“If someone were to look at software you’ve developed and say “This is such an elegant, well engineered, and complete solution, it must have come together out of chance and refined itself over a great period of time.”, that would be ridiculous and disrespectful to the programmer who created it. Likewise, looking at the beautiful and intricate universe we live indicates that this awesome creation must have had a creator.”

False analogy; A has some property X, and thus B must also have property X (i.e. the universe is like a software)

“Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either.”

Cosmological models such as the Big Bang are not perfect but such concepts as primordial nucleosynthesis explain the production of hydrogen, helium, and lithium isotopes (i.e. early elements of the universe). Baryogenesis explain baryon-antibaryon asymmetry and the substantial amounts of residual matter that make up the universe today. Cosmic microwave background radiation explain cosmic inflation and inhomogeneities. Quantum fluctuations explain energy and space. Also, you do realize that there is more than one scientific cosmological model for how the universe started (e.g. cyclic cosmology, loop quantum cosmology, brane cosmology) all explained by physics instead of some dusty old mythology book, right?

“Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link” wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.”

Why is it that every creationist has a problem with the principle of speciation in the face of AMPLE evidence?
- Anagenesis and cladogenesis
- Adaptive radiation
- Horizontal gene transfer, genome infusions in endosymbioses, adaptive changes in genome size
- Biodiversity
- Speciation
- Phenotypic plasticity
- Phylogenetic trees
- Transitional fossils
- Living fossils
- Homologous structures and divergent evolution
- Vestigial structures and embryonic development
- Molecular variance
- Universal biochemical organisation
- Gene duplication
- Reassorting of alleles and genetic recombination
- Isotopic evidence from Earth’s crust

“My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.”

You sir are a moron.

By the way, if you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you need to read some of its history. Here’s a shorty—The bible as we know it today is a compilation of roughly 66 books authored by at least 40 people (many anonymous) over a period of 1600 (yes…. one thousand six hundred) years. The new testament was canonized almost four hundred years after the death of Christ and many books were of uncertain authorship and many were left out (see the gospel of Mary Magdalene and the gospel of Thomas). The decision on what to put in and what to leave out was made largely by the bishop of Lyon (Irenaeus)……not God. The book was translated and transcribed at least 25000 times by different organizations with their own interests, including an incredibly powerful and corrupt holy catholic church which gave us a fine history of holy events such as the inquisition, the crusades, indulgences etc…..
All I can say is…. If you believe the bible is the divine infallible word of god knowing its history ……I have a fucking bridge to sell you. The bible is no basis for reaching any scientific conclusion.

I would guess we are in the process of discovering science, we gain insights and intelligence all the time.

and as always

If,
God is Love

and
Love is Blind

and
Ray Charles is/was Blind

therefore
Ray Charles is God

Aeryck, great fucking point, dude!

If you wish to believe in god and want to explain creation via that belief, more power to you. But it is complete and utter folly to try to equate it with actual scientific theories. We can explain the universe from nanoseconds after the Big Bang through to today without the need for a deity of any kind. In fact, conceptually, deities have slowed down our progress in understanding the universe. We have yet to find a “theory” involving a deity that wasn’t wrong. Science, on the other hand, converges on the truth, more each day.

The most I hope from theists is an acknowledgment that, if there is a god, he was smart enough to create a universe we can understand through science.

Fortunately, modern biology and the theory of evolution has progressed beyond paleontology and discovery of fossils. Today with advances in molecular biology, we able to study the development of a variety of different species and, whether it is a starfish, fruit fly, zebrafish, frog, mouse, human etc., there is a common genetic toolbox that is responsible for the development of the organism. Changes to the genes and/or changes in the regulation of the expression of genes combined with natural selection over millions of years remains the best scientific explanation for the “endless forms most beautiful” we see in world today. Darwin’s theory of evolution has not only survived 150 years of scientific testing, it is the basis for modern human biology and medicine. No designer or faith required:)

Yes, of course, science if flawed.

I don’t think “science” is “flawed”. It might appear that way if you think of it as some sort of ultimate arbitrator of all truth, but it’s only science.

The origin of the creator is indeed something I cannot explain scientifically. Then again the origin of the universe has not been explained scientifically either. I hope we can both agree that either scenario involves a leap of faith.

In your blog you stated that “science has pulled us out of the muck and given us a chance to be civilized and socialized”. I’ll assume for now that you were referring to Darwin’s theory of evolution. That theory requires us to believe that there was muck to begin with.

So, where did the muck come from? What about the rest of the intricacies of the universe? Does Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory answer it satisfactorily? That would also have us believe that everything came from nothing and lucky for us, the universe fell into balance and on at least one planet there was muck around that was capable of evolving into what we are today.

Evolution with a species has been observed scientifically. Advocates of Darwin’s theory have hoped to find supporting progressions in the fossil records. What people have referred to as the “missing link” wouldn’t be just one skeleton buried somewhere in the vast world, it would be millions of them. Yet somehow Darwin’s theory of evolution is considered fact.

Sagan’s conclusion as you put it “universes are easier to explain than gods” is actually a red herring. Scientifically speaking neither are easier to explain than the other.

My belief in intelligent design is based on at least these two things. The universe itself is evidence of a creator and that creator has documented it in the Bible.

That is a very common argument and it is deeply, deeply flawed. Looking at an all-powerful being capable of creating universes indicates that this awesome being must have had a creator.

Right?

You are comfortable claiming god has no creator but you are uncomfortable with the notion that the universe has no creator?

It’s gotta end somewhere. You choose a vague and superstitious notion called “god” for reasons logic can’t explain. Atheists, as Carl Sagan said, skip a step and reach a more simple conclusion — universes are easier to explain than gods.

Science (without presuppositions) declares the glory of God.