Ch. 6: Evolution and ID

[dunc289]

To my second point, sorry, I should've kept my trap shut regarding theology, but you've got to admit that with you lot (ie ALL theists), it's hard to even reach a consensus about what Heaven and Hell means : )

With us lot, it's hard to reach a consensus about the origin of the universe, so lets call it quits and crack a beer together.

are you buying?

I think I owe you that much at least.

[dunc289]

Who knows? I like to think that God created a universe so vast and so complex that we will never finish exploring and learning about it. I believe God created us to be curious, divinely inspired learners and then gave us plenty to explore and discover.

You know, If He'd made gravity about a million times stronger, we could probably safely explore the galaxy in nothing more complicated than a helicopter.

[Naroch]

My problem with the watch in the desert argument is that watches, buildings, paintings, anything else ID proponents point to, are not made up of components that are naturaly atracted to each other, or inclined to form themselves into the shapes required. Life is, all of the amino acids and protiens and other elements of life are atracted to each other and chemicly react with each other through pure chemistry. If steel was naturaly inclined to form itself into cogs and springs (like salt is inclined to form into cubes, and sugar into crystals.) And those cogs and springs were chemicaly attracted to each other. And there was some natural advantage to them attaching themselves to each other in a way that would allow an observer of them to tell time acuratly. Then we probably wouldn't hold a watch up as evidence of a human-designed thing. But since we all know that these things are not true we can look at a watch and know the likelyhood of steel forming into cogs and springs, and attaching themselves to each other in a way that we can use them to acuratly tell time, is too great for it to be created through purely natural, chemical processes.

I like this video that explains it in a similar way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

[Btodd]

I haven't listened to the broadcast yet, so forgive me if this has been covered, but....

Intelligent Design proponents from the Discovery Institute, like Michael Behe, mostly accept Evolution....they simply say that certain parts of biology are too complex, and had to have been designed. So we have God as a 'tinkerer' with his own system, fudging it a little bit as needed. This creates some questions that I find very troubling in light of God's supposed qualities:

1. Why did an all-powerful God create a system that mostly works on it's own, yet occasionally needs a 'tweak' in order to work fully? Is he not all-powerful, and hence had to 'fix' his system, or was he trying to trick us into believing that life could evolve without his help in the first place by using Evolution to do the vast majority of the work? And as for ID, good luck on getting them to state plainly what evolved and what was 'tinkered with'....it's a constantly changing story that never gets nailed down.

2. Who designed all of the horrible things we see in nature? A loving God? The AIDS virus, flesh-eating bacteria, or tigers for that matter? Does the 'design' only include the good things we wish to give God credit for, or is he also responsible for creatures who live solely by killing other creatures, or afflicting a newborn baby with the most horrible disease that ensures it's very short life will be one of total misery? Who designed those things?

3. Why did God create a system, or 'tinker' with a system, in which 99% of every species that ever lived has gone extinct? What about all of the creatures that existed between our common ancestor with chimpanzees and modern humans? What exactly were all those creatures that were part human, part ape? Did God keep changing his mind about what he wanted? Could he not get it right on the first try, and kept having to do it over to get the final result?

4. And finally, did God implant souls in the final form of humans, or did all of the precursors to the modern form have souls also? Or did souls evolve?

[Pseudonym]

I'd like to offer some of my thoughts toward Pseudonym's question regarding "image of God" and your subsequent answers.

Thanks for your thoughts. I proposed the question partly because I think it helps inform the question of origins and evolution. The idea of being "made in the image of God" doesn't refer to our physical bodies, so that allows, theologically, for them to be animal in origin.

Biblical scholars have often pondered the use of the word "us" in Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our own image"), and other plural references to God in the scripture. I have come to wonder if this refers to the ubiquitous "positive" and "negative" aspects of the universe.

I certainly don't think that was the intention of whoever wrote this story down. The Genesis account has much in common with some other origins stories, in that the world starts off perfect, and destruction enters it soon after, which is closely followed by hope. (The story of Pandora is the most blatant example of this kind of story.) The intention is that the world is meant to be one way, and the other way is a corruption of it.

Having said that, I think it's important that the last thing to be "created" in these stories is hope. Hope is one of the most poweful emotions we have, and if the world was perfect, we wouldn't have it.

The reason this makes sense to me is that it helps me to reconcile the idea of God with the existence of evil/suffering.

Right. What you're suggesting is a kind of dualistic monism.

However you cut it, I think the point is well-made that good things and bad things are often different sides of the same coin. The fire that cooks is also the fire that kills. And, of course, when a lion eats a gazelle, it's good for the lion and bad for the gazelle.

[dunc289]

Although the simplest explanation for bad things happening to good people is of course,

There are no gods.

[crazylegsmurphy]

I don't know. Perhaps so that the universe would act as a sign post of sorts, pointing towards the immensity and power of God. Or perhaps because our universe was originally meant to be explored. Who knows? I like to think that God created a universe so vast and so complex that we will never finish exploring and learning about it. I believe God created us to be curious, divinely inspired learners and then gave us plenty to explore and discover.

