Hey creationists: 2 newly-discovered species 500 million years old

[Lamson]

As a Euro (Catholic/Orthodox) Christian I believe in the idea of creatio ex nihilo by an act of the Divine Will.

creation out of nothing by a divine will/mind/etc is common to most thinkers who do not reject the idea of a Creator. Is there something especially different about Euro Catholic/Orthodox that differs from other views?[/I]

when it comes to things like 'Intelligent Design', even the 'old school' definition, I exercise my reserve; there's plenty of evidence of 'unintelligent design' if you want to look for it, and some processes so bizarre and distasteful and cruel that you'd wonder just who the heck thought that one up!

Are you suggesting ex nihilo creation by act of Diine Will was not according to intelligent design? deliberately unintelligent? I don't think I understand the point you are making. As to why the Creator chose the Savage Garden approach rather than a placid Edenic garden devoid of violence and predation.... who knows! But it appears the Creator did.

Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the eye is pretty poor design. If we'd have had any input in its evolution, we'd have made fundamental changes ... but that's from memory.

why is imperfect design a disqualifier for the belief in intelligent design. my flip response might be that God is a tinkerer and just likes to try stuff. Like all inventions not everything results in perfection
[/I]
+++

The Big Problem, it seems to me, is we end up with an idea of a God who is a micro-manager, which I don't think is the case.

I have never ended up with the idea of God the micromanager in my thinking. In fact, I have found no hard evidence that the Creator is a personal god at all. I have found no hard evidence that the Creator listens to prayers or acts on a system of feedbacks from he/she/its creations. The evidence of intelligent design is everywhere however. I find it hard to find anything in science or nature that does not argue the existence of a Grand Architect.

This has been inherited from Judaism, of course, which has the habit of reading history as 'good things happen - God is happy; bad things happen - God is angry' ... I'm not saying God does not intervene, just not on the scale or to the degree that everyone thinks.

I mean, why not design a planet that goes through it's earthquake-eruption-tsunami cycle before it begins its humanity cycle. Why not 'steer' someone to wards a cure for malaria or the common cold?

Again, who knows the motives of the creator.... presuming the human idea of motives should even apply to a creator. The lack of divine intervention toward anyone's idea of a perfect world does not negate the evidence for intelligent design. Some pretty intelligent people design some pretty crappy technology. Why should we demand more when discussing theological cosmology?

 

[Gordian Knot]

Ummm. Because God is supposedly not a fallible human. By definition the Western God is perfect, all knowing, all seeing, and all the other all stuff. If this is to be believed then it does seem to me that we should expect he is beyond crappy creation.

Actually though you have the point backwards. An imperfect creation does not mitigate against a divine being. The flaws in creation seem to flow, in the example of humans, from designs that would have suited us better when we were more primitive life forms. And do not suit us as well now that we have evolved. The implication is that evolution is at work.

Now one could posit that God created evolution as the avenue for the way his creation would develop. That is a logical assumption, and a lot of people believe this. That there was a divine creator and that it used the biological processes we see thru evolution to end up with modern humans.

My problem is with the people who flatly deny evolution occurred. That humans with all these characteristics of early creatures, which no longer suit us very well now, but that we still have anyway is intentional crappy design by the creator. Because, according to these folks, God created us as we are today; we didn't evolve from anything else. So again, the question becomes why invent humans with organs and traits that would have suited other creatures better and humans not so much?

The typical response, to suggest we cannot understand why God did it this way because it is beyond our understanding seems like a cop out to me.

 

[Thomas]

creation out of nothing by a divine will/mind/etc is common to most thinkers who do not reject the idea of a Creator. Is there something especially different about Euro Catholic/Orthodox that differs from other views?

Only that a lot of views are monist, deist, pantheist or panentheist, which presumes a Creator quite different to that of the Abrahamic Traditions.

I made the distinction for clarity's sake.

Are you suggesting ex nihilo creation by act of Divine Will was not according to intelligent design? deliberately unintelligent?

No, the point I was making is that any argument for Intelligent Design can be dismissed as sentimentalism. There is no proof of ID, after all.

