How come evolutionist don't think this way?

Question

"the deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God"
-- Albert Einstein.

Why can't we acknowledge Intelligent Design?

Michael J. Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and wrote Darwin's black box.

DARWIN'S BLACK BOX
In this spirited, witty critique of neo-Darwinian thinking, he focuses on five phenomena: blood clotting; cilia, oar-like bundles of fibers; the human immune system; transport of materials within the cell; and the synthesis of nucleotides, building blocks of DNA. In each case, he finds systems that are irreducibly complex? no gradual, step-by-step, Darwinian route led to their creation.

Michael J. Behe says he doesn't believe in God, but through his observations he concludes it must have been formed instantanously.

talk about denial,
as you might already know I think it was God.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=87
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=56
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=9
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=6
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=114
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006APS..APR.R1062G

Evolutionist seem to be allergic to whatever a creationist says, always exclaiming where is your proof. Where is your proof, not what they told you, but empirical science. Because if you haven’t notice the definition of science has changed to involve theory (to support evolution)

Where’s my proof, how can you be convinced of my proof when you won’t even read it. I’ve read your essays and theories and “proof”. But if you delve into your own proof you’ll see there’s insufficient data or it’s erroneous.

You have to believe in those theories. And since you have to believe, I think you have become religious fanatic that can’t or want to see beyond your point of view.

Science journals don’t accept anything that supports an instantaneous creation, even if it’s true

Answer 1

They rule out the answer before they ask the question. They'll consider any theory of the origin of the universe or the origin of life, as long as it doesn't involve God. That's not science.

I realize this also is a generalization. But it's the source of the intensity of the conflict. People don't argue relativity or quantum mechanics or string theory with that strength of emotional attachment. But as soon as you mention the possibility of a God to whom we are accountable, tempers flare.

"Intelligent Design" is one specific set of ideas of how creation might have involved God. There are many others, including many which include some forms of evolution.

Answer 2

I think that you are confusing evolutionary theory and naturalism. I am an evolutionist and a Christian, and I find that the theory of evolution is scientifically accurate (though it will ALWAYS be a theory. I say that as an evolutionist and not as a Christian), where intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

It is not scientific to say that you do not understand how something was done and because of that it proves evolutionary theory wrong. This is what many ID folks imply. ID is and always will be a religious philosophy regarding the nature of creation, the same way that naturalism is in saying that God had nothing to do with creation.

I believe that evolution happened under the guiding hand of God. God cannot be proved scientifically as a source, but my belief that God is the creator of all things around me is not just the result of what I have read in the bible (special revelation) but what I see around me (natural revelation) (coincidentally I have read Dawrins Black Box and those same examples that Behe uses simply reinforced my view of God as the creator.)

My personal opinion as a Christian is that the ID movement says that because we can not prove evolution conclusively (nor will we ever, even the most hardcore evolutionary scientist will admit this if he is honest) then it must be wrong. This is the height of human arrogance in my eyes because it says if we dont already know it, then we cannot know it.

In conclusion, ID is a RELIGIOUS philosophy the same as narutalism . Evolution is a scientific theory which may be wrong. We will never be able to prove it right though we may be able to show that it is wrong. I believe it because it appears to show a correlation to my understanding of scripture and it not in conflict with it. Both special and natural revelation must be the same. Because God created the world, his creation is in compliance with the bible. One does not take precedence over the other. Our interpretation of scripture is never perfect. That is why evolution is not dead and ID is not taken seriously by scientists.

Answer 3

Evolution is part of the Biological Sciences and derives many of its facts from the Geological Sciences record. These cold, hard facts cannot just be explained away by a simple-minded pseudo-science called "Intelligent Design". In order to debunk the Theory of Evolution, a person needs to have three degrees in science and the third degree had better have the letters PhD. Anyone with less is just a raving lunatic or worse, a religious demagogue. When the members of the Inquisition silenced Galileo, the greatest scientific mind of the time, they were eventually overruled by Pope John Paul II; too little, too late. Today's heretics would likely be held to the scorn of future generations if they are allowed to do the same.

