Intelligent design taught in schools

[ballin4life]

If intelligent design has philosophical backing, then teach it in a philosophy class, not in a science class.

Nicholas: key words there are "as we know it". You don't have a counterfactual.

There is also a HUGE HUGE leap from "the initial constants of the universe were designed" to "humans were designed"

Also as for "what other evidence do you have?", how about the bajillions of experiments showing evolution? I mean, we even did them in high school biology class.

Cue debate of micro vs macro evolution. I suggest reading this post:

click the blue button

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

he means that it wasn't the first organism with bird-LIKE qualities

The man with the hoes is correct.

Okay, where do you wish to draw the line? I'm figuring out the time it took for dinosaurs to evolve INTO the first birds, by starting with how old dinosaurs are, and subtracting how old archaeopteryx is.

Dinosaurs first appeared roughly 250 million years ago. Archaeopteryx appeared 150 million years ago and we'll consider it the first bird as the taxonomists do. So that means that it took 100 million years for birds to evolve from dinosaurs, at most. Dinosaurs existed from roughly 250 million years ago, to 65 million years ago, and birds have existed from 150 million years to the present. So Dinosaurs, existed for 185 million years and birds have existed for 150 million years. So, we would expect that more fossils of dinosaurs exist than transitional forms between dinosaur and birds to exist, because dinosaurs have existed for longer. Likewise with birds.

 

[Dre89]

Dinosaurs first appeared roughly 250 million years ago. Archaeopteryx appeared 150 million years ago and we'll consider it the first bird as the taxonomists do. So that means that it took 100 million years for birds to evolve from dinosaurs, at most.

This is where I think you go wrong. Arch may be the first "bird", but it wasn't the first reptile to exhibit bird-like traits.

So this 100 million years you speak of does not consist entirely of reptiles, or pure reptiles to be more accurate. Let's assume hypothetically that the first bird trait to exist in reptiles was feathers. So this 100 million years consists of the first reptile to have a feather/feathers, evolving all the way to Arch. Then, if we consider Arch to be the half-way point, it'd take roughly another 100 million years (or some time similar) to "evolve out" the reptileness. In other words, assuming Arch is the half-way point, the 100 millions years prior to Arch would consist of reptiles displaying partial bird traits, then the 100 millions following Arch would consist of birds displaying partial reptile traits, until the first bird with no reptile traits whatsoever is achieved.

 

[Nicholas1024]

If intelligent design has philosophical backing, then teach it in a philosophy class, not in a science class.

Nicholas: key words there are "as we know it". You don't have a counterfactual.

There is also a HUGE HUGE leap from "the initial constants of the universe were designed" to "humans were designed"

Also as for "what other evidence do you have?", how about the bajillions of experiments showing evolution? I mean, we even did them in high school biology class.

Cue debate of micro vs macro evolution. I suggest reading this post:

I'm not getting into the micro vs macro evolution crap again. They are not the same, and you know it. Unless you've found a study that shows fish growing lungs and legs, or something similar that actually points to macroevolution, just be quiet.

Besides, the counterfactuals can be determined via science. However, these counterfactuals would not be able to support organic life. We'd still have a universe of some sort, but it wouldn't be one life would be able to exist in.

(As a side note, I believe that "The initial constants of the universe were designed"... IS intelligent design. Of course, I maintain that humans were designed as well, so that's besides the point.)

So, by your atheism, we won out on a 1 in some ridiculously large number chance of even having a chance of existing. And that's without getting into the chance of organic life starting up on its own.

Of course, I know you'll resort to the "infinitely many universes" (which we have NO evidence for) and "If we didn't win out on that chance, we wouldn't be here" arguments. But I ask you: Would you risk your life on a 1 in 10 chance for questionable gain? How about risking the rest of eternity on winning a universe-sized lottery?

 

[Mike]

@Nicholas: There is no evidence that the universe was intelligently designed. You do not know how the universe began and how the constants were assigned, so you argument is one from ignorance. Our lack of understanding through science is not evidence for the validity of your religion.

@Dre: Science may support whatever philosophical ideas you believe in, but philosophy does not support science. Also, look up punctuated equilibrium. If you have a problem with that idea, explain why you do. Otherwise, stop arguing about fossil evidence.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not getting into the micro vs macro evolution crap again. They are not the same, and you know it. Unless you've found a study that shows fish growing lungs and legs, or something similar that actually points to macroevolution, just be quiet.

Did you read the post I linked?

There is plenty of evidence regardless.

