I threw this up on another thread because it doesn't pertain to how ID or evolution work, rather their implications. Now I'll watch as it quickly sinks down the charts.
It's interesting that many religious people find evolution problematic. In no way does it nullify the notion of a God. After all, evolution could work exactly as advertised, and same with the Big Bang, and still have been set in motion by a God.
ID, counterintuitively, seems to threaten at least one commonly posited tenent of religion (admittedly one that may not be on the books.) And sorry, I am cribbing Douglas Adams in a ham-fisted fashion.
If these irreducibly-complex systems do indeed positively prove that there is an Intelligent Designer, don't they, like the Babel Fish, negate the role of faith in religion? I've always been told God doesn't make pronouncements or shoot timely thunderbolts because the faithful have to come to him through faith, not proof.
It seems out of character for Him to tip His hand and give us an irrefutable logical proof of His existence.
Or as the man himself put it:
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
[ January 22, 2006, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: joeyconrad ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I'd have to say ask this question again when intelligent design has been irrefutably proven. Since it hasn't been proven we still don't know that it can be proven, so the question of whether it being proven would somehow invalid the concept of God is something of a moot point for the time being.
[ January 23, 2006, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nope, because you still need to have faith that the designer was a god and not some powerful alien with a good grasp of genetic engineering.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I can do that, but I'll be calling it proof whilst you'll be calling it faith. Not right now though 'cause I'm too tired to think, but I promise I'll explain my idea on the matter when I wake up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since that whole example depends on the premise "without faith [God is] nothing," I'm not sure it's actually directed at anyone's actual belief in God.
Posted by joeyconrad (Member # 8714) on :
My tongue is firmly in my cheek when I suggest ID would truly suggest there is no God.
But I think there is some validity to the notion that ID would, at the least, lessen the role of faith. It truly seems out of character for God to create a logical proof of his existence, at least one less subtle than the existence of existence itself.
Be wary of any man-made arguement that claims to prove the existence of God. Seems suspect and to tread on "how many angels would fit on a pinhead?" territory to me.
[ January 22, 2006, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: joeyconrad ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think ID postulates there is some power in the works, but I think what that power is cannot be determined. The argument isn't about God, but about an unidentified creator that most who come up with the idea presume is God.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think people are afraid. Evolution basically says that the genesis stories of creation are not literally true. So if those stories are not true, the rest of the bible can be doubted.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Interesting thought Joey
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Evolution basically says that the genesis stories of creation are not literally true.
The Bible basically says that the genesis stories of creation are not literally true. There are two stories that are logically mutually exclusive. Biblical literalists get their need to believe in it from somewhere, but it's not from a respectful reading of the Bible.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I actually agree with you joey, tounge in cheek. I've said for a long while that I deeply admire people who truly believe in evolution + God. I am (shhh, don't tell anyone) undecided on the issue myself. I think it's something I won't ever truly know for sure until I meet God. And I firmly believe that I will. Until that time ... well, no, that's another topic for another post. Congradulations though on articulating a thought I've tried hard to articulate before and have failed miserably.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I think this is a wierd stance. No where in the bible does it say God leaves no proof. I mean what do you call all the stuff in the old testement. Its just that the bible says "blessed is he who has not seen yet believes"-im paraphrasing, i dont have time to go wip out a bible and find the actual wording. It just says that God rewards those who jump in on faith alone not that there is no proof.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Of course the Bible isn't literally true. Explain dinosaurs. Does anyone out there really believe in the literal truth of the Bible? Even when I was a kid being raised in the Mormon church, nobody ever expected me to believe that (for example) Genesis was literally the reality of what occured. It was always explained in an Intelligent Design-Lite fashion.
'Maybe a day to God is a million years on Earth; these things are unfathomable to our small minds.'
Not that that's pertinent to the discussion actually taking place, here. I just thought I'd throw it in.