Answer 4

Science is based on observations and evidence. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, despite any propaganda that you may have read. All Behes trivial number of examples of irreducible complexity are easily explained by evolution.

Science has NOTHING to say about God. As there is no evidence one way or the other (and never will be if God is supposed to be about faith). Many many "evolutionists" (you mean over 99.9% of biologists and geologists - a few don't accept evolution solely on religious faith) are religious. It is blind prejudice on your part to assume that they are not. What science does show is evolution.

I'm sorry but Science is not going to throw it's hands up and say well God made everything lets forget about it (and which of the 1000's of creation myths would you like science to follow?). That's how things were done in the Dark Ages, that's why they were the Dark Ages.

From your point of view there are 2 options, either God created every single geological and biological feature on earth to con us in this day and age in to thinking that the world is ancient and that life evolved from single-celled ancestors. Or, your interpretation of a few very ancient lines of text, originally written in a language that no longer exists in that form, needs to be changed.

Alternatively, you can just say, I don't believe in evolution as it is against my faith. Fair enough. But spreading pseudo-science as a crutch for your 'faith' is just plain immoral.

Answer 5

You are free to believe intelligent design if you want but in science it is not justified to state as a fact, or a even a moderately strong theory that life must be designed by some conscious creator.

If you did, by the same logic one could just as easily state that some magical super computer "designed" life or some such thing.

It is best to live by "I don't know, thus I don't conclude" at least not as a fact. Scientists are free to offer up guesses as long as it's clear that it is a guess and not being stated as anything but.

Answer 6

As famous as he is for his published papers on relativity (some of which might even be his own work), Albert Einstein was frequently wrong in regard to quantum mechanics. He was emotionally dissatisfied with the uncertainty principle and kept trying to find ways to evade it, as, for example, in his many letters to his friend, the physicist Max Born.

It is precisely the idea that Einstein couldn't accept that should have told him why God was not necessary as being all or part of the cause for the universe.

(Even if God had been necessary, there's still the further question awaiting the philosopher's attention, namely: What created God? Where did HE come from? But, nevermind. The uncertainty principle, and the tautological existence of existence that it signifies, is all you need to explain why our universe is here. You don't need God.)

And if Einstein can be confused about a fundamental principle of natural laws, then surely you can be, too. And you are. Forget all God-theories: they are wrong. They are based on wishful thinking in pursuit of an immortality that you will never, in fact, get. Realize that your wishes will never control reality, and learn to live the life that you do have as well as you can.

Answer 7

Because evolutionists are scientists and science does not and cannot address the question of the existence of a god or gods. To have respect for a god a scientist would have firstly to prove that a god exists and this is not possible to do using the scientific method.
The same applies to the Tooth Fairy. Science is not capable of proving the existence or non-existence of the Tooth Fairy for the same reason.
But it is also true that science has not proved that god does not exist. So you can sleep in your bed with a warm and fuzzy feeling tonight. I summary then, science does not address the question of god.

Answer 8

There's no reason not to really. Most people are just headstrong though. I only became religious after studying philosophy for a while. The arguments regarding the existence of a Zeitgeist or first mover mesh well with Einstein's thoughts.

Answer 9

Scientists look for the face of God by studying his creations. Not by reading old stories. Einstein didn't become the greatest scientist in history by accepting what some bishop with his underwear too tight declared to be the truth.

Answer 10

Evolution happens more in spurts not gradually. Thats why they have the sporadic fossil records .
This is why. One population of species lives sepearate from another for a long time. It undergoes a lots of gradual adaptational changes leaving no fossils because of its small size. Suddenly it colonizes the rest of the world for some reason maybe because it is fitter than the old populations or the old population dies out. It leaves new fossils which by now are a large jump in progress.