Personally, I believe in a Creator, and in creation as a theophany ... so yes I believe in 'Intelligent Design' but not in the sense proposed by US think tanks and the like, who see everything, every cause, every effect, as evidence of a Creator at work.

It's more an insight into something, than a proof of anything.

As to why the Creator chose the Savage Garden approach ...

Is that how you see it? I don't.

why is imperfect design a disqualifier for the belief in intelligent design.

For the same reason that creationists argue that Dinosaur bones only 'look' millions of years old to fool us into thinking the world is older than it is?

my flip response might be that God is a tinkerer and just likes to try stuff.

I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic determinations of the Deity.

I have never ended up with the idea of God the micromanager in my thinking.

I don't see the Cosmos as a one-off event, but rather a dynamic continuum.

In fact, I have found no hard evidence that the Creator is a personal god at all.

Did you ever expect to?

I don't God is a 'personal God', rather I think of God as something I can relate to personally.

I have found no hard evidence that the Creator listens to prayers or acts on a system of feedbacks from he/she/its creations.

OK. But a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.

The evidence of intelligent design is everywhere however.

Well that is how some choose to see it. I do, but others don't.

I think Intelligent Design as a 'proof' of a creator rests on too many intangibles and too much opinion and sentiment. There are far better proofs that are far simpler.

Again, who knows the motives of the creator.... presuming the human idea of motives should even apply to a creator.

Well one has to start somewhere.

The lack of divine intervention toward anyone's idea of a perfect world does not negate the evidence for intelligent design. Some pretty intelligent people design some pretty crappy technology. Why should we demand more when discussing theological cosmology?

Because we haven't actually proved Intelligent Design.

 

[Lamson]

As a Euro (Catholic/Orthodox) Christian I believe in the idea of creatio ex nihilo by an act of the Divine Will.

when it comes to things like 'Intelligent Design', even the 'old school' definition, I exercise my reserve; there's plenty of evidence of 'unintelligent design' if you want to look for it, and some processes so bizarre and distasteful and cruel that you'd wonder just who the heck thought that one up!

Also, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the eye is pretty poor design. If we'd have had any input in its evolution, we'd have made fundamental changes ... but that's from memory.

+++

The Big Problem, it seems to me, is we end up with an idea of a God who is a micro-manager, which I don't think is the case.

This has been inherited from Judaism, of course, which has the habit of reading history as 'good things happen - God is happy; bad things happen - God is angry' ... I'm not saying God does not intervene, just not on the scale or to the degree that everyone thinks.

I mean, why not design a planet that goes through it's earthquake-eruption-tsunami cycle before it begins its humanity cycle. Why not 'steer' someone to wards a cure for malaria or the common cold?

Ummm. Because God is supposedly not a fallible human. By definition the Western God is perfect, all knowing, all seeing, and all the other all stuff. If this is to be believed then it does seem to me that we should expect he is beyond crappy creation.

Ok, I can see how anyone would want presume God to be perfect etc. If God, however is an objective reality and not just the idealized vision of what people think God should be, then God is what God is. If what God really is is in fact not perfection, who are us lesser entities to question it and expect God to be beyond anything.

Actually though you have the point backwards. An imperfect creation does not mitigate against a divine being.

I don't think I ever made the point that an imperfect creation mitigates against a divine being. My personal opinion is that the whole idea of perfection is a relativistic invention of man and that our opinion of what perfection should be has absolutely no meaning in an objective reality.

The flaws in creation seem to flow, in the example of humans, from designs that would have suited us better when we were more primitive life forms. And do not suit us as well now that we have evolved. The implication is that evolution is at work.

I don't disagree with any of this. Nothing about evolution conflicts with my idea of a Creator. My disagreement with evolutionists is the premise that evolution is blind and random. My personal belief is that evolution progresses within the architecture of design. DNA is common to all living things. All living things share DNA to a greater or lesser degree. My personal view is that when God decided "let there be life", he presented DNA, the intelligently designed architecture for all life, past present and future. My personal view is that the potential of all future evolution resides in "junk DNA" which we currently do not understand. My personal view is that evolution absolutely is at work, but that it is all within the architecture of an intelligent design, not a chaotic materialistic reality.



