The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
"It makes me cringe to see science minded people (whether they are scientists or not) attempt to prove evolution by disproving creationism, because this is precisely the charge that has been made against creationists. For example, whenever I've tried to discuss intelligent design (minus what it may or may not imply) it's usually perceived as an attack on evolu ...[text shortened]... ave been at least part of the intelligent design, and why or why not. What would your answer be?

The process of selection causes variation, no one argues with that. And I don't know why it wouldn't be part of the original design if life was created by an intelligent force or agency. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, because if selection/variation wasn't part of the original design it would have had to become part of the design at some point.

Or are you talking about a designed lifeform (or lifeforms) that then followed the sort of tree of life progression Darwin talked about?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution does not describe or explain the origin of DNA (or whatever happens to be the replicating agent). Hence, it is irrelevant to the theory.

Yes I know, but if you look at the topic of this discussion it isn't evolution it
is design!

Originally posted by JS357
What were the critical moments, if you can say?

If you mean what was the tipping point, I don't know. There weren't critical moments that I can recall, and I'm still feeling more pushed away from evolution than drawn to creationism... I have never completely gotten over my initial feeling of disbelief, but maybe this can be chalked up to old age.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you mean what was the tipping point, I don't know. There weren't critical moments that I can recall, and I'm still feeling more pushed away from evolution than drawn to creationism... I have never completely gotten over my initial feeling of disbelief, but maybe this can be chalked up to old age.

Why do you think that evolution and creationism are incompatible, if that's what you think? It seems to me that if there were a creator, he/she/it could have created the evolutionary process and set it on its way with perhaps an occasional intervention, perhaps.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The process of selection causes variation, no one argues with that. And I don't know why it wouldn't be part of the original design if life was created by an intelligent force or agency. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, because if selection/variation wasn't part of the original design it would have had to become part of the design at some point. ...[text shortened]... form (or lifeforms) that then followed the sort of tree of life progression Darwin talked about?

OK so I think you are OK with the idea that evolution could be part of the design.

Originally posted by JS357
Why do you think that evolution and creationism are incompatible, if that's what you think? It seems to me that if there were a creator, he/she/it could have created the evolutionary process and set it on its way with perhaps an occasional intervention, perhaps.

If there was a creator capable of creating the entire universe, with all of its worlds and stars, why would he need evolution? He wouldn't, so there is no reason to believe he would (or should) do it in this way. Atheists and evolutionists have a vested interest in "religionists" believing God allowed evolution to do the work for him, but only if they are unable to keep God out of the equation.

I've said before that this idea is supposedly a compromise. But it's a "compromise" intended to benefit one side only, so it's not really a compromise at all. Why should evolutionists care what anyone believes as long as it doesn't challenge what they believe about evolution? And atheists know if they can get a religious person to take a major step in their direction, then it can work out to be a small victory for them as well.


I mentioned the Cambrian period, but it has also been dubbed the Cambrian explosion and the "Biological Big Bang". It turns the image of Darwins tree of life completely upside down, and for some it doesn't look anything at all like a tree. Think of the timeline as the length of a football field, and starting at one end (the beginning) you move along for most of its length with relatively lower life forms... mostly things like jelly fish sponges and worms, with no evidence of a long history of gradual divergence.

And then BAM, at the opposite end of the field on the 16 yard line you suddenly see most of the major animal phyla that are still alive today, as well as some that are now extinct. So instead of a tree it looks more like a lawn that suddenly shows up at the 16 yard line. So then you walk the last 16 yards across a plush lawn (individual strands of grass rather than a branching tree) until you arrive at today... today being the other side of the football field.

I'm used this visual imagery to illustrate (and drive home the point) that this is not a small problem for evolutionists. It can't easily be poo pooed or ignored, and there is no way a theory like punctuated equilibrium is able to patch this over. It's too big a problem to be covered over by any theoretical patch relying strictly on natural science.

What this all essentially boils down to is that God doesn't need evolution, but evolution needs all the help it can get... so good luck in keeping God out of the equation, or at the very least limiting his involvement.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If there was a creator capable of creating the entire universe, with all of its worlds and stars, why would he need evolution? He wouldn't, so there is no reason to believe he would (or should) do it in this way. Atheists and evolutionists have a vested interest in "religionists" believing God allowed evolution to do the work for him, but only [b]i ...[text shortened]... so good luck in keeping God out of the equation, or at the very least limiting his involvement.

I agree with you on this point, if He had to knit the whole universe together
to support life why would He need abiogenesis or evolution?

Originally posted by JS357
OK so I think you are OK with the idea that evolution could be part of the design.

Are you referring to micro-evolution or micro/macro evolution?

No one argues with micro-evolution. The point of contention between creationists and evolutionists centers around macro-evolution, so if there is no argument over micro-e then I'm guessing you mean to ask me if I'm OK with macro-e... is this correct?

BTW, I already know what you mean, but if you don't specify what type of evolution you're talking about it can be confusing for some readers.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you on this point, if He had to knit the whole universe together
to support life why would He need abiogenesis or evolution?

For the longest time I could not understand why many atheists wouldn't argue against a "God using evolution" scenario, especially since evolution has been one of their strongest cases against the idea of there being a God. But once you start looking at this as a political technique then it all begins to make sense...

In politics it's called incrementalism. If you want to talk someone out of their property or get them to give up a right, don't try taking it all at once... talk 'em out of it one little piece at a time.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you referring to micro-evolution or micro/macro evolution?

No one argues with micro-evolution. The point of contention between creationists and evolutionists centers around macro-evolution, so if there is no argument over micro-e then I'm guessing you mean to ask me if I'm OK with macro-e... is this correct?

BTW, I already know what you mean, bu ...[text shortened]... don't specify what type of evolution you're talking about it can be confusing for some readers.

I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial.

Originally posted by JS357
I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial.

I think it is huge I agree with micro where a bird beak could be larger or
smaller, a breed of dog changes, but you stay within species it is still a bird
and it is still a dog. The huge changes like growing veins, hearts, cold and
warm blooded are huge and I have a fundamental issue with so much
having to work out just right in order for that to occur.

Originally posted by JS357
I think the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial.

This is key point that tends to be under-emphasized. So-called 'macro' evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a long period of time. I often hear Creationists concede that 'micro' evolution indeed occurs, without realizing that they have conceded the entire debate!

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This is key point that tends to be under-emphasized. So-called 'macro' evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a long period of time. I often hear Creationists concede that 'micro' evolution indeed occurs, without realizing that they have conceded the entire debate!

I'm curious to know how renaming variations within a species [by calling it "microevolution"] has the power to cause natural selection to magically become the vehicle for macroevolution... oh wait, I get it now! It's because both words contain the word evolution!

Through the magic of wordplay evolutionists have created a new terminology to insure that no one will be able to avoid saying the word "evolution"...

Well played!

And now that you have a sure fire tool for convincing idiots and morons, you can go to work at trying to fool people with average intelligence.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And now that you have a sure fire tool for convincing idiots and morons, you can go to work at trying to fool people with average intelligence.

If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't be in here! 😛