Forum

@TruthMuse & @stephen_33 While Discovery Institute (DI) continues to publish articles, I haven't seen any recent updates to their formal statements of ID. Their FAQs gives the following statements The statement on "what is intelligent design" directs to a 2005 "Not by Chance" article by Stephen Meyer. Here's a summary based on that article & the FAQs: ID rejects the charge that they originated with creationism: "Instead, it was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists-Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon" "who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule." Evidence/Arguments they cite in support: The fine-tuning argument from cosmology: "British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it, the fine-tuning of numerous physical parameters in the universe suggested that “a superintellect had monkeyed with physics” for our benefit." Behe's irreducible complexity Dembski's specified complexity *This statement by Stephen Meyer, seems the best summary statement of the ID position: "The theory of intelligent design holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected. Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role. Design theorists favor the latter option and argue that living organisms look designed because they really were designed." *Summary: ID holds that there are features of the universe and living systems that are best explained by an intelligent cause. And that the origin of life, and evolution requires an intelligent cause. *Importantly, they do not reject evolution and common descent, like creationists do.

Although it does matter how much time was involved, it becomes a meaningless question with God, because the length of time would not put any burden on God who is transcendent to time, space, and so on in our universe. Where the real questions come into place is without an agent with an agenda could any of this occur through any other means? We are transcendent beings in this universe, we can produce meaning by arranging the material in the universe so that it is recognizable to others.That leaves but two possible causes for the arrangement in the universe itself and life was an agent involved? I am telling you how much time doesn't matter, when you write a paragraph and I can read it does it matter that it took you 4 minutes to write it or 4 years? The fact meaningful words were arraigned in any medium in the material world speaks to an agent with a mind.

I have not heard too much evidence for evolution that I cant explain with creation but I have not heard any evidence for the BB. could someone explain the science and evidence for the theory please?

You cannot know anything unless you have accepted by faith, some things are true that you believe to be so. To think and understand the universe around you, your belief you are capable of doing that must be accepted on faith, the truths you accept are just that, have to be believed as well. To do science, the universe must be mathematically comprehensible to make predictions, and the foundation for all of these beliefs is due to?

THE ATHEIST'S MAGICAL, MIRACULOUS FAITH BELIEF IN LIFE FROM NONLIFE The more I reflect on the origin of life, the more I realize that abiogenesis (life from nonlife) is no less "magical" or "miraculous" than belief that a dead body can come back to life. The same basic degradative processes are at work. This is backed by a tremendous amount of empirical data (like the "Asphalt Paradox" for example). Take for example the "simplest" cell, or an even simpler hypothetical 'minimal life' cell with say 100 genes and 100 proteins, and thousands of copies of each of those 100 proteins for ~1 million molecules total crammed into an approximately ~1 cubic micrometer space (roughly the size of a bacterium or smaller). If we kill that cell by say puncturing the cell membrane, no one expects the cell to come back to life despite the fact that it still has all the necessary parts (and even if we provide enough energy, and all the right conditions, and a controlled environment, and all the time in the world). We can predict empirically time and time again that nothing will happen, and can predict the inevitable decomposition of the cell back into its component parts. It would be "magic" and a miracle for the cell to come back to life. And yet for some reason many think that if we start with far less than our 100 genes, 100 proteins, and ~1 million total molecules enclosed in a lipid membrane... that if we start with only a small handful of amino acids, and sugars, and fatty acids (a few "nails" and "boards," so to speak, as opposed to an entire "house" that we've knocked out a wall of) that these will spontaneously assemble themselves into a living cell. And this despite the fact that this is simply the working assumption in science. An unproven assumption that has not only not been empirically demonstrated, but that the weight of empirical evidence is against, and that we don't know how it could happen even in theory on paper... And lest you think this is just the opinion of a non expert, even experts like origin of life researcher Pier Luisi have said as much that we "don't have the slightest idea how life originated from non-life"; and that "we do not have a conceivable theoretical scheme on paper, on how the origin of life may have come about"; and that even the popular "RNA World" hypothesis for the origin of life is "equivalent to invok[ing] a miracle, and then there are other theories based on miracles, which are much more accredited" (See, Dr. Luisi's "The Prebiotic Experiment"). Many agnostics and atheists will often deride, mock, and ridicule theists for their "irrational" beliefs, and invoking "magic" and miracles and silly beliefs like a dead man coming back to life. They have somehow convinced themselves that they hold a "rational," "respectable," "superior" position. And yet I see little difference between the two. Atheism has to appeal to "magic" and miracles, too. Invoking a supernatural agent to originate life is no less magical or miraculous than the atheist's magical, miraculous faith belief that life can spontaneously emerge from non-life.

