Thread: Science and Creationism / Hypothetical ID Question

Is it possible to believe in an intelligent designer and evolution?

Hypothetical Question: Say the bible and all other creation texts and stories did not exist. But instead we found some old stone books that told the story of an intelligent designer creating the universe and earth - and through a guided process of evolution, humankind was eventually formed in the creators ultimate vision. If that book existed and was the only book, would everyone believe in an intelligent designer without question??

With us not knowing the origin of life, sex, the universe etc., can one believe in evolution and an intelligent designer (assuming the universe is not infinite)?

Yes. That's essentially the position of biologist-believers like Kenneth Miller. He's a champion of evolution, but, as a Catholic, believes that the Catholic god used evolution as the mechanism for creating the universe. It was all, apparently to him, according to this god's plan or "design."

sure it's possible to believe it! I know of some patients that believe the doctor is out to kill them, despite the fact that several opportunities to do so have come and gone several times.

I know of children that believe the toof fairy comes and collects deir teef for 10 cent, and takes the teef up to gahd, and gets 12 cent for each toof.

Why, there are people who believe in the little green refrigerator man, who runs in and out to turn the fridge light on and off when you open the door - that's his only job!

Of course it's possible to BELIEVE in untelligint desine! Belief has nothing at all to do with proof!

Certainly possible. The intelligent designer could have been an earlier biologically evolved entity from another system. It doesn't need to be a God.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I know of children that believe the toof fairy comes and collects deir teef for 10 cent, and takes the teef up to gahd, and gets 12 cent for each toof.

10 cents! What a scam. Around here the tooth fairy gives a dollar.

For all we empirically know, our entire universe, including ourselves, may be a simulation played in a meta-computer some meta-child got for his or her seventh birthday. Designed by a moderately intelligent meta-IT engineer.

There is an interesting paper I read somewhere (I shall try to locate it - it may even have been on this forum) in which the author argued that we almost certainly had to be a simulation. If I can track it down I'll post it or a link.

Not if you're Christian.

The bible clearly states that God created Adam, and describes the process by which Eve "was created", this contradicts sciences fact.

For one, we know there wasn't an Adam that God created, and we also know that even if Adam "evolved", it was created in Gods image, but rather that of the environmental pressures he faces.

In short, if you believe in evolution as a Christian, you're lost.

Yes. One could think that a God or higher deity could have created the singularity which spawned existence.

Originally Posted by Chronman

Not if you're Christian.

The bible clearly states that God created Adam, and describes the process by which Eve "was created", this contradicts sciences fact.

Or, god sat Moses down, explained to him just how man evolved from lower forms, including the evolution of sex, and Moses said. "Look, no one's going to understand all this, I'll just put down that you formed man from clay and woman from man's rib and leave it at that. It'll be easier"

For one, we know there wasn't an Adam that God created, and we also know that even if Adam "evolved", it was created in Gods image, but rather that of the environmental pressures he faces.

But what exactly is "God's Image"? He's an eternal spirit. and not likely to have arms, legs, head, etc. "God's image" could just mean a sentient self-aware being. In which case, it wouldn't matter what it looked like. All God had to do was set up the parameters of the Universe to make such a being possible, set off the big bang and sit back and wait.

Oh he might give things a push in the right direction from time to time just to keep from getting rusty. ("Hmm, the dinosaurs have been around for a little too long, so maybe if I give this asteroid a nudge...)

Originally Posted by Janus

But what exactly is "God's Image"? He's an eternal spirit. and not likely to have arms, legs, head, etc. "God's image" could just mean a sentient self-aware being. In which case, it wouldn't matter what it looked like. All God had to do was set up the parameters of the Universe to make such a being possible, set off the big bang and sit back and wait.

"God's Image" would simply mean, Man is a reflection of God, with respect to everything which constitutes Man.

God didn't set up any parameters, according to the bible: "In the beginning, God created..."

The bible illustrates that God actively created, not "set parameters" (passive creation) which would facilitated a desired result.

Originally Posted by Chronman

Not if you're Christian.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Chronman

The bible clearly states that God created Adam...

Please provide a passage to support this claim.

if you do not have a preferred online biblical resource, check out sacred-texts.com

You certainly can believe it. It's getting to the point where WE can create the molecules necessary for complex life to evolve, and I would call that inteligent design.

Then again, for something like abiogenesis where there is no real evidence, you can believe what the hell you want. What we can support with evidence, is what happened after abiogenesis, but not what happened during it.

In my mind, this moment when life (or some precurser to life) began is one of two domains where religion still has a right to make a claim, the other being the start of the universe.

People CAN believe any thing they want. Since the OP asked whether or not it's possible, the only reasonable answer is yes.

