1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Intelligent Design Theory

Discussion in 'Science' started by jcrawford, Nov 20, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is logically self-evident that the genetic information transmitted by sexual reproduction must follow intelligently designed natural laws, and that mutations (whether beneficial or harmful) must of necessity be the result of intelligently designed informational processes which account for a species successful adaptation and survival or not.

    If evolution is not an intelligently designed and logical natural process how can anyone logically comprehend it intelligently?
     
    #21 jcrawford, Nov 22, 2004
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same way we can comprehend gravity or light or chemistry. None of these are intelligent. But they do follow natural laws that we can understand.

    If you wish to asert that they are actually intelligent, then you have the burden of proof to show that this is so. All we seem to get are empty assertions and word games.
     
    #22 UTEOTW, Nov 22, 2004
  3. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, there you go! Natural laws are intelligent laws, aren't they? Gravity, light and chemical reactions follow naturally designed intelligent laws.

    What more evidence do you want for the intelligent design and behavior of man and the universe?
     
    #23 jcrawford, Nov 22, 2004
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    You've assumed what you intend to prove, karl.

    How about some evidence?
     
    #24 The Galatian, Nov 26, 2004
  5. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    All theoretical conclusions are based on the "assumed" premises about the so-called "evidence" or "facts."

    It's called circular reasoning or "the tautological imperative" and is the inevitable consequence of our logical faculties.

    In other words, one gets what one deserves.
     
    #25 jcrawford, Nov 26, 2004
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    So how do you think it is that people change their minds when they see new evidence?

    Should be impossible, in your belief system.

    But it happens. Show us some evidence.
     
    #26 The Galatian, Nov 26, 2004
  7. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    People change their minds by simply changing their premises. Not always easy to do but not too difficult to comprehend.
     
    #27 jcrawford, Nov 27, 2004
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, people change their minds on evidence. You may not be willing to accept it, but they do.

    There might be other reasons, but for science, evidence is what counts. The major scientific revolutions have all come about by evidence.

    Can you think of a counter-example?
     
    #28 The Galatian, Nov 27, 2004
  9. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    While it is true that some evidence is capable and may be responsible for changing our premises, it is an utter maxim that we must begin with the premise of innocence until "proven" guilty. This is where the "evidence" is introduced in order to change our premises. If the "evidence" is insufficient or possibly circumstantial then our original premise may remain unchanged due to the fact that the "evidence" is unacceptable.

    So whether we accept one set of evidences against another is up to us. And the public jury is still out on evolution.

    How's that for a good example?
     
    #29 jcrawford, Nov 27, 2004
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    No evidence,karl? Come back when you have some.
     
    #30 The Galatian, Nov 28, 2004
  11. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who's Karl? You or me?
     
    #31 jcrawford, Nov 30, 2004
  12. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Any selective process in nature based on the laws of natural physics must of necessity be an intelligent and orderly logical procedure in order for human beings to rationally comprehend it."

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Evolution is a random process because in sexual reproduction DNA is randomly mixed. Some mixes survive long enough to pass on their DNA to the next generation and others don't. It isn't any complicated big deal.

    Some may be confusing Lysenko biology & social Darwinism with the natural random process.
     
    #32 billwald, Dec 30, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...