Besides, the counterfactuals can be determined via science. However, these counterfactuals would not be able to support organic life. We'd still have a universe of some sort, but it wouldn't be one life would be able to exist in.

You don't know what the universe would be like if those constants were different. Life AS WE KNOW IT probably wouldn't work, but the universe might have been able to support other types of life.

(As a side note, I believe that "The initial constants of the universe were designed"... IS intelligent design. Of course, I maintain that humans were designed as well, so that's besides the point.)

I'm not sure what your point is here. This is a thread about humans being intelligently designed. You brought up an argument for the fundamental constants of the universe being intelligently designed. These are not the same at all.

So, by your atheism, we won out on a 1 in some ridiculously large number chance of even having a chance of existing. And that's without getting into the chance of organic life starting up on its own.

Of course, I know you'll resort to the "infinitely many universes" (which we have NO evidence for) and "If we didn't win out on that chance, we wouldn't be here" arguments. But I ask you: Would you risk your life on a 1 in 10 chance for questionable gain? How about risking the rest of eternity on winning a universe-sized lottery?

Actually, I simply don't accept your probability estimate because you don't have counterfactuals, you don't know how the laws of the universe are "set", etc (although the "we wouldn't be here" argument is valid as well). You simply don't have the information that would be needed to generate a probability estimate.

And yes, Pascal's wager is a somewhat reasonable argument for why an individual should choose to believe in God, but has little to do with establishing the truth.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Listen, these constants are a fundamental property that determine our universe, much in the same way that a triangle is determined by the lengths of its 3 sides. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have the precise combination of constants that allow life aside from intelligent design. Since the constants are an integral part of our universe, for them to be "assigned" would have to be outside of our universe... which would be God.

Edit:
@Ballin4life
Obviously we can't get the exact state of such a universe, but simply applying the laws of science can give us a good idea. For example, if the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would basically exclude the existence of stars, which we need to create the vast majority of the perdiodic table. I think it's reasonable to assume that no life AT ALL could exist in such a universe.

 

[GwJ]

Of course, I know you'll resort to the "infinitely many universes" (which we have NO evidence for) and "If we didn't win out on that chance, we wouldn't be here" arguments. But I ask you: Would you risk your life on a 1 in 10 chance for questionable gain? How about risking the rest of eternity on winning a universe-sized lottery?

Connect the dots. If one day you had 34 million dollars and a slip on your counter with a 14 million dollar tax due, what would you expect? I'd expect that I won the lottery apparently.

If we happen to be here, it's fairly obvious we won the odds. Had we lost, we wouldn't be around to think if we won the odds or not.

 

[Nicholas1024]

@GWJumpman
You don't find that just a little too convenient? Why should there be life at all? Why not some style of universe completely incapable of supporting life? I think the fact that we exist at all is a strong argument for design, as there's no reason the universe has to support life, and we only have evidence of a single universe.

 

[ballin4life]

Listen, these constants are a fundamental property that determine our universe, much in the same way that a triangle is determined by the lengths of its 3 sides. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have the precise combination of constants that allow life aside from intelligent design. Since the constants are an integral part of our universe, for them to be "assigned" would have to be outside of our universe... which would be God.

Edit:
@Ballin4life
Obviously we can't get the exact state of such a universe, but simply applying the laws of science can give us a good idea. For example, if the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would basically exclude the existence of stars, which we need to create the vast majority of the perdiodic table. I think it's reasonable to assume that no life AT ALL could exist in such a universe.

Ok, but what if the strong nuclear force were .00000000000000000000001% stronger? You don't know the probability distribution for these laws being "set". There's also nothing particularly magical about one particular type of life existing. Anything that self propagates will self propagate. In other words, natural selection will function in any universe.

Deflecting the laws of the universe to God also doesn't really answer anything about the fundamental nature of the universe. We ask, why is this the gravitational constant? Well because God said so. But why did God say so? Why did God have these particular properties or desires (the equivalent of "fundamental constants")? Why would God randomly have the properties and desires that would lead to him creating a universe that can sustain life?

Also, did you read this post?

click the blue button

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ok, but what if the strong nuclear force were .00000000000000000000001% stronger? You don't know the probability distribution for these laws being "set". There's also nothing particularly magical about one particular type of life existing. Anything that self propagates will self propagate. In other words, natural selection will function in any universe.