Are ID/YECs right about anything?

If there isn't a reason for evolution to begin in a purely materialistic manner without outside intervention, why do people think it did? If hope only suggests it did, how is that different from saying, "God did it?" What happened = Life Reality has to be involved in what happened; therefore, whatever we believe took place in what happened needs to be possible, and if we suggest something that isn't, it should be rejected out of hand.

The Clergy Letter - from American Christian Clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science Clic aquí para leer la carta en españolCliquer ici pour la version francaiseClique aqui para ler a carta em português Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth. https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

Large scale genetic changes (Whole Genome Duplications) may help explain why some species survived extinctions. See here also.

Ground breaking news https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230628/First-programmable-RNA-guided-system-found-in-eukaryotes.aspx

https://scitechdaily.com/mankinds-missing-puzzle-pieces-the-deleted-genes-that-made-us-human/

Is biological sex an objective fact? And if so, does that make transgenderism a delusion (i.e., a false belief about external reality)?

The evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition has continued to increase over the last hundred years as more and more gaps keeps getting filled (See, my OP on "No Transitional Forms" and "No Transitional Fossils Have Been Discovered"), and labs have discovered that changes in a single gene can cause leg bones and muscles to instantly appear in fish fins. The discovery of Tiktaalik is an interesting example-- a missing link with fish and tetrapod traits that have earned it the name "fishapod." What's interesting is how it was discovered. Based on fossil fish lower in the fossil record (380 million years old), and tetrapods higher in the record (365 million years old), scientists predicted that this intermediate should exist and in sediments dated in between. The scientists went looking for this transition and picked research locations based on evolutionary predictions, and lo and behold, found Tiktaalik just as predicted. That is the sign of a good scientific theory: one that makes testable predictions that are then confirmed by the evidence.

(6) What is Information? | Episode 1403 | Closer To Truth - YouTube Very interesting

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2377527-octopuses-edit-their-own-genetic-code-to-adapt-to-colder-water/

https://www.sciencealert.com/tweaking-just-a-few-genes-transforms-scales-into-feathers

The endlessly repeated "there are no transitional forms" mantra of YECs is an interesting study. First, the term "transitional form" is a slippery YEC term that YECs define in such a way as to make it impossible to ever demonstrate (even if we were just talking about human history and your own family tree!). But that aside, what I find interesting is how this YEC mantra persists regardless of how many "transitional" forms are found; which begs the question of how many "transitional" forms will it take to make a YEC happy before they're willing to acknowledge, "Okay, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related to each other"? And the answer, of course, is that no amount of "transitional" forms will ever be enough, because they've already pre-decided (before any evidence) that they are not related, no-way, no-how, no matter what. The example that comes to mind is the origin of tetrapods (incorrectly called the "fish-to-amphibian" transition by YECs). And specifically I recall a picture in YEC Duane Gish's 1970s/1980s book "Evolution: the Fossils Say No!" that criticized the "lack of transitional/intermediate forms" between fish and tetrapods: "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!" The Gish picture (figure 1) is still used by YECs today (figure 1 caption) to say "look, fully formed fins & feet with no intermediate transitional forms in between!" Of course, Ichthyostega (discovered in 1932) was already old news, and before the days of the Internet information was harder to find, so perhaps Gish didn't know about Acanthostega (discovered 1952) which had characters intermediate between fish and Ichthyostega. Of course, once that discovery became more well known that still wasn't a good enough transitional form, so the YECs could still shout: 'THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!" And then, of course, more discoveries were made, but for whatever reason these weren't good enough, or didn't count, or still left large "gaps," so YECs felt they could still confidently shout: "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!" And then more discoveries were made... "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!" And still more discoveries were made (like the discovery of Tiktaalik in 2006).... "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!" *So evolution keeps changing, while young earth creationism stays the same ("THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"), and apparently no amount of "transitional forms" will ever be enough to get YECs to acknowledge, "Hey, you know, maybe, just maybe, those things might be related." OR EVEN JUST, "I still disagree, but I can see why everyone else concludes that they're related."

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-evidence-interdomain-horizontal-gene-eye.amp