Or, perhaps (as my question in another post said, but went unanswered) the reason is that God isn't as proficient or perfect as one would like to think, and our galaxy is only one version of his attempt at perfection. If you look at a photo of all the galaxies, does it not somewhat resemble a waste bin? All of the galaxies are tossed and turned every which way.

If ID people want to claim an intelligent designer that is fine, but they then have to accept the idea that we are just one version. No intelligent designer, painter, builder, etc gets things right the first time. We even see evidence of this in our own history where God made the world and it didn't work out as expected requiring v.2.0 of the earth.

I wonder what the average Christian would think if they were to accept we might not be the final version of Gods vision. The bible would still be correct in all ways, but it would omit the part where we are one of the earlier, less ideal versions and God has the final version that he loves the most on his mantle at home, and the rest of us are just swimming around in a box in his closet.

[Pseudonym]

I wonder what the average Christian would think if they were to accept we might not be the final version of Gods vision.

In a sense, that's orthodoxy. The final version is supposed to be the "new Heaven and the new Earth".

[crazylegsmurphy]

I wonder what the average Christian would think if they were to accept we might not be the final version of Gods vision.

In a sense, that's orthodoxy. The final version is supposed to be the "new Heaven and the new Earth".

Ok, but not really what I was saying was it? I meant final version as we know and live it now.

[JustJim]

My problem with the watch in the desert argument is that watches, buildings, paintings, anything else ID proponents point to, are not made up of components that are naturaly atracted to each other, or inclined to form themselves into the shapes required. Life is, all of the amino acids and protiens and other elements of life are atracted to each other and chemicly react with each other through pure chemistry. If steel was naturaly inclined to form itself into cogs and springs (like salt is inclined to form into cubes, and sugar into crystals.) And those cogs and springs were chemicaly attracted to each other. And there was some natural advantage to them attaching themselves to each other in a way that would allow an observer of them to tell time acuratly. Then we probably wouldn't hold a watch up as evidence of a human-designed thing. But since we all know that these things are not true we can look at a watch and know the likelyhood of steel forming into cogs and springs, and attaching themselves to each other in a way that we can use them to acuratly tell time, is too great for it to be created through purely natural, chemical processes.

Hi, Naroch.

What about the almost indescribably complex, intricately interacting, "machines" with their microscopic cogs, levers, springs, gears, and wheels that we find inside living cells? Are proteins and amino acids "naturally attracted to each other" and "inclined to form themselves into" those things? Are they naturally inclined to somehow be able to "know" - through their DNA contents - what function to perform or what kind of cell to become in a larger system of cells and organs in a plant or animal? I like your idea and analogy, but I don't think it goes far enough, and I don't think it eliminates the possibility (if not probability) of design in life. I'm confident that's because I'm ignorant of such things, though. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Jim

[ScottBarger]

My problem with the watch in the desert argument is that watches, buildings, paintings, anything else ID proponents point to, are not made up of components that are naturaly atracted to each other, or inclined to form themselves into the shapes required....

I think that's the point of the analogy, isn't it?

[ScottBarger]

Or, perhaps (as my question in another post said, but went unanswered) the reason is that God isn't as proficient or perfect as one would like to think, and our galaxy is only one version of his attempt at perfection.

That is a reasonable conclusion, but not one that lines up with the concept of God as presented in the Christian Bible. For those of us who hold to the Bible as a source for doctrinal orthodoxy, that conclusion would likely be rejected.

If ID people want to claim an intelligent designer that is fine, but they then have to accept the idea that we are just one version.

How so? Yes, it is true that our galaxy is just one of many, but this does not require the Designer to have gone through a sort of "trial and error" design process.

No intelligent designer, painter, builder, etc gets things right the first time. We even see evidence of this in our own history where God made the world and it didn't work out as expected requiring v.2.0 of the earth.

Yes, the Noah story describes God as feeling remorse for the state of creation, but this does not negate intent. He may have purposefully created free-will beings knowing the inevitable painful repercussions of their actions.

I wonder what the average Christian would think if they were to accept we might not be the final version of Gods vision. The bible would still be correct in all ways, but it would omit the part where we are one of the earlier, less ideal versions and God has the final version that he loves the most on his mantle at home, and the rest of us are just swimming around in a box in his closet.

To this point I concur with Pseudonym. The Bible speaks to the fact that humanity and the cosmos in which we live is destined to be God's magnum opus.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Well, see, from my perspective there really isn't any designer ever in the history of the world who has gotten things perfect off the bat. For the most part it takes a lot of learning, trial and error, and a little luck for things to come out perfect...and even then.

Indulge me for a second if you will.

Lets say God had his plan...the bible. In this bible there are certain things that come directly from God himself. One of these things is Genesis. The other is the end of the world and all that goes with it. Everything in between involves humans, and these humans seem to have influenced in one way or another the outcome in the middle.

So lets take out the middle part (the humans). What we're left with is a set of instructions/plans for creating a universe and everything in it. So lets say God started out with the big bang to get everything going, and then started trying to make earth the way he saw in his plans.