The point is, neither do you. You're making an assumption with no backing that the strong nuclear force (and every other constant for that matter) has a probability distribution with a reasonable chance of giving us the constants we observe via science. There's just no reason to assume that, especially considering that the ranges are so small! Also, considering that many of these universes can't support ANY life at all, your point about natural selection doesn't matter.

Deflecting the laws of the universe to God also doesn't really answer anything about the fundamental nature of the universe. We ask, why is this the gravitational constant? Well because God said so. But why did God say so? Why did God have these particular properties or desires (the equivalent of "fundamental constants")? Why would God randomly have the properties and desires that would lead to him creating a universe that can sustain life?

Because, he wanted a universe that could sustain life, as he wanted to create man. Check the Bible if you want more details. It doesn't tell us anything about how the laws themselves work, but it does tell us why the laws give us a universe that can sustain life.

Also, did you read this post?

Yeah, what's your point? We observe micro-evolution today. Therefore, there was micro evolution in the past. So? Unless we have observed instances of macro-evolution, your argument doesn't prove anything new.

 

[ballin4life]

The point is, neither do you. You're making an assumption with no backing that the strong nuclear force (and every other constant for that matter) has a probability distribution with a reasonable chance of giving us the constants we observe via science. There's just no reason to assume that, especially considering that the ranges are so small! Also, considering that many of these universes can't support ANY life at all, your point about natural selection doesn't matter.

I am not assuming anything. You are the one who made the claim about probabilities. My whole point is that you can't use probability because you don't have enough information.

Because, he wanted a universe that could sustain life, as he wanted to create man. Check the Bible if you want more details. It doesn't tell us anything about how the laws themselves work, but it does tell us why the laws give us a universe that can sustain life.

Why not some God that doesn't want life? Why should God want that? What's the probability that God randomly wants to create humans (as opposed to Vulcans, or nothing at all)?

Yeah, what's your point? We observe micro-evolution today. Therefore, there was micro evolution in the past. So? Unless we have observed instances of macro-evolution, your argument doesn't prove anything new.

To clarify your position: if we didn't observe it, then there is no evidence?

Evolution happens today. Therefore we assume it happened in the past as well. Furthermore, this theory matches up well with our current observations by explaining things in the fossil record, etc.

You might argue for gravity by saying that "When I drop a pen, it falls. Therefore things fall when you drop them". But by your argument, I will just respond "Yes maybe that is true for that particular pen. But if I go drop a piano off of a building, it won't fall". We generalize the results to other situations that we have not directly observed.

Macroevolution is just the sum of continued microevolution. (generalizing the result of microevolution to the situation where microevolution is happening continuously for a long period of time).

 

[Nicholas1024]

I am not assuming anything. You are the one who made the claim about probabilities. My whole point is that you can't use probability because you don't have enough information.

Suppose you see 90 leaves on the ground in a perfectly straight line. You know nothing about the probability distribution of where the leaves might fall. Therefore, by your argument, we should conclude that those 90 leaves just happened to be there by random chance.

Why not some God that doesn't want life? Why should God want that? What's the probability that God randomly wants to create humans (as opposed to Vulcans, or nothing at all)?

If we just stop at some random God, your point is valid. However, to answer these questions you need to go deeper into each religion. The Bible tells us all that we need to know.

To clarify your position: if we didn't observe it, then there is no evidence?

No, you're twisting my words. I'm merely illustrating the flaw in your argument.

Evolution happens today. Therefore we assume it happened in the past as well. Furthermore, this theory matches up well with our current observations by explaining things in the fossil record, etc.

Micro-evolution. MICRO-EVOLUTION! Also, the number of fossils for evolution is too low. With the evidence we have now, it's closer to being just a series of anomalies then a general trend. (I'd bet money that the only reason evolution is supported is that the alternative requires God.)

You might argue for gravity by saying that "When I drop a pen, it falls. Therefore things fall when you drop them". But by your argument, I will just respond "Yes maybe that is true for that particular pen. But if I go drop a piano off of a building, it won't fall". We generalize the results to other situations that we have not directly observed.

What does this have to do with my argument? I am not arguing against micro-evolution in any way.

Macroevolution is just the sum of continued microevolution. (generalizing the result of microevolution to the situation where microevolution is happening continuously for a long period of time).

Stacking paper to the moon is just the sum of continually stacking paper 3 inches high. I know I can do the latter easily. Does that imply that I can do the former? Of course not! Once you repeat something for long enough, new issues come up that don't happen within the smaller instances.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is where I think you go wrong. Arch may be the first "bird", but it wasn't the first reptile to exhibit bird-like traits.

