Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Reading through the assorted threads on the subject, I find a few things very curious. The so-called "scientific" minded, seem to have made the conclusion that ID is not scientific, and therefore, invalid as a theory for the origin of life. This presents the first of many dichotomies. Science never draws conclusion, so it is completely contradicting of "scientific principle" to conclude ID is not possible, or even scientific. Before the discoveries of nuclear fission, it was scientifically unsupported, but it was never scientifically impossible. There are many things science has not provided an answer for, because science is incomplete knowledge.
There have been many scientific theories for how life originally formed on Earth. None have been concluded and there is no universal consensus on the subject in the scientific community. So, this question remains unanswered by science, and must continue to be pondered with an open mind. We have to examine the evidence available to us, because that is all we really have to go by. In looking at the evidence objectively, it requires us to check our personal 'faiths' at the door, and remain unbiased in what we find. This is difficult for people deeply-rooted in their beliefs, whether they are Atheists, or religious believers, but it is required to make an objective evaluation of the evidence.
The so-called scientists who reject ID, often do so on the basis that ID is not "testable" or "falsifiable" but no theory of origin is, because the precondition of non-origin can't be replicated. They will contend, science doesn't provide any evidence to support ID, but is this a valid criteria to completely dismiss it as a possibility? To demonstrate the absurdity of this, I present the following analogy... Let's go back a couple hundred years in time, a mere sand grain of time in the existence of the universe... Let's assume someone had found a computer. It is made of plastic, steel, wires and silicon... not materials common for that era. There is no electricity yet, so it can't be turned on, but the real question is, what is it? What is its purpose? How did it get here? Some people ponder, it came from God... Others claim it is the work of an ancient civilization, and some believe it came about as the result of random events. Years pass, and we discover electricity, and someone eventually figures out how to turn the computer on. So now, we have this machine that works in a systematic manner, but we still don't have an answer to where it originated. Those who have consistently refuted it was the product of intelligent design, continue to point out, the computer is comprised of wires, metal and plastic, and deals with math... 0's and 1's must have converged at some point in time, and that explains the origin! They refuse to accept any idea it might be the product of intelligence, because the computer doesn't say it was created, the creator's name isn't in or on the computer anywhere, and it works on principles of math, not flesh and blood, so they scoff... how can intelligence have possibly created this? Of course, science can never actually provide an explanation for how the computer got here, where it came from, or what caused it to be... and the question remains unanswered by science. Still, there is evidence of intelligent design.
Much is the same with regard to our known universe. And I am not simply talking about "life" on our planet, but the universe we live in as a whole. The mechanisms we have come to know as "physics" are predictable, organized, universal. Things happen in a systematic manner, we call it "cause and effect." The very nature of Science is predictable, systematic and organized. Just as the computer analogy, it contradicts reason these things are caused by randomness. This is the first signs of evidence for intelligent design. The "skeptic scientists" says, look... ID doesn't fit the scientific model... but intelligence designed the scientific model. Look... this computer we found, it calculates things faster than humans, so how could "intelligence" have possibly created it? These skeptics never stop to consider the possibility that the very "science" they use, is also the product (and tool) of the Creator.
Okay, so you want "physical" evidence? We move to the well-respected science of psychology... specifically, animal behavior. Since the dawn of civilization, every archeological discovery of ancient man, has revealed mankind's profound connection with spiritual belief. The oldest known human civilizations, practiced ritual burials using red ocher, a common ceremonial custom of the time. Through history, we know of wars and persecutions, designed to stamp out certain 'religious' beliefs or peoples. Yet, mankind remains profoundly connected to spiritual beliefs in some form. 95% of all humans, believe in something greater than self. When we examine any species of life, we find one common fact, inherent in all living organisms. No behavioral characteristic is ever present without purpose and reason. If you are a true scientist, this observation would have to lead you to believe, there is a fundamental purpose for mankind to be so devoutly tied to his spiritual beliefs. There is not a satisfactory explanation for this, other than the obvious reasoning, there must be something greater than self, which humans are inherently obliged to worship in some way.
Of course, there are other physical things which point to design by an intelligent source, even if you don't personally conclude it was a deity. The human body is comprised of complex systems. The digestive system, the nervous system, the circulatory system, the various components, such as the eyes and ear, which all work together with signals from the "central CPU" the human brain. The human body itself, denotes organization, design, a systematic operating system, which completely contradicts randomness. However, even IF you believe this miracle work came as the result of an original single-cell organism, isn't that too an incredible testament to the possibility of intelligent design? That something this miraculous resulted from a single solitary cell, is pretty astounding, and something that is very difficult to attribute to random chance.
One of the leading scientific "theories" regarding origin of life, proposes that amino acids found in clay crystals, combined with polymers in the clay substrate, and with heat and the atmospheric pressure, resulted in the first living organism. The Bible puts it in much simpler terms... God spat in the dust. This brings me to the final point, it is possible that ID and Science are both right. We are just incapable of understanding that right now. Perhaps someday, the mystery will be revealed... someone will invent the "electricity" to allow us to unlock the mystery of this "computer" we've found. These are things science simply can't answer, so to try and draw a "scientific" conclusion on Intelligent Design at this point, is futile and ignorant, at best.
