- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/22/26 at 10:19 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/22/26 at 10:19 am to NC_Tigah
Evolution, understood as the process of natural selection, is an established scientific fact. The real debate lies in whether the variation it produces is limitless over long timescales or inherently constrained.
If variation is effectively unlimited, the concept of macroevolution becomes a reasonable explanation, with the main unresolved question being the origin of life itself. However, if variation is limited, then some form of intelligent design seems like a more plausible framework.
Intelligent design is often portrayed as inseparable from religious creationism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. For instance, the idea that life on Earth could have been seeded by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization is rarely considered, though it remains a theoretical possibility. I don’t personally hold that view, but it seems worth acknowledging as part of the broader discussion.
That said, from a Christian theological standpoint, macroevolution appears difficult to reconcile with the Bible. If death and suffering are consequences of sin in what was originally a perfect world, yet evolutionary theory holds that death existed long before humanity, then the foundational logic of redemption through Jesus becomes problematic. I say this as a Christian: I find it very difficult to see how someone can fully embrace Universal Common Ancestor evolution and still remain consistent with a traditional Christian understanding of creation, sin, and redemption. It’s the view I have the least amount of respect for as I can’t see how you can believe both honesty.
If variation is effectively unlimited, the concept of macroevolution becomes a reasonable explanation, with the main unresolved question being the origin of life itself. However, if variation is limited, then some form of intelligent design seems like a more plausible framework.
Intelligent design is often portrayed as inseparable from religious creationism, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. For instance, the idea that life on Earth could have been seeded by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization is rarely considered, though it remains a theoretical possibility. I don’t personally hold that view, but it seems worth acknowledging as part of the broader discussion.
That said, from a Christian theological standpoint, macroevolution appears difficult to reconcile with the Bible. If death and suffering are consequences of sin in what was originally a perfect world, yet evolutionary theory holds that death existed long before humanity, then the foundational logic of redemption through Jesus becomes problematic. I say this as a Christian: I find it very difficult to see how someone can fully embrace Universal Common Ancestor evolution and still remain consistent with a traditional Christian understanding of creation, sin, and redemption. It’s the view I have the least amount of respect for as I can’t see how you can believe both honesty.
3
Posted on 2/22/26 at 10:41 am to cssamerican
quote:Genesiac allegory.
That said, from a Christian theological standpoint, macroevolution appears difficult to reconcile with the Bible.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 10:47 am to Indefatigable
Not zealots but textual absolutist.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 10:58 am to FooManChoo
quote:
For instance, if one believes all knowledge that can be ascertained is so by scientific inquiry, then naturalism and empiricism become baked into one’s worldview, knowingly or unknowingly. There becomes a rejection of supernatural revelation, and super naturalism altogether, because such claims do not work with science.
1. The history of science has shown that supernatural explanations tend to fall by the wayside during the pursuit of knowledge. We no longer believe that thunder and lightning are caused by angry deities, etc. Most biblical claims - global flood, young earth, etc. - aren’t taken seriously anymore outside of radical religion due to mounting evidence against them in recent centuries.
2. The problem with so-called supernatural revelation is that anyone can make a bold claim with miracles to support it. Perhaps someone believes the Mariana Trench was created 1,389,464 years ago when Poseidon carved it out of the Pacific. On what basis would this assertion be rejected if supernatural revelation should be taken seriously?
quote:
We don’t see a fish giving birth to anything like an amphibian or a mammal. We assume that the changes are very gradual and additive over millions of years because we can observe small variations with species today. Assumptions matter, and they lead to different conclusions than what revelation may provide.
But we do see changes over time in the fossil record. The oldest fossils are single-celled organisms, and it’s estimated that over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct.
How do you connect these dots without evolution? How did species and ecosystems change so significantly over time? Has a Creator periodically introduced mature breeding populations of various species? Is it realistic that tomorrow a large herd of animals that no one has seen before might be roaming the Great Plains without any explanation?
quote:
Again, science requires a fundamental assumption of uniformity in nature; what happens today is what has always happened. This assumption is critical for repeatability in our present time, but it also necessarily rejects the concept of God’s intervention in this world at a grand scale because such one-off interactions aren’t repeatable and testable, and therefore, aren’t scientific.
But where do we draw the line? That’s the important question. Not every supernatural explanation involves the Christian God, and there are limitless assertions that can be made with miracles at your disposal.
From a scientific perspective, what’s the difference between the Christian God creating species and Poseidon creating the Mariana Trench?
quote:
If there are some trustworthy revelational claims from God about what happened in the past that contradict the conclusions of scientific inquiry based on naturalistic assumptions, there are good reasons to therefore reject the scientific consensus of evidentiary interpretation.
Trustworthy revelational claims?
quote:
The problem is that such conclusions could possibly be aligned with the actual truth, but are unscientific.
Poseidon creating the Mariana Trench could be aligned with the truth too but isn’t scientific either.
quote:
And since our modern world equates scientific epistemology as superior to alleged religious or supernatural epistemology, the truth may be rejected because of the nature of its source, as many here do.