Now one could posit that God created evolution as the avDenue for the way his creation would develop. That is a logical assumption, and a lot of people believe this. That there was a divine creator and that it used the biological processes we see thru evolution to end up with modern humans.

Yes.... stated above. The existence of junk DNA (DNA which serves no known purpose to the life of the DNA carrier) seems by its existence to point to the "intent" that evolution occur presumably when conditions warrant such evolution.

My problem is with the people who flatly deny evolution occurred. That humans with all these characteristics of early creatures, which no longer suit us very well now, but that we still have anyway is intentional crappy design by the creator. Because, according to these folks, God created us as we are today; we didn't evolve from anything else. So again, the question becomes why invent humans with organs and traits that would have suited other creatures better and humans not so much?

I am not one of those people.

The typical response, to suggest we cannot understand why God did it this way because it is beyond our understanding seems like a cop out to me.

I agree if that is not obvious

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The existence of junk DNA (DNA which serves no known purpose to the life of the DNA carrier) seems by its existence to point to the "intent" that evolution occur presumably when conditions warrant such evolution.

How dose junk that we don't understand point to an intent?

 

[Lamson]

How dose junk that we don't understand point to an intent?

Can't defend my premise other than to say I can't think of anything else in nature that has 90% if its entirety with no apparant purpose, ergo "junk". My gut tells me "junk" DNA is the unused bag of tricks that makes evolution possible. I agree this doesn't make it so... and no I cannot offer any proofs. Time will tell when DNA is better understood. It is a brand new field of knowledge.

 

[Lamson]

Only that a lot of views are monist, deist, pantheist or panentheist, which presumes a Creator quite different to that of the Abrahamic Traditions.

I made the distinction for clarity's sake.


No, the point I was making is that any argument for Intelligent Design can be dismissed as sentimentalism. There is no proof of ID, after all.

Personally, I believe in a Creator, and in creation as a theophany ... so yes I believe in 'Intelligent Design' but not in the sense proposed by US think tanks and the like, who see everything, every cause, every effect, as evidence of a Creator at work.

It's more an insight into something, than a proof of anything.


Is that how you see it? I don't.


For the same reason that creationists argue that Dinosaur bones only 'look' millions of years old to fool us into thinking the world is older than it is?


I don't subscribe to anthropomorphic determinations of the Deity.


I don't see the Cosmos as a one-off event, but rather a dynamic continuum.


Did you ever expect to?

I don't God is a 'personal God', rather I think of God as something I can relate to personally.


OK. But a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.


Well that is how some choose to see it. I do, but others don't.

I think Intelligent Design as a 'proof' of a creator rests on too many intangibles and too much opinion and sentiment. There are far better proofs that are far simpler.


Well one has to start somewhere.


Because we haven't actually proved Intelligent Design.

Thomas,
I would like to respond to each of your points, but haven't been able to figure out how to use the parsed quotes feature. In a nutshell, my view of intelligent design has nothing to do with think tanks, etc.. I am not well read enough to even know what you are talking about when you mention the opinions of various ID schools of thought. My own view of ID is simplistic, nature and all in it screams for the existence of design. I find the idea that what we have in nature has evolved through blind happenstance and chaotic accidents unlikely in the extreme. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.... it must be... intelligent design.

I believe that intelligence designed existence. I do not know whether intelligence then left the design to replicate and mutate on its own vs applying divine intervention every little step of the way. My personal view is pretty much what you stated.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Can't defend my premise other than to say I can't think of anything else in nature that has 90% if its entirety with no apparant purpose, ergo "junk". My gut tells me "junk" DNA is the unused bag of tricks that makes evolution possible. I agree this doesn't make it so... and no I cannot offer any proofs. Time will tell when DNA is better understood. It is a brand new field of knowledge.

So it's not plausible that it's old DNA not used any more?