So this 100 million years you speak of does not consist entirely of reptiles, or pure reptiles to be more accurate. Let's assume hypothetically that the first bird trait to exist in reptiles was feathers. So this 100 million years consists of the first reptile to have a feather/feathers, evolving all the way to Arch. Then, if we consider Arch to be the half-way point, it'd take roughly another 100 million years (or some time similar) to "evolve out" the reptileness. In other words, assuming Arch is the half-way point, the 100 millions years prior to Arch would consist of reptiles displaying partial bird traits, then the 100 millions following Arch would consist of birds displaying partial reptile traits, until the first bird with no reptile traits whatsoever is achieved.

Yeah, I know it wasn't the first bird to exhibit reptile traits. I gave you the best numbers I could, (which were unrealistic) and considered archaeopteryx to be the first bird Really, it's unlikely that bird like traits appeared on dinosaurs as soon as they appeared - they probably arose sometime later. It's also impossible for birds to display "no" reptile traits. They have a common ancestry and thus are going to have something in common.

But then this point is moot, because birds are dinosaurs in the sense that we are apes.

 

[ballin4life]

Nicholas, you have to, you know, SHOW that so called macroevolution can't happen.

What do you think happens when microevolution works over a long period of time?



What does the bible tell us about WHY God would want to make humans? I don't see how such a question could ever be answered. My point is that asking "why is the universe this way" is equivalent to asking "why is God this way".

The 90 leaves is not analogous (at least not in the sense that you think). If you truly know NOTHING about the probability distribution of the leaves then you can't come to any conclusions. The analogy fails though because we DO intuitively know something about the probability distribution of where leaves fall.

Also my argument is NOT that we should conclude that it happened by chance. I am only saying that we cannot conclude that it wasn't by chance (or by some other mechanism besides intelligent design). Each is perfectly possible, and we don't have enough evidence either way.

 

[Mike]

Nicholas, you have to, you know, SHOW that so called macroevolution can't happen.

And he can do this by simply describing a part of an organism that cannot have been a product of evolution.

 

[Maniclysane]

Could the Debate Hall members stop debating with each other in here?

Thanks.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Nicholas, you have to, you know, SHOW that so called macroevolution can't happen.

What do you think happens when microevolution works over a long period of time?

Ballin4life, you have to, you know, SHOW that stacking paper to the moon can't happen.

What do you think happens when stacking paper continues over a long period of time?

The burden of proof would be on your end.

What does the bible tell us about WHY God would want to make humans? I don't see how such a question could ever be answered. My point is that asking "why is the universe this way" is equivalent to asking "why is God this way".

I believe the standard catechism answer is "To live for and glorify God." The question can be answered through the Bible (not sure what the precise verse reference is, but it's got to be in there somewhere.)

The 90 leaves is not analogous (at least not in the sense that you think). If you truly know NOTHING about the probability distribution of the leaves then you can't come to any conclusions. The analogy fails though because we DO intuitively know something about the probability distribution of where leaves fall.

However, for our universe to be able to support life, we'd either need to have won out on an extremely tiny chance, or have ridiculously precise probability distributions regarding the fundamental constants. Either one would be a coincidence too large for me to just accept.

Also my argument is NOT that we should conclude that it happened by chance. I am only saying that we cannot conclude that it wasn't by chance (or by some other mechanism besides intelligent design). Each is perfectly possible, and we don't have enough evidence either way.

How small of a chance would qualify as "too small" for you? 1 in 1000? 1 in 1,000,000? 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000? I think we can agree that the smaller the chance, the more likely there's another explanation, so how small would it have to be for you to look elsewhere?

 

[ballin4life]

If I spent 6 billion years stacking paper maybe I would be able to reach the moon (ignoring gravity problems). What I was saying though was that you have to explain how your analogy relates to evolution. Why are large changes in species equivalent to stacking paper to the moon? I don't see how that is the case at all.

Again, what do you think happens when microevolution continually happens over a long period of time?

My whole point is that I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CHANCES. Maybe the gravitational constant is what it is with probability 1. You don't even know that it would be something random without God. It's like saying "what is the probability that Mount Everest exists?" We don't really know, it just does, and it is difficult to put it in a framework where probability is meaningful.

More formally, to define probability we need a sample space (set of outcomes), a set of events (subsets of the sample space), and a probability measure. We don't have any of these. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space)

Why does God want people to live for and glorify God, which led him to make the universe with fundamental constants that support life, etc? What is the probability that God would happen to have those exact desires?

