Nothing new under the sun... at least against evolution.

[Shemjaza]

Though not evolution strictly speaking, but definitely under creation, there has been from my perception a renewed focus on abiogensis.

But the last "innovation" I can think of in the creationist community would be the rebranding as "intelligent design" with "specified complexity".

I think specified complexity is interesting because it's clearly a response to the criticism of ID being mostly the appeal ignorance aspect of Creationism. The problem is that it's a marketing reaction and not a scientific one.

SC is described as being something that could be measured and demonstrated with analogies that sound very reasonable... of course specified complexity ironically not being very specific and lacking any objective metric and method of measurement.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that your only interest for this thread? Arguments from ID/Creationism against evolution as a whole?

No, my interest for this thread is clearly stated in the OP topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Though not evolution strictly speaking, but definitely under creation, there has been from my perception a renewed focus on abiogensis.

But the last "innovation" I can think of in the creationist community would be the rebranding as "intelligent design" with "specified complexity".

Have to admit that I haven't seen 'specified complexity'. That is a new one to me!

 

[Occams Barber]

Because dna cannot be made by man naturally in the lab.

Whether we can make it or not is irrelevant- it's still the result of a natural process.

By the way - we can make DNA using a process known as artificial gene synthesis

Synthetic DNA Synthesis and Assembly: Putting the Synthetic in Synthetic Biology

The chemical synthesis of DNA oligonucleotides and their assembly into synthons, genes, circuits, and even entire genomes by gene synthesis methods has become an enabling technology for modern molecular biology and enables the design, build, test, learn, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I still think the fact that you are wanting something new quite ... interesting.

Acts 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I still think the fact that you are wanting something new quite ... interesting.

Yes, I am interested in finding out new things. It's part of the human condition. But it has nothing to do with my belief in God. My faith is my faith and my acceptance of science is my acceptance of science. One does not hinge on the other, but they can co-exist easily.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think specified complexity is interesting because it's clearly a response to the criticism of ID being mostly the appeal ignorance aspect of Creationism. The problem is that it's a marketing reaction and not a scientific one.

SC is described as being something that could be measured and demonstrated with analogies that sound very reasonable... of course specified complexity ironically not being very specific and lacking any objective metric and method of measurement.

Wasn't "specified complexity" part of the original designation of ID? I can't remember who cooked up each idea. (Of course SC is just a rehash of the old arguments from incredulity with a more technical sounding name, but still no quantification.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

AV, I don't care about anything you're saying right now.

It's too long to fit in my "quote", so I'll stick with "rocket surgeon".

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

I 100% fail to see what that has to do with the OP topic. My believe in Christ does not hinge on the scientific validity of Intelligent Design. Faith is faith and acceptance of science is acceptance of science. They can co-exist.

Since God is the Creator of everything, science cannot contradict Him. If science contradicts God, then science is false. Now of course we can misunderstand something about God, but my point still stands.

People do not want to believe in God, because they would have to admit that God created them, and they have a responsibility to God, and that God is aware of all they evil and His judgement is coming. So people instead hold onto to foolish things like evolution etc.

 

[J_B_]

No, my interest for this thread is clearly stated in the OP topic.

My question may have been unclear. I realize you're asking for new material. My question was directed at whether 1) you're only interested in new material from ID/Creationism, and 2) whether that new material should be directed at evolution as a whole rather than discussions which accept some things and reject others.

I'm sorry if that got all twisted up. I didn't want to burden the thread with topics that are not of interest to you, and the OP led me to believe you were stipulating those 2 things.

With that said, and even though I don't know what you're familiar with, my comments couldn't really be considered new material, so, sorry for the interruption.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since God is the Creator of everything, science cannot contradict Him. If science contradicts God, then science is false. Now of course we can misunderstand something about God, but my point still stands.

People do not want to believe in God, because they would have to admit that God created them, and they have a responsibility to God, and that God is aware of all they evil and His judgement is coming. So people instead hold onto to foolish things like evolution etc.

But science does not contradict God. It only contradicts a literal reading of the Bible, a book written by men. Since God created the world, then the world cannot lie and nor can God lie through his creation in the world.

But you're just attempting to proselytize and not actually even attempt to address the OP topic, so I'll kindly ask you to stop and just leave.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since God is the Creator of everything, science cannot contradict Him. If science contradicts God, then science is false. Now of course we can misunderstand something about God, but my point still stands.

Science doesn't care about gods of any kind.

People do not want to believe in God, because they would have to admit that God created them, and they have a responsibility to God, and that God is aware of all they evil and His judgement is coming. So people instead hold onto to foolish things like evolution etc.

No, not even close.

 

[Occams Barber]

People do not want to believe in God, because they would have to admit that God created them, and they have a responsibility to God, and that God is aware of all they evil and His judgement is coming. So people instead hold onto to foolish things like evolution etc.

Acceptance of evolution is not contingent on not believing in the existence of God. Believing in God is not contingent on non-acceptance of evolution.

There are many Christians and Christian denominations which accept evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.

It's also possible to be an atheist and have no views on evolution.

The usual reason for not believing in the existence of a God is the absence of convincing evidence.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't care about gods of any kind.

What's all this then:

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

 

[gmark63]

People do not want to believe in God, because they would have to admit that God created them, and they have a responsibility to God, and that God is aware of all they evil and His judgement is coming. So people instead hold onto to foolish things like evolution etc.

Plenty of God-believing religious individuals have no problem with evolution. It doesn't stand in the way of their faith nor does it impact their relationship with their God.

Now, as to why people don't believe in God, that's another topic altogether. And for many of us it was after years of intense self-analysis and theological inquiry. It has nothing to do with my fear of a responsibility to God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's all this then:

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

Those are popular books about science written by scientists, they are not science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What's all this then:

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

Opinions of scientists are just that: opinions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are popular books about science written by scientists, they are not science.

I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

Opinions of scientists are just that: opinions.

Imagine that.

Atheists and scientists incorporating God into their opinions.

 

[gmark63]

Imagine that.

Atheists and scientists incorporating God into their opinions.

I am an atheist and I use the word "soul" all the time. Am I disallowed any sort of literary flourish to my language? As an atheist am I only supposed to speak in non-allegory mathematical notation?