You said elsewhere that the Creator was, perhaps, 'tinkering'. Wouldn't the fact that all this future DNA, the future plans, argue against that idea?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Lamson, I am a Theosophist, and I’d like to give you some answers from a Theosophical perspective. You asked,
　
"What is the correct label for someone like me who believes that the universe and our world with all it's marvelous design could not have arisen chaotically from chance. What do you call someone like me who believes that evolution does occur, but that it is according to intelligent plan."
　
--> I believe GK has already given you the answer, which is called intelligent design. But we need to go deeper into what intelligent design is and is not.
　
First, let’s take the use of the word Creation. Creationists break down into two groups, those who think the world is only 6,000 years old, and those who think God caused Creation to happen but that Creation has taken billions of years to happen. Let’s ignore the first group out of hand and talk about the second group.
　
Many Theosophists (myself included) shun the use of the word Creation, even when it refers to a Creation which has taken billions of years to occur. The word Creation refers to certain actions (and other actions) by a God who intentionally manipulates and/or temporarily suspends natural law and the laws of physics in order to achieve certain changes. The idea here, if God hadn’t intervened and usurped natural law and the laws of physics, the changes would have never happened. Theosophy does not see that this is how the universe came about. In this way, Theosophists prefer to say that the universe Evolved rather than to say it was Created. How does this sound so far?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lamson –

In a nutshell, my view of intelligent design has nothing to do with think tanks, etc... My own view of ID is simplistic, nature and all in it screams for the existence of design. I find the idea that what we have in nature has evolved through blind happenstance and chaotic accidents unlikely in the extreme... My personal view is pretty much what you stated.

Yes, I think we're actually on much the same page.

 

[Thomas]

First, let’s take the use of the word Creation.
Creationists break down into two groups ...
Let’s ignore the first group out of hand and talk about the second group.
The word Creation refers to certain actions (and other actions) by a God who intentionally manipulates and/or temporarily suspends natural law and the laws of physics in order to achieve certain changes ... if God hadn’t intervened and usurped natural law and the laws of physics ... Theosophy does not see that this is how the universe came about.

Which group is this?

(I hope you're not suggesting this is the Abrahamic view, or the Hindu, or the Daoist, or the Buddhist, for that matter ... )

 

[wil]

Which group?

Lamson, I am a Theosophist, and I’d like to give you some answers from a Theosophical perspective.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Yep. Nick is speaking from the group started in the late 1800s by Blavatsky called The Theosophical Society. Nick has made it fairly plain that when he speaks of theosophy, it is from the TS that he is quoting. Pretty sure I am correct about this. Nick will certainly set me straight if I am not!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Lamson, that was my understanding of what you were saying as well. That's why I pointed out in an earlier post that you need to be aware that your definition of ID is not the publicly held definition right now because of the conservative think tank The Discovery Institute. They have distorted the original philosophical and religious views completely as part of their agenda to discredit evolution etc.

You and Thomas are coming from an earlier branch of philosophical thinking I would call Old School ID, or maybe Classical ID.

 

[Gordian Knot]

On the subject of 'junk' DNA. It really depends on whether it is junk or unused potential. And we do not know the answer to that yet. If it turns out to be left over DNA that once served some purpose in an earlier species, but has become redundant in humans, that would suggest an evolutionary process happening. As you suggested, why would humans be created by ID if 90% of their DNA is useless.

On the other hand if it can be proven that our junk is actually the fertile ground for potential growth of the species going forward, that does not necessarily suggest an intelligent designer is involved. It could be one reasonable assumption though.

 

[wil]

I don't believe in a personal, involved, creator G!d... I believe in G!d as principle...nothing supernatural...simply natural....we've yet to figure out gravity, or the TOE, making our math/phyisics work at the quantum and infinite levels, we've got holes in our understanding of nature and the universe and forever we've made up gods to fill those gaps in our knowledge.

I do believe G!d is that universal law that holds us altogether, that binds us as one...

 

[Lamson]

So it's not plausible that it's old DNA not used any more?

Cup, I do believe the "junk" DNA could by DNA not used any more. Thanks for helping me clarify my thinking. If my thinking that the junk DNA represents unactivated potential, the potential could go either way. If, along the way of evolution, switches are turned on or off to accomodate there is nothing to say that a switch turned off should be cauterized and erased.