Earth 1.0 in a galaxy far, far away started the same as ours, they were given Gods word exactly how we were, but due to something not being tweaked just right (say the gravity) the humans in that version all became big blobs of flesh and didn't work out. So, then God chucks out that galaxy and starts again. This time, for whatever reason a water bearing planet doesn't work...just like how sometimes a cake won't rise, so...God starts again.

This might happen thousands, or millions of times until finally he comes to our Earth. Everything works out pretty good, except....crap, the humans start rebelling. God looks at it and says, "Hmm, this one is pretty good, maybe I just need to tweak things a bit!" So, with much regret he tells Noah, "Dude, build a giant boat...do it right the first time too cause I didn't make a whole lot of wood!" So he floods the Earth.

The point is that because we only have the word of God to go on (and the bible) we really have to believe whatever is told to us. If God says he's perfect, despite all the imperfect things we see around us we must still take that as truth because that is what is told. The thing is, God is kinda like his own TV station running his own commercials...he's not really going to admit his product isn't the best. Not only that, but things aren't going to work really well if the first page of the Bible said, "Earth, version 110.6, You all didn't work out exactly how I intended...close, but no cigar....but you're still special!"

The bible has to tell us we're the center of the universe, but taking all we know of design, the size of the universe, the unpredictability of things, and how poorly designed things are on our little planet it would seem to me that we could very well just be one in the long line of attempts God did. We would of course never know this because we have the bible telling us exactly what we need to hear.

To put it simply.

Earth #200345 - "I am God, I made you in my image, I am perfect, listen to me, here is how I did it....awww crap...blobs again!"
Earth #559335 - "I am God, I made you in my image....ooops!"
Earth #399827 - "I am God, I made you in my image, I am perfect, listen to me, here is how I did it......hey...awww man....Noah!!"

How would we know any different?

[yjoeyh]

Hi crazylegsmurphy,

Conside yourself indulged! I like how you articulate this idea of "perhaps God isn't all that he says or thinks he is." I've often wondered something very similar, which probably is the result of many personal experiences where people have dissapointed me severly by not doing things they represented to me that they would do. I've learned to be very skeptical of anyone making claims that they have my 'best interest' at heart.

Let me ask you though, if this hypothetical were true, what could you or I do about it? Even if this truly characterized God, would he still not have to be so much more powerful that we are, that we would be powerless to do anything about it? Furthermore, what could the motivation possibly be to deceive us into thinking he was more "perfect" than he says he is? Even if there were some form of divine narcissism involved, that God wanted us to just be in awe of him for his own pleasure, what pleasure would there possibly be in "showing off" for creatures so much more lowly that he is?
What do we have that he would need or want?

[Naroch]

What about the almost indescribably complex, intricately interacting, "machines" with their microscopic cogs, levers, springs, gears, and wheels that we find inside living cells? Are proteins and amino acids "naturally attracted to each other" and "inclined to form themselves into" those things? Are they naturally inclined to somehow be able to "know" - through their DNA contents - what function to perform or what kind of cell to become in a larger system of cells and organs in a plant or animal? I like your idea and analogy, but I don't think it goes far enough, and I don't think it eliminates the possibility (if not probability) of design in life. I'm confident that's because I'm ignorant of such things, though. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Was the first computer a modern-day supercomputer. Was the Wright Brother's flyer an F-14 Tomcat? Abiogenesis happened 3.5 BILLION years ago. In an environment where, yes, none of our current biochemical molecules (like DNA) was present. But most of the simple molecules that make up current life were. Everything that is on earth now, was on Earth back them (barring the odd meteor adding elements). All abiogenesis is, when you get down to it, is a self-replicating molecule. You get a couple going, give them a few billon years, and natural selection kicks in keeping the ones most likely to survive (can hold shape better, less likely to allow it's constituent molecules to be taken by a rival, only uses the most comon molecules in it's environment, ect.).

The world was nothing but bacteria for the first 2.5 Billion of the 3.5 Billion years it's had life. Multicelularity was a big leap, and the components of multicelular life that we rely on would not of been needed for that first 2.5 billion years. That's why it took so long for it to come about, but once it did multicelular life would of quickly dominated the population (a school of fish is much more likely to survive then a while bunch of singular fish). It then took another almost half a Billion years for organ specialization to come about and again, once it did it would of dominated the population (societys with a governmental plan to run things trumps anarchy). And so on and so on, everybody knows the line of sucession. We have this big understanding of the last billion years of evolution, but we kind of just gloss over that first 2/3rds of life.

The comon misconception I hear is life was bacteria from day one, which is just ludicrous to think about. Iife wasn't just dormant for the first 2.5 billion years. There would of been tons of mutations coming about that were just as important as the rise of multicelularity or organ specialization. Just the creation of a stronger cellular wall would of been a great improvement. Or the ability of the molecule to create other molecules (like the ones that make up it's cellular walls) from the free-floating atoms arround it . The reason why we tend to glass over this is because we're used to thinking in a multicelular level. And most of these changes would of been happening on the inside of the cells, meaning when we found fosil remnants (little more than holes in rocks) all we'd see is the same thing, a cell wall. We wouldn't be able to know if that cell was using DNA or RNA. Or even if it's cell wall was composed of a lipid bi-layer like our own or was a simple fatty acid bubble.