However, if the OP asked whether or not there probably exists such a designer, I suspect the results would be rather significantly skewed in the opposite direction.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I disagree.

Refutation?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Please provide a passage to support this claim.

if you do not have a preferred online biblical resource, check out sacred-texts.com

Don't worry, I own a bible .

Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Again, if you're Christian and you think that belief system is compatible with evolution, you're lost.

Again, if you're Christian and you think that belief system is compatible with evolution, you're lost.

So only people that take the Bible as 100% true are real Christians? Here we go again...

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen001.htm

King James translations
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." -gen 1:26

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -gen 1:27

Chronman, you don't think there is room to wonder if this God created man--and all other species--from previous species?

Of course, even if we are made in God's image, who is to say that God's image doesn't evolve? Even if it is an absolutely perfect image, who is to say it doesn't evolve in an absolutely perfect way?

"Image" can mean illusion. Possibly that the writer(Moses?) intend to suggest that we were not made to be like God, but to seem like God, in our own eyes.

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/h6754.htm


Nonetheless I'm not convinced that the genesis account leaves zero room for evolution.

Originally Posted by Chronman

The bible clearly states that God created Adam, and describes the process by which Eve "was created", this contradicts sciences fact.

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Hebrews, like all peoples, make extensive use of metaphor. The author of Genesis did not intend the creation tales to be taken literally. They are marvellous pieces of poetry that evoke the mystery and the majesty of the creation process. To claim that they are to be taken literally is an offensive insult to the Hebrews and to the author of Genesis. If, as you may think, that the author of Genesis was God, then to claim the words are the literal truth is an insult to God and an abomination in his eyes.

I thought Genesis offered two accounts of creation?

I found out a short time ago that 'in his image' means as stewards of the world like he is supposedly steward of the universe, but that's one interpretation.

I don't think evolution can co-exist with ID unless the creator arose from evolution, like an alien higher being. Maybe my opinion is biased against ID, however.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

So only people that take the Bible as 100% true are real Christians? Here we go again...

The story of creation is central to the Christian faith.

If there's no Adam, there was no first sin, if there was no first sin, there was no need for Jesus' sacrifice, if there was no need for Jesus' sacrifice to "save humanity", then this negates a large body of Christian beliefs.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan

I agree.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen001.htm

Chronman, you don't think there is room to wonder if this God created man--and all other species--from previous species?

Of course, even if we are made in God's image, who is to say that God's image doesn't evolve? Even if it is an absolutely perfect image, who is to say it doesn't evolve in an absolutely perfect way?

"Image" can mean illusion. Possibly that the writer(Moses?) intend to suggest that we were not made to be like God, but to seem like God, in our own eyes.

http://sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/h6754.htm


Nonetheless I'm not convinced that the genesis account leaves zero room for evolution.

Nonsense.

You asked for a verse, I posted it, now you're making meaningless extensions of what you "think there might be room for".

I won't waste my time refuting the other nonsense in your post, just know its wrong.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

You are completely overlooking the fact that the Hebrews, like all peoples, make extensive use of metaphor. The author of Genesis did not intend the creation tales to be taken literally. They are marvellous pieces of poetry that evoke the mystery and the majesty of the creation process. To claim that they are to be taken literally is an offensive insult to the Hebrews and to the author of Genesis. If, as you may think, that the author of Genesis was God, then to claim the words are the literal truth is an insult to God and an abomination in his eyes.

Again, the story of creation and its being real is central to the Christian faith.

I've not met one Christian who believes it to be metaphorical, at all.

The Christian faith is incompatible with evolution, I've shown this to be fact.

Originally Posted by Holbenilord

I thought Genesis offered two accounts of creation?

I found out a short time ago that 'in his image' means as stewards of the world like he is supposedly steward of the universe, but that's one interpretation.

I don't think evolution can co-exist with ID unless the creator arose from evolution, like an alien higher being. Maybe my opinion is biased against ID, however.

"In his image" is insignificant, let's ignore it, if its overwhelming you...

The fact is, the bible indicates clearly that God created Adam. This is inconsistent with reality and evolution, therefore, the Christian faith is inconsistent with reality, and thus false.

Originally Posted by Chronman

The fact is, the bible indicates clearly that God created Adam.

Out of what? Perhaps out of another species?

I think you're reading too far into what is most likely only a metaphor for natural processes anyway.

Originally Posted by Chronman

This is inconsistent with reality and evolution

No it isn't. My parents created me, but I do not consider them to be god. It's HOW god made them that is in question, not the fact that he did.

Originally Posted by Chronman

Again, the story of creation and its being real is central to the Christian faith.

No it isn't. I was a Christian and this was certainly not a requirement. More than that every minister that I have known actively taught that it was a metaphor.