 

[Dre89]

Could the Debate Hall members stop debating with each other in here?

Thanks.

Served by the Manic.

 

[GoldShadow]

I, for one, would really like to hear some PG'ers talk about Intelligent Design in schools.

From a few pages back.


Steer this back to the thread topic instead of having an evolution vs. god debate.


We all know how evolution debates end up going. Besides, the validity of evolution isn't much of a "debatable topic" to begin with.

 

[Oracle]

It's never right to teach intelligent design in schools, as it isn't science. At a private school in a religion or theology course, maybe, but it shouldn't be taught. It has no evidence, it's simply a belief that the Christians in our country can't stand to see threatened.

I was gonna go back and read stuff but then it was all about evolution vs. intelligent design, which isn't worth anyone's time here. Believe what you want to believe, just don't pretend that it's science

 

[Nicholas1024]

@ballin
The point is that there's different challenges that crop up when you try to iterate micro-evolution. I believe that iterating micro-evolution will in the end give us an optimized creature, but still one of the same type of what we started out with. I look at each of the various groups of life forms as a template, and micro-evolution to be change within that template (ie: change within a species.) Macro-evolution on the other hand, is changing the template itself (change between species). Iterating micro-evolution will give you the best type of creature you can get with a particular template, but it won't give you a new template.

My point regarding the fundamental constants is that we don't have a natural explanation beyond a giant coincidence (which isn't exactly convincing.)

Also, why would God want other life forms that interact in a positive manner with him? You've got me, it's not like it's a standard desire among us humans or anything... </hint>

@1 w1nged @ngel
It's never right to teach evolution in schools, as it isn't science. At a private school in an anti-religion course maybe, but it shouldn't be taught. It has no evidence, it's simply a belief that the atheists in our country can't stand to see threatened.

See, I can insult people and their beliefs without giving reasons too.

 

[Dre89]

Nicholas has got a point.

Winged, all you did was state your conclusion, in a somewhat rude and oversimplified manner, without really providing the premises for the conclusion. You need to provide something to stimulate debate.

 

[ballin4life]

@ballin
The point is that there's different challenges that crop up when you try to iterate micro-evolution. I believe that iterating micro-evolution will in the end give us an optimized creature, but still one of the same type of what we started out with. I look at each of the various groups of life forms as a template, and micro-evolution to be change within that template (ie: change within a species.) Macro-evolution on the other hand, is changing the template itself (change between species). Iterating micro-evolution will give you the best type of creature you can get with a particular template, but it won't give you a new template.

You realize that many of the distinctions between different types of life, or species, is entirely arbitrary, right? There's no real distinction between change within a species and change to a new species. Both are just changes in the genes of a population.

If you allow enough "optimization", eventually the result will be a new species, distinct from the old. We even see this in humans: humans now are different from the Neanderthals, right? But you would say they are still on the same template? What about humans vs homo habilis? Same template? Humans vs Chimpanzees? Same template (something like 99% of the DNA is the same)? How do you define the distinction?

My point regarding the fundamental constants is that we don't have a natural explanation beyond a giant coincidence (which isn't exactly convincing.)

My point is that you don't know anything about it being a coincidence.

Also, why would God want other life forms that interact in a positive manner with him? You've got me, it's not like it's a standard desire among us humans or anything... </hint>

It's still attributing random desires to God. Also using the word "positive" is kind of asserting the conclusion here. I mean, any way that God chooses to make things will be "positive" according to him.

Again, what is the probability that God has those particular desires?

 

[Oracle]

@1 w1nged @ngel
It's never right to teach evolution in schools, as it isn't science. At a private school in an anti-religion course maybe, but it shouldn't be taught. It has no evidence, it's simply a belief that the atheists in our country can't stand to see threatened.

See, I can insult people and their beliefs without giving reasons too.

>implying evolution isn't science
>implying creationism is
Sorry for being rude, but I don't see how I have to provide evidence that you have no evidence. Could you provide some evidence of intelligent design? There are plenty of studies and plenty of evidence that supports evolution, and I have yet to see good support for intelligent design.

Nicholas has got a point.

Winged, all you did was state your conclusion, in a somewhat rude and oversimplified manner, without really providing the premises for the conclusion. You need to provide something to stimulate debate.

I suppose I was a bit rude. But I've never seen any real evidence that supports intelligent design. The vast majority of people who believe in that simply say that because humans (and animals and plants) are complex, like machines, they need to have a designer because all complex things have designers.

