.
There are many challenges to UCA. I won’t go into them- as I’m an idiot. What I will say, is that I see equally credentialed people of equal intelligence coming to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence.
All of that said- UCA, if true, doesn’t preclude the existence of God (though it would require some major recalibration for the majority of Christians), nor does it preclude ID in general. ID, if true, doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God, nor does it exclude evolution. But if UCA winds up being true- I’ll stand in amazement at how God did it.
What I’ve been pushing back on is the claim that accepting that evidence somehow requires a commitment to atheism or strict naturalism. It doesn’t. The mechanisms described by evolutionary biology say nothing about whether a creator exists. They simply describe how biological change occurs over time.
Those are different questions.
Where the conflict usually arises is when people move from the science itself into philosophical conclusions about what the science must mean. That’s where debates about naturalism, materialism, or theology enter the picture.
From the beginning my point in this thread has been pretty simple: the evidence supporting evolutionary mechanisms and common ancestry is strong, and none of that logically excludes the possibility of a creator. It may challenge certain literal religious interpretations, but that’s a theological issue, not a scientific one.
If someone wants to challenge evolution or UCA scientifically, that’s a different conversation and one I’m happy to have. But the specific claim I’ve been addressing here is the idea that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God. The science itself simply doesn’t make that claim, nor can it, for the same reason it can't prove the existence of God.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 3/10/26 at 7:42 pm to northshorebamaman
I agree.
Posted on 3/11/26 at 10:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:That's correct. I’ve had these discussions with many people who believe the Bible to be true and yet believe in long ages of creation. Those discussions always lead to the same point: the Bible doesn’t directly teach long ages, but the text is interpreted by the “facts” we observe outside the Bible.
You're entitled to your opinion, but not your personal factset.
The fact of the matter is that the plain language of the Bible does not direct a person to naturally assume long ages. That conclusion is forced upon the text, not taken naturally out of the text.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 10:59 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:Very true. It's easier for some to believe that aliens visited us millions of years ago and planted seeds of life than that God created us.
I remember being taught in junior high school that spontaneous generation (that living creatures could arise from non-living matter) had been proven to be false...yet atheists rely on a version of to to explain the beginning of life.
quote:Also true. God created with an appearance of age and maturity. Trees were created fully grown with fruit hanging from their branches. Grass was fully grown. Even man and woman were created mature.
As far as the supposed evidence that the earth is billions of years old...if you believe the Genesis account, if the day after trees were created you had cut one down, how many rings would you count? How old did the Earth appear to be?
The theory of evolution relies on unguided processes to produce irreducibly complex mechanisms and information akin to advanced computer coding for organic life to emerge and change into more complex body types over time without being killed off early on due to hostile environments. I find it as ridiculous to think that happened naturally as atheists think God is ridiculous.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 11:24 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The fact of the matter is that the plain language of the Bible does not direct a person to naturally assume long ages. That conclusion is forced upon the text, not taken naturally out of the text.
Mega dittoes.
It is simply the pressure exerted from outside the textual world that drives alternative and foreign interpretations.
I regret I don't have more time to participate in this discussion. IMO, many of those who reject Scripture's declarations overestimate science and have a deficient concept of God. Their God is too small.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 11:41 am to FooManChoo
quote:The fact of the matter is that the plain language of the Bible does not direct a person to assume Man walked the earth 150hrs after Earth's formation. As modern science renders more clarity as to Earth's creation, biology, genetics, etc., it calls to mind "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." There is synergy between the two. Abject denial of one in preference for the other is neither a good or faithful thing
The fact of the matter is that the plain language of the Bible does not direct a person to naturally assume long ages.
Posted on 3/12/26 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I'm making the case that the Scriptures do teach plainly a young earth, and that creation was done in a short amount of time.
The fact of the matter is that the plain language of the Bible does not direct a person to assume Man walked the earth 150hrs after Earth's formation. As modern science renders more clarity as to Earth's creation, biology, genetics, etc., it calls to mind "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." There is synergy between the two. Abject denial of one in preference for the other is neither a good or faithful thing
I believe the Bible is the only infallible rule for faith and life for the Christian. The scientific method is not the only infallible rule. Naturalistic philosophy is not the only infallible rule. Neither are any other rules or standards equal in status and authority to the Bible. Therefore, I do not interpret the Bible by other standards, but I interpret other standards by the Bible.
Page 25 of 37
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News