Originally Posted by Chronman

I've not met one Christian who believes it to be metaphorical, at all.

There our experiences are at odds. Nearly every Christian I have met, until I began to visit the US, understood the Genesis myth to be exactly that. Knowing it to be a myth in no way diminished the strength of their belief in and commitment to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Chronman

The Christian faith is incompatible with evolution, I've shown this to be fact.

It is not imcompatible with Christianity and you certainly have not demonstrated that.

Every minister YOU'VE ever known lives in the twentieth century, in an advanced nation. That advanced nation is thanks to one thing: SCIENCE.

Of course the religious will hypocritically claim nowadays that the stories in the bible are metaphors! It would be lunacy to claim otherwise in the face of incontrovertible evidence! While we do indeed have thousands of such lunatics today, the semi-intelligent religious realize that it's impossible to reconcile religion with science, so therefore they twist and transform their doctrine to be more compatible with science.

The modern christian faith pull the same hypocritical and scientifically invalid stunts that scientologists do. They do it for the same goal. To appear valid when they are NOT. Science and therefore evolution is entirely incompatible with any religion's stories of creation. Those stories were originally made up to control an uneducated population that wholeheartedly endorsed them as the truth - any dissenters getting BURNED AT THE STAKE. Check your history.

It is modern religious hypocrites (that cannot be burned at the stake) who now twist their doctrine relabeling it as 'myth' so that it is not lost and discarded entirely as it should be.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Out of what? Perhaps out of another species?

I think you're reading too far into what is most likely only a metaphor for natural processes anyway.

I know you're wrong.

Go read the bible, learn it, then try to refute my facts.

I don't have time to waste with someone who doesn't know the basics.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

No it isn't. My parents created me, but I do not consider them to be god. It's HOW god made them that is in question, not the fact that he did.

What's funny is you think you're actually making a point.

Genesis 2:7
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Sit down.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

No it isn't. I was a Christian and this was certainly not a requirement. More than that every minister that I have known actively taught that it was a metaphor.
There our experiences are at odds. Nearly every Christian I have met, until I began to visit the US, understood the Genesis myth to be exactly that. Knowing it to be a myth in no way diminished the strength of their belief in and commitment to Christianity.

It is not imcompatible with Christianity and you certainly have not demonstrated that.

You're wrong, I'm right.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Every minister YOU'VE ever known lives in the twentieth century, in an advanced nation. That advanced nation is thanks to one thing: SCIENCE.

Of course the religious will hypocritically claim nowadays that the stories in the bible are metaphors! It would be lunacy to claim otherwise in the face of incontrovertible evidence! While we do indeed have thousands of such lunatics today, the semi-intelligent religious realize that it's impossible to reconcile religion with science, so therefore they twist and transform their doctrine to be more compatible with science.

The modern christian faith pull the same hypocritical and scientifically invalid stunts that scientologists do. They do it for the same goal. To appear valid when they are NOT. Science and therefore evolution is entirely incompatible with any religion's stories of creation. Those stories were originally made up to control an uneducated population that wholeheartedly endorsed them as the truth - any dissenters getting BURNED AT THE STAKE. Check your history.

It is modern religious hypocrites (that cannot be burned at the stake) who now twist their doctrine relabeling it as 'myth' so that it is not lost and discarded entirely as it should be.

You are correct, these guys distort everything to conform to their delusions.

Its a common symptom of denial.

Originally Posted by Chronman

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

No it isn't. I was a Christian and this was certainly not a requirement. More than that every minister that I have known actively taught that it was a metaphor.
There our experiences are at odds. Nearly every Christian I have met, until I began to visit the US, understood the Genesis myth to be exactly that. Knowing it to be a myth in no way diminished the strength of their belief in and commitment to Christianity.
It is not imcompatible with Christianity and you certainly have not demonstrated that.

You're wrong, I'm right.

Is that meant to be an intelligent response? Are you claiming that I was not a practising Christian? That I was not considering the ministry? That all the ministers I have heard address the subject have expressed the view that Genesis was metaphorical? Are you seriously making that statement?

I am quite willing to accept that your experience have been different - perhaps you should get out more - but the only way you can claim I am right and you are wrong is to insist that I am lying.

Let's hear some evidence from you, rather than glib, unsubstantiated put downs.

And while we are at it let me recommend that you do some study into the role and creation of myth in primitive cultures. For until you do that I don't have time to waste with someone who doesn't know the basics.

"I don't have time to waste with someone who doesn't know the basics. " chron

That's funny, you seem to have plenty of time saying the same thing over and over again. What more, you wouldn't need to say the same thing over and over again if you simply shared one or two of these "basics" with the rest of us.

