Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I completely agree with Ian's thoughts. The comparisons that creationists use just confuse people. I completely disagree with the conclusions that the authors state on page 111 that ends with "Therefore, the universe had a designer." Design means intelligence is guiding nature behind the scenes using some unexplained mechanism to direct all physical processes towards a desired result. Nature just doesn't behave like that. The authors have really played up our lack of knowledge about the big bang and are attempting to use that as a foundation to prop up their own theories. What they haven't been able to do at all is provide any explanation for what God actually is and how he manages to control nature like a puppet on a string in such a manner that we can't even detect that he's doing it. So far this all boils down to inventing a God to fill the gaps in our scientific knowledge without actually explaining anything whatsoever about the nature of God.
Jazzed, you had asked about how to organize our reading. I think it works fine the way we're doing it now. If someone wants to throw in a remark about earlier chapters at any point in our discussions that should't be a problem.
Chapter three was a little better than anything previously that I tried to comprehend in this book..I agree with most of what the authors are saying. I have always believed in the "big bang" theory, and never thought anything from that point backwards, except that God caused the bang. There is an intelligence behind universes expanding and collapsing. With apologies to my christian/believer friends here, I just don't think the authors are going to ever be able to convince any very intelligent athiest of the existance of a God or of any intelligent design of the universe. If I were an athiest (with my limited amount of education) These guys would not be able to convince me that the world is round at this point in the book..In my minds eye I see these two authors, when the last word is said, saying "But you have to have faith"
Last edited by Miss Blue; 07-24-2007 at 06:54 PM..
Reason: spell
I really felt the evidence in this chapter was presented very well. I felt kind of like it was repeating some of the conversations we have had here. To me...just looking at the evidence alone...there is more evidence for intelligent design then not. I mean...even the alien theory...I find that one much more reasonable then the likelihood of a single cell with the same info as 1,000 encyclopedias being formed from less complicated materials by some amazing coincidence that man cannot even begin to duplicate after 30 years. Also, again the Second Law of Thermodynamics coming into play here. There is so much in this chapter to discuss! I'll wait til more come on to discuss.
I'm curious if any of the atheists reading this feel that there MIGHT be intelligent design but that you personally didn't think so. To me, it seems more religious to stand firm in the face of everything presented and say that it's not even remotely possible.
Last edited by Jazzedforhim; 07-24-2007 at 11:55 PM..
Reason: spelling
I really felt the evidence in this chapter was presented very well. I felt kind of like it was repeating some of the conversations we have had here. To me...just looking at the evidence alone...there is more evidence for intelligent design then not. I mean...even the alien theory...I find that one much more reasonable then the likelihood of a single cell with the same info as 1,000 encyclopedias being formed from less complicated materials by some amazing coincidence that man cannot even begin to duplicate after 30 years. Also, again the Second Law of Thermodynamics coming into play here. There is so much in this chapter to discuss! I'll wait til more come on to discuss.
I'm curious if any of the atheists reading this feel that there MIGHT be intelligent design but that you personally didn't think so. To me, it seems more religious to stand firm in the face of everything presented and say that it's not even remotely possible.
Chapter 5 brings out some inconsistencies in the book. Ok, the authors accept the big bang and try to add a God into the picture to explain it but at least they accepted a great deal of scientific knowledge in the process. What they're actually doing is accepting an ancient earth creationism point of view with the big bang but then they do an about face with evolution and seem to take the approach of the young earth creationists who don't accept evolution. They left out massive amounts of scientific knowledge concerning evolution and dodged some very tough questions. For example, everyone who has studied this subject realizes that the fossils of plants and animals are very neatly stacked in chronological order. They don't even address this question or offer an explanation. It's very clear that we can lay out a detailed fossil record that begins with single celled life and follow it through millions of years of history which include mass extinctions and whole groups of animals disappearing from the fossil record and then having new ones show up. Well where did they come from? Obviously they had evolved from earlier organisms.
Also, this whole business of confusing the issue by talking about the astronomical chances of life forming by itself is extremely distorted and doesn't present an accurate picture. Evolution is a very long accumulation of very small changes and these changes don't require the astronomical odds of occurring because they're rather insignificant. That tired old story about a tornado whipping through a junk yard and putting together and 727 by chance is just ridiculous and it confuses people about how evolution really works. Evolution is a fact, plain and simple, and the evidence is overwhelming. If the authors accept the big bang why couldn't they just be consistent and state that God was the driving force behind evolution? That would at least have been a defensible position.
Last edited by MontanaGuy; 07-25-2007 at 09:35 AM..
Reason: grammar
Chapter 5 is another very badly written and concluded chapter. MG has pointed out some inconsisitencies above.
Again, why do they keep referring to people who accept evolution as "Darwinists"? They do this to paint evolution as a 'theory' that is no more proven than ID. They keep referring to the evolution vs creationism debate like its something going on all over the world. Its not. This is only a hot topic in the US. Evolution is a fact, and a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
The authors condemn many areas of science as "bad science" (namely the parts that don't fit with their arguments), and state that its all built on philosophy. BUT, they do turn to that very science when it suits the arguments for the big bang, or in discussing DNA (the complexities of which are explained through scientific data and modelling).
Another fasle claim is that 'evolutionists' conclude that the first life evolved from non-living chemicals. This is not true. Scientists somply do not have an answer from the where the first life came from, so they will happily admit (as well as atheists) that we dont know. There are no radical claims in that department. There is no reliance on FAITH anywhere in an evolutionary model.
The coin flip example for explaining chance is absurd (as is much of this book). The authors obvioulsy don't understand that circumstances in our environment change every micro-second, and working out the future is impossible even if you have all of the information. Chance is an outcome that is not pre-determined, when there are changing laws in effect, period.
The meterialism explanation is completely inaacurate. The authors also give some hapdash explanation of 'reason' and how its all built on faith anyway. Oh and the authors keep reffering to a designer as if they have adequately proven this in prior chapters.
So far nothing but mindless words, pathetic reasoning, and blind arrogance. There are a few decent points, but nothing a noble critic wouldn't cast to the litter bin. I think the so-called 'universities' these guys gained their Phd's from should be audited pronto!!
Sorry for the negativity, but this is supposed to be the book that is a good look at the "other side' of the argument. I'm very dissapointed.
Ian,
Wow, I felt they put quite a good argument out there for the possibility of our universe being created by intelligent design. So, you don't even thing is probable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm confused.
IDHEFTBAA Chapter 5