The concept of teaching intelligent design in schools as science because it necessitates a god or deity, the existence of which can't be proven (or at least has not yet been) or supported by evidence

 

[Nicholas1024]

@1 w1nged @ngel
You could try reading the thread. It's only what 90% of the discussion has been about.

@ballin
I'll reply to you later.

 

[Mike]

From a few pages back.

Steer this back to the thread topic instead of having an evolution vs. god debate.

We all know how evolution debates end up going. Besides, the validity of evolution isn't much of a "debatable topic" to begin with.

The validity of ID as science isn't a debatable topic either. The answer to the question posed by the OP is very simple: ID is not a scientific idea so it should not be taught in science classes. IMO this thread should've been closed a while ago.

 

[Nicholas1024]

You realize that many of the distinctions between different types of life, or species, is entirely arbitrary, right? There's no real distinction between change within a species and change to a new species. Both are just changes in the genes of a population.

If you allow enough "optimization", eventually the result will be a new species, distinct from the old. We even see this in humans: humans now are different from the Neanderthals, right? But you would say they are still on the same template? What about humans vs homo habilis? Same template? Humans vs Chimpanzees? Same template (something like 99% of the DNA is the same)? How do you define the distinction?

Humans are a special case. Purely physically, I'd say that it's similar templates, however, humankind has an extremely different spiritual template with the conscience and soul.

My point is that you don't know anything about it being a coincidence.

From google:
Coincidence: An event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental.

By definition, I'd say that qualifies.

It's still attributing random desires to God. Also using the word "positive" is kind of asserting the conclusion here. I mean, any way that God chooses to make things will be "positive" according to him.

Again, what is the probability that God has those particular desires?

Ah, but here's the thing. The main way we glorify God is simply by obeying him. Which means that His desire in the simplest form is just creating something that will do what you want it to. And that, logically, is a thing that any intelligent being would want, regardless of what that "something" might be.

 

[ballin4life]

Humans are a special case. Purely physically, I'd say that it's similar templates, however, humankind has an extremely different spiritual template with the conscience and soul.

You didn't really answer my question. I was trying to clarify what you meant by template, since it is apparently an important part of your distinction between microevolution, which can happen, and macroevolution which can't.

I could have used a different example like birds or something but I'm not a biologist so I don't know any good ones off the top of my head.

From google:
Coincidence: An event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental.

By definition, I'd say that qualifies.

But this isn't the definition used in your argument. Your argument relies on the fact that coincidence usually implies a low probability of something happening by chance or "accidentally". But I argued that you can't use probability and thus you can't say that it is a coincidence.

This new definition doesn't really make sense to me either because it seems to apply to anything. If I stub my toe, that's an accidental event that might have been arranged. But either way, this definition doesn't have the same force of argument because it doesn't rely on probability.

Ah, but here's the thing. The main way we glorify God is simply by obeying him. Which means that His desire in the simplest form is just creating something that will do what you want it to. And that, logically, is a thing that any intelligent being would want, regardless of what that "something" might be.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said.

It seems a bit circular as well - creating something that "will do what you want it to" already implies that you have desires.

Why does God have the particular desire to create humans? I could create a car that "does what I want it to", but yet I don't bother to do so.

Also it seems like plenty of people don't do what God wants anyway.

 

[Violence]

The point is that there's different challenges that crop up when you try to iterate micro-evolution. I believe that iterating micro-evolution will in the end give us an optimized creature, but still one of the same type of what we started out with. I look at each of the various groups of life forms as a template, and micro-evolution to be change within that template (ie: change within a species.) Macro-evolution on the other hand, is changing the template itself (change between species). Iterating micro-evolution will give you the best type of creature you can get with a particular template, but it won't give you a new template.

Nicholas, I think that before you pass judgment on evolution, you should take a few evolutionary biology courses and sit down with a professor and ask for an explanation of these things, because this paragraph just kinda demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.

I think your rejection of speciation is related to your fundamental lack of understanding of Biology.

 

[zxeon]

@ballin
The point is that there's different challenges that crop up when you try to iterate micro-evolution. I believe that iterating micro-evolution will in the end give us an optimized creature, but still one of the same type of what we started out with. I look at each of the various groups of life forms as a template, and micro-evolution to be change within that template (ie: change within a species.) Macro-evolution on the other hand, is changing the template itself (change between species). Iterating micro-evolution will give you the best type of creature you can get with a particular template, but it won't give you a new template.

A search for transitional fossils will turn up some very compelling evidence of "template switching".