Very true. So how do we get the Christian God and Poseidon and their interventions in nature to a more respected position in the scientific community?
quote:
Not only is it rejected, but it is mocked outright, and those who adhere to it are condemned as stupid or ignorant.
Do you consider the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians who believed in gods of nature that have never been disproven to be ignorant?
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:02 am to cssamerican
quote:
That said, from a Christian theological standpoint, macroevolution appears difficult to reconcile with the Bible. If death and suffering are consequences of sin in what was originally a perfect world, yet evolutionary theory holds that death existed long before humanity, then the foundational logic of redemption through Jesus becomes problematic. I say this as a Christian: I find it very difficult to see how someone can fully embrace Universal Common Ancestor evolution and still remain consistent with a traditional Christian understanding of creation, sin, and redemption. It’s the view I have the least amount of respect for as I can’t see how you can believe both honesty.
I am an atheist and completely agree with you on this point.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 12:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Genesiac allegory.
I can see this interpretation as a Jew; however, I can’t see it as a Christian because this isn’t how it’s is viewed in the New Testament, Jesus and Paul treat those events as historical.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 12:28 pm to cssamerican
quote:You'd probably need to link/quote those directly. I'm not aware of Jesus treating the Genesis accounts as historical. For what it's worth, Paul was a trained Pharisee though.
Jesus and Paul treat those events as historical.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 12:40 pm to cssamerican
quote:
That said, from a Christian theological standpoint, macroevolution appears difficult to reconcile with the Bible.
Macroevolution is nonsense, but also not contradictory to the Bible in any way.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 12:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You'd probably need to link/quote those directly. I'm not aware of Jesus treating the Genesis accounts as historical. For what it's worth, Paul was a trained Pharisee though.
The vaguest of his references, but still seems to indicate that they were as they are from the beginning.
Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV)
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10:6-8 (ESV)
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
He treats Abel the same as real people in this context.
Matthew 23:35 (ESV)
so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Luke 11:50-51 (ESV)
so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation.
This reads as if he believes it was a real event.
Matthew 24:37-39 (ESV)
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Luke 17:26-27 (ESV)
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 12:55 pm to High Life
quote:
quote:
Given a particular environment, some traits consistently result in more survival and reproduction than others. That statistical bias is what we call natural selection.
May need an example to understand what you mean by randomness. I thought I understood natural selection.
I wish Sims would redo this experiment on todays vastly more powerful computers. In this he took a set of 300 pieces of graphs code that had the potential of movement and put a tiny touch of random changes into each. The one that showed the greatest potential for movement spawned another 300 that again got a tiny bit of randomization for each one. Repeat, millions of times to the limits was what was then a 1987 super computer. He said that some of the evolved code was extremely dense and hard to figure out.
This post was edited on 2/22/26 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Eating and breathing are more efficient for humans due to the muscles used for both being in the same area, like I said.
What? Breathing is from the diaphragm. Chewing from the jaw. And even if they were "from the same area", how would that make them more efficient? And efficient at what? Energy conservation?
quote:
From what I found, hands, wrists, and arms are actually the most common parts injured, followed by legs, feet, and ankles.
Lumbar spine. I'm not talking about knicks and cuts and bruises.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:12 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Macroevolution is nonsense, but also not contradictory to the Bible in any way.
If God placed humans in a world in which death and suffering were already present and experiencing both was unavoidable, then why should people praise God (or Jesus) for saving us from it?
If Josh intentionally pushed Jason off a cruise ship into treacherous waters and wouldn’t toss him a life preserver unless he pleaded for it, would anyone consider Josh a hero or savior? Probably not. They’d probably say he’s an a-hole. Well, that’s exactly what God does if you look at it from an evolutionary standpoint. Man would have been placed in a hostile world in which every day was a struggle and pain and death were everywhere and the only way to ever be spared from it is pleading to the deity that put you there in the first place.
That makes zero sense.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:15 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
By your (and his) description, every Christian is also not stating a belief.
Unsurprisingly, you still do not get it.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:16 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Macroevolution is nonsense
How so?
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:23 pm to cssamerican
quote:Perhaps because it was?
This reads as if he believes it was a real event.
Again, I'm less interested as to whether Noah actually packed pairs of both Indian and African elephants, or all four species of hyena onto the Ark. Nor do I regard the Great Flood account as invalidated simply because the entire planet wasn't inundated simultaneously.
Why?
Because ancient accounts are replete with para-holocene flood stories. Concurrently we can imagine ice dams releasing gargantuan glacial lakes would have been absolutely catastrophic to populations' known worlds.
I think we should be a little less dismissive of such ancient accounts out of hand. E.g., The Iliad and Troy were mythical fiction ... until they weren't.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 1:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Because ancient accounts are replete with para-holocene flood stories. Concurrently we can imagine ice dams releasing gargantuan glacial lakes would have been absolutely catastrophic to populations' known worlds.
