Comments on: But What If You’re Wrong - Followup

By: franky

franky — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:57:45 +0000

Hey Ryan,
Well, that must have been an unintelligent designer that created us to adapt to our environments. For example, most African-Americans are prone to sickle-cell anemia. I for one have a different kind of hemoglobin that is close to sickled-cell but isn’t. People with sickle-cell actually turn out to be pretty resistant to malaria, which makes sense why African-Americans are prone to the disease. So as you can see, we adapted to the situation (i.e. malaria) by developing a resistance mechanism but at the same time we messed up our red blood cells. Not too bright there now was it.

Sickle-cell disease

By: Ryan Heneise

Ryan Heneise — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:57:06 +0000

This is a great topic – thanks for such a lucid and well-thought-out argument. I also appreciate the quality of the comments.

I’m working through a series of courses called “Defending the Faith” for my master’s program at Biola University, and I’ve found the lectures on this topic to be especially stimulating. I would highly recommend reading or listening to anything on this topic by Lee Strobel, who makes a “Case for Faith”, J.P. Morleland, who talks about “The Existence of God”, and Greg Koukl, who has a great lecture about “Responding to Relativism”. I think a few of these are available in book form on Amazon.com, but you can also get in touch with me and I might be able to help you get a copy of the audio CDs.

I’d like to respond to franky’s comment: “I contend that any design that you see is an illusion. Things seem designed because we evolved to adapt to our current environment”. Your point is well-taken, and as far as I know it is indeed possible to prove conclusively that evolution is a real process and does take place. But I would argue that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with the theory of intelligent design. In fact the process of evolution to me seems extremely intelligent. After all, what designer (especially an intelligent one) would create something that could not change and adapt to its environment? If the inability to adapt would cause the failure of even the simplest systems, how much more must adaptation and evolution be necessary for extremely complex systems?

I don’t mean to support any missing-link theory, or anything like that. I’m simply pointing out that there is strong scientific evidence to support the existence of evolutionary processes, and that these processes are not necessarily incompatible with or in opposition to Intelligent Design.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:34:15 +0000

I appreciate your input! I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to get your feedback and thought-provoking comments. I know we may disagree, but I am enjoying our dialogue. Here’s to hoping it can continue…!

By: Cassandra

Cassandra — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 02:20:18 +0000

I wanted to say that I agree with Franky. It’s not often that you find a theist that is even willing to entertain an atheist’s POV.

I also wanted to say that I’m short on time this evening and will be out for a few days, but I am looking forward to coming back, responding, and seeing the other comments.

:-)

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:17:21 +0000

You are more than welcome. I’m all about open discourse without any of the condescension we so often see. I wish more people were able to discuss their disagreements with understanding and grace, instead of anger, hatred, and bitterness. I make it always my goal to speak with humility and confidence, willing always to learn from others, and hopefully to also teach while I am at it. I can’t do that if I approach the dialogue with anything other than grace.

I appreciate the continued comments, franky. I will think over what you’ve posted and examine the links you’ve given me as I get a chance. Hopefully, I’ll post some more follow-up in the near future.

By: franky

franky — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:37:32 +0000

One more link on the flagellum: ID short on science…

I find this one is easier to read.

By: franky

franky — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:33:29 +0000

Jim,
Before I delve into the particular of this post, I just wanted to say that it has been wonderful finding a theist who will actually take the time to contemplate what we atheist think and believe. You disagree, of course, but you are more than willing to argue your point without being rude or condescending, and for that I say thanks a million :). Now, on to the disagreement!

I contend that any design that you see is an illusion. Things seem designed because we evolved to adapt to our current environment. In other words, the world existed as it did and we then adapted to thrive in our current situation. Also, the evidence you speak of is very subjective to personal experience. Notice that in a predominately Christian nation, most people think that Christianity is the “true” religion. In Buddhist nations, it’s Buddhism. In a Hindu nation, it’s Hinduism, and etc.

You are right to say that we humans and the universe are incredibly complex. You attribute that complexity to a supernatural cause. I attribute it to completely natural causes.

Oh and for concrete proof that irreducible complexity is false (at least for bacterial flagella) please see the following link: The Flagellum Unspun.

It’s kinda wordy, so to summarize it succintly, while it looks like the flagella is IC, in fact there exists another function for a simpler flagella like system. Therefore, we can see how one type of flagella system was used for something else and then evolved to its current form. So there you have it.