There have been many scientific theories for how life originally formed on Earth. None have been concluded and there is no universal consensus on the subject in the scientific community. So, this question remains unanswered by science, and must continue to be pondered with an open mind. We have to examine the evidence available to us, because that is all we really have to go by. In looking at the evidence objectively, it requires us to check our personal 'faiths' at the door, and remain unbiased in what we find. This is difficult for people deeply-rooted in their beliefs, whether they are Atheists, or religious believers, but it is required to make an objective evaluation of the evidence.
The so-called scientists who reject ID, often do so on the basis that ID is not "testable" or "falsifiable" but no theory of origin is, because the precondition of non-origin can't be replicated. They will contend, science doesn't provide any evidence to support ID, but is this a valid criteria to completely dismiss it as a possibility? To demonstrate the absurdity of this, I present the following analogy... Let's go back a couple hundred years in time, a mere sand grain of time in the existence of the universe... Let's assume someone had found a computer. It is made of plastic, steel, wires and silicon... not materials common for that era. There is no electricity yet, so it can't be turned on, but the real question is, what is it? What is its purpose? How did it get here? Some people ponder, it came from God... Others claim it is the work of an ancient civilization, and some believe it came about as the result of random events. Years pass, and we discover electricity, and someone eventually figures out how to turn the computer on. So now, we have this machine that works in a systematic manner, but we still don't have an answer to where it originated. Those who have consistently refuted it was the product of intelligent design, continue to point out, the computer is comprised of wires, metal and plastic, and deals with math... 0's and 1's must have converged at some point in time, and that explains the origin! They refuse to accept any idea it might be the product of intelligence, because the computer doesn't say it was created, the creator's name isn't in or on the computer anywhere, and it works on principles of math, not flesh and blood, so they scoff... how can intelligence have possibly created this? Of course, science can never actually provide an explanation for how the computer got here, where it came from, or what caused it to be... and the question remains unanswered by science. Still, there is evidence of intelligent design.
Much is the same with regard to our known universe. And I am not simply talking about "life" on our planet, but the universe we live in as a whole. The mechanisms we have come to know as "physics" are predictable, organized, universal. Things happen in a systematic manner, we call it "cause and effect." The very nature of Science is predictable, systematic and organized. Just as the computer analogy, it contradicts reason these things are caused by randomness. This is the first signs of evidence for intelligent design. The "skeptic scientists" says, look... ID doesn't fit the scientific model... but intelligence designed the scientific model. Look... this computer we found, it calculates things faster than humans, so how could "intelligence" have possibly created it? These skeptics never stop to consider the possibility that the very "science" they use, is also the product (and tool) of the Creator.
Okay, so you want "physical" evidence? We move to the well-respected science of psychology... specifically, animal behavior. Since the dawn of civilization, every archeological discovery of ancient man, has revealed mankind's profound connection with spiritual belief. The oldest known human civilizations, practiced ritual burials using red ocher, a common ceremonial custom of the time. Through history, we know of wars and persecutions, designed to stamp out certain 'religious' beliefs or peoples. Yet, mankind remains profoundly connected to spiritual beliefs in some form. 95% of all humans, believe in something greater than self. When we examine any species of life, we find one common fact, inherent in all living organisms. No behavioral characteristic is ever present without purpose and reason. If you are a true scientist, this observation would have to lead you to believe, there is a fundamental purpose for mankind to be so devoutly tied to his spiritual beliefs. There is not a satisfactory explanation for this, other than the obvious reasoning, there must be something greater than self, which humans are inherently obliged to worship in some way.
Of course, there are other physical things which point to design by an intelligent source, even if you don't personally conclude it was a deity. The human body is comprised of complex systems. The digestive system, the nervous system, the circulatory system, the various components, such as the eyes and ear, which all work together with signals from the "central CPU" the human brain. The human body itself, denotes organization, design, a systematic operating system, which completely contradicts randomness. However, even IF you believe this miracle work came as the result of an original single-cell organism, isn't that too an incredible testament to the possibility of intelligent design? That something this miraculous resulted from a single solitary cell, is pretty astounding, and something that is very difficult to attribute to random chance.
One of the leading scientific "theories" regarding origin of life, proposes that amino acids found in clay crystals, combined with polymers in the clay substrate, and with heat and the atmospheric pressure, resulted in the first living organism. The Bible puts it in much simpler terms... God spat in the dust. This brings me to the final point, it is possible that ID and Science are both right. We are just incapable of understanding that right now. Perhaps someday, the mystery will be revealed... someone will invent the "electricity" to allow us to unlock the mystery of this "computer" we've found. These are things science simply can't answer, so to try and draw a "scientific" conclusion on Intelligent Design at this point, is futile and ignorant, at best.