It doesn’t require even that large of a stretch….Mesopotamians and Canaanites created Gods to explain the unpredictable and catastrophic floods of the rivers and geography they were situated on. While the Egyptians were lucky enough to live along the very predictable and nourishing Nile, so they were predisposed to create Gods that were important to keep cosmic order.
If you still believe in early Bronze-Age religions but haven’t done the historical research to understand the context of those religions….
Posted on 2/22/26 at 2:28 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:Then you’ve just asserted that your own faith is nothing more than probability management. If Christian faith is indistinguishable from “this seems more likely to me,” then it’s not revelation, conviction, or trust in divine truth. It’s hedged inference.
By your (and his) description, every Christian is also not stating a belief.
Most believers would reject that characterization immediately. They don’t describe their faith as a tentative wager. They describe it as commitment, trust, conviction beyond empirical demonstration.
You do not?
Posted on 2/22/26 at 2:42 pm to PurpleSingularity
quote:It appears you badly miss the point.
so they were predisposed to create Gods that were important to keep cosmic order.
If you still believe in early Bronze-Age religions but haven’t done the historical research to understand the context of those religions….
I don't GAS as to your choice of faith, nor do I care how many gods Mesopotamians prayed to.
You apparently don't think para-holocene floods such as the West Siberian Glacial Lake or Lake Agassiz catastrophes occurred (not rising rivers), or that those events would have found way into oral histories?
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:08 pm to FooManChoo
Respectfully, a significant portion of your post reads less like a critique of evolutionary biology and more like a reaction to how you think Christians are perceived by “evolutionists.” Assertions that science necessarily rejects God or treats believers as ignorant are cultural claims about attitudes. They aren’t arguments about mutation, selection, or genetic change. I’m only focused on the biology.
I’m not arguing that science disproves God or that materialism is a metaphysical truth. I’m defending this: evolutionary biology explains biological change through observable, testable processes. Its limits are methodological. They describe how the method works, not what ultimate reality must be.
If someone believes revelation overrides scientific conclusions, that’s a theological commitment. It doesn’t demonstrate that mutation rates, population genetics, or phylogenetic patterns are incorrect. It simply places authority elsewhere. That’s a separate discussion.
On the scientific points:
Science does not reject one-off events because they aren’t repeatable. The Big Bang, the Chicxulub impact, and the formation of the Moon were singular events. They are accepted because they leave measurable, converging lines of evidence. The standard is testability and predictive power, not whether we can rerun history.
Uniformitarianism doesn’t mean the past was identical to the present. It means the underlying physical laws are consistent. If gravity or radioactive decay behaved arbitrarily in the past, geology, cosmology, and archaeology would all collapse. Evolution relies on the same assumption every historical science does.
And no one expects to observe a fish giving birth to an amphibian. Evolutionary biology, like other historical disciplines, infers past change from present evidence using known mechanisms. Independent lines of evidence, genetics, fossil succession, comparative anatomy, and biogeography converge on the same branching patterns. That convergence is what gives the model its strength.
None of that settles theological questions. If you’re interested in exploring the metaphysical implications of evolution, that’s perfectly fine. It’s just not within the scope of my argument, nor something I’m trying to prove disprove. I have no animosity toward religious faith, and those broader interpretations don’t affect the scientific soundness of the evolutionary framework itself.
I’m not arguing that science disproves God or that materialism is a metaphysical truth. I’m defending this: evolutionary biology explains biological change through observable, testable processes. Its limits are methodological. They describe how the method works, not what ultimate reality must be.
If someone believes revelation overrides scientific conclusions, that’s a theological commitment. It doesn’t demonstrate that mutation rates, population genetics, or phylogenetic patterns are incorrect. It simply places authority elsewhere. That’s a separate discussion.
On the scientific points:
Science does not reject one-off events because they aren’t repeatable. The Big Bang, the Chicxulub impact, and the formation of the Moon were singular events. They are accepted because they leave measurable, converging lines of evidence. The standard is testability and predictive power, not whether we can rerun history.
Uniformitarianism doesn’t mean the past was identical to the present. It means the underlying physical laws are consistent. If gravity or radioactive decay behaved arbitrarily in the past, geology, cosmology, and archaeology would all collapse. Evolution relies on the same assumption every historical science does.
And no one expects to observe a fish giving birth to an amphibian. Evolutionary biology, like other historical disciplines, infers past change from present evidence using known mechanisms. Independent lines of evidence, genetics, fossil succession, comparative anatomy, and biogeography converge on the same branching patterns. That convergence is what gives the model its strength.
None of that settles theological questions. If you’re interested in exploring the metaphysical implications of evolution, that’s perfectly fine. It’s just not within the scope of my argument, nor something I’m trying to prove disprove. I have no animosity toward religious faith, and those broader interpretations don’t affect the scientific soundness of the evolutionary framework itself.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 3:16 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:You seem fond of starting arguments but not finishing them. If you’re going to make an assertion, support it. Dropping a declarative line every few pages without evidence or explanation doesn’t advance the discussion. It just adds noise.
Macroevolution is nonsense, but also not contradictory to the Bible in any way.
Page 17 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News