Christians believe in the saving power of Christ, exactly what that saving power is varies from person to person, and exactly what Christ is does as well. Most Christians don't care about the historical relevancy of the bible, they don't often question whether or not something actually happened, not because it is central to their faith to believe in the historical (non)validity of bible stories, but because it is not central to their faith to question them.

Also, from one debater to the next.

Proof comes in the form of evidence, not conviction. Confidence is a good way to rally support, but not a good way to convince people of the validity of your claims.

If you agree that you don't have the time to support your claim, then you shouldn't have time to say "I've proved my claim" and "your wrong."

Since there's a good chance your going to ask me to support my claims, lets recap on this debate, since I haven't made any claims, only asked you about what appear to be inconsistencies in your own. You made a definitive claim that you cannot believe in evolution and be a christian, you supported this by saying that believing in the historical validity of the creation story is central to Christianity, and that this story goes against evolution.

Some have refuted your claim and said that many stories are allegorical. You say they are wrong but provide no proof to support this.

turtle and I refuted your claim and said that the creation story leaves room to wonder what adam was created from. You refuted this with a passage about adam being formed from the dust of the ground.

I'm assuming you imply this is to be taken literally, in which case, please prove that these passages are not allegorical. After all, we are not divine creatures, we are made up of all the same things everything else is made of: this passage seems like it could be part of a holistic philosophy, trying to reconcile man and his environment, which at the time, and almost entirely until recently has been part of an agricultural society, which owes a lot of alliegence to the soil, it is litterally where our livelyhoods came from, and thus figuratively where our lives came from.

Originally Posted by Chronman

I don't have time to waste with someone who doesn't know the basics.

8)

Literally, Chronman is absolutely right. The bible, in literal interpretation, states that God created man from dirt. and created woman from man's rib.

And to be fair, Christianity does not always take literal interpretation as the proper interpretation, so in a figurative interpretation, you would be wrong. A person could read that and assume, that "created from dust" means life from non-life, which is the current standing of biological knowledge on the origin of life. Non-living matter that became simple life and evolved into man. That is not unacceptable to some forms of Christianity that takes the bible to be a massive book of metaphors, and not literal history of the universe.

In terms of absolution, you are wrong, Chronman, because there is an interpretation that works around the literal meaning of the words

Originally Posted by Chronman

Genesis 2:7
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Heh. Got me with that one. I don't know anyone [who is sane] who believes it, though, so I guess the bible just isn't consistent with the beliefs of the average christian.

Er, by the way, seeing as you maintain they are mutually exclusive, should I take that to mean you believe in evolution and not god, because of the overwhelming body of evidence to support evolution?

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Er, by the way, seeing as you maintain they are mutually exclusive, should I take that to mean you believe in evolution and not god, because of the overwhelming body of evidence to support evolution?

I don't believe in God.

I believe in evolution, because its an observable fact.

Originally Posted by Chronman

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Er, by the way, seeing as you maintain they are mutually exclusive, should I take that to mean you believe in evolution and not god, because of the overwhelming body of evidence to support evolution?

I don't believe in God.

I believe in evolution, because its an observable fact.

Do you like the character (Q) from Star trek by any chance?

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

For all we empirically know, our entire universe, including ourselves, may be a simulation played in a meta-computer some meta-child got for his or her seventh birthday. Designed by a moderately intelligent meta-IT engineer.

This is my favorite theory as well, it makes the most sense. They don't even have to simulate the entire universe all the time, only the parts we have actual direct contact with at that moment. If we look at the universe from our back yard they only need to simulate what we see, not every atom in that object. We can't get there, so we would not know the difference. If we managed to get there then the simulation could expand to a lower level.

To the original question, I would have to say yes. This doesn't mean the origin of creation was some all superior "God". Perhaps it was a team of researchers in are very distant future that wanted to simulate the past. Little did they know they too were being simulated The whole God theory is just a giant endless paradox. The simulation works best as the laws outside the simulation may be so radically different from what we know and understand that the impossible is child's play.

I can't see any need for a god, but i acknowledge it would be very hard to disprove a god who merely started everything off.
What would be the point in such a god though?

"The bible, in literal interpretation, states that God created man from dirt. and created woman from man's rib. " -arc

but that is not chronmans point, that is the support for his point. His point is that you cannot believe in both evolution and intelligent design, which he has not begun to prove.

his support only proves that someone who takes the old testament as a literal historical record, cannot also believe in evolution, and meet certain criteria that is required by some to be considered under certain denominations.

Oh, by the way can you really 'believe' in evolution?

if you use "believe" in the sense of "i'm of the opinion that ...", then yes
if it's the religious belief based on scriptural authority, then no