For instance, perhaps I wish to design a car with a feature for operating the windows. My design could include a feature with roll down handles. Or my design could include a feature with a button that electronically raises and lowers the windows. Or my design could include a feature that has a pretty blonde appear from a side compartment and remove/replace the glass when I desire. Perhaps if I were a really good designer, I could include feature variations for all potential ways for operating the windows on my car, and have that particular feature manifest at the time when that feature is appropriate..... the other features remaining there as potential but not manifested. Nothing here would preclude going back to roll-down handles at any time.

So yes, the unused DNA if it represents potential does not preclude the probability that some if it was not already an active feature in the past.

You said elsewhere that the Creator was, perhaps, 'tinkering'. Wouldn't the fact that all this future DNA, the future plans, argue against that idea?

I don't quite know where you are coming from here. I don't really argue "future plans" if that is what you are getting at. The fact that an invention is designed with all the possible bells and whistles does not imply that there is a predestination requirement for their use. A car might be bought and the owner never roll the windows down. If that is not where you were coming from, let me know .... I enjoy your views.

Oh and by the way, yes it is possible that the junk DNA is entirely residue from past evolution (ie junk in the true sense). The idea that some of it might represent future potential is just an idea and could be absolutely false.

 

[Lamson]

I don't believe in a personal, involved, creator G!d... I believe in G!d as principle...nothing supernatural...simply natural....we've yet to figure out gravity, or the TOE, making our math/phyisics work at the quantum and infinite levels, we've got holes in our understanding of nature and the universe and forever we've made up gods to fill those gaps in our knowledge.

I do believe G!d is that universal law that holds us altogether, that binds us as one...

Wil,
I don't disagree with anything you said.... except maybe the supernatural part. I leave open the possibility that supernatural is simply the natural that we do not yet understand the physics of.

As you said, there are so many things we don't understand. Proven reality has been a moving target than continually changes as we develop the math. Who knows what the future holds.

 

[Thomas]

I don't believe in a personal, involved, creator G!d...Nothing supernatural ...

And yet you designate yourself 'Christian', which is, by definition, a belief in a personal, involved, creator, supernatural God. I don't see how you can square the two, without saying everyone else is wrong?

I believe in G!d as principle...

But a 'principle' is nothing more than a general law or truth of something. Principles don't exist in isolation, as self-contained entities?

I believe in the Uncreate as the Cause and Principle of the created, not as a creation of creation. The Uncreate is what the Abrahamic Traditions declare in their dogmas and doctrines. So does Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism ...

A humanist believes in nature as its own principle, without a need of God.

If you believe in nature, that creation just is, without the need of a supernatural act, everything can be explained by empirical principle, then what need is there of a God?

...simply natural....we've yet to figure out gravity, or the TOE, making our math/phyisics work at the quantum and infinite levels, we've got holes in our understanding of nature and the universe ...

Ah. This is 'material monism'. The Great traditions don't see 'God' (or whatever) as a 'thing' or a 'phenomena' like others 'things' or 'phenomena'.

It, whatever It is, is in a category of its own, and therefore outside of the axioms of nature.

That we can explain why waters freezes or boils does not mean that we will, therefore, eventually explain God. You're thinking of god as the object of empirical determination.

... and forever we've made up gods to fill those gaps in our knowledge.

Wil, I do believe you delight in making the most outrageous statements! That's a secularist version of 'The God of the Gaps' argument! It's been soundly rejected by theologians as teleological fallacy, and secularists as nonsense!

I do believe G!d is that universal law that holds us altogether, that binds us as one...

Well after everything you've just said, such a God is just a poetic way of describing nature, isn't it? Of imposing a humanist meaning and value upon it?

 

[Thomas]

Which group?
[Quote:]Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot
Lamson, I am a Theosophist, and I’d like to give you some answers from a Theosophical perspective.

Yep. Nick is speaking from the group started in the late 1800s by Blavatsky called The Theosophical Society. Nick has made it fairly plain that when he speaks of theosophy, it is from the TS that he is quoting.

Oh, my mistake.

The way I read it, I thought Nick was presenting two groups that he doesn't ascribe to – I rather thought his 'second group' was an 'aunt sally', something invented to put up and so he could knock it down.

Either way he missed the third group, by far the more mainstream.