How do creationists explain vestigial adaptations?

[Sci Fi Fan]

MFA, I appreciate it that you're actually attempting a point by point rebuttal, rather than responding to a vague generalization of my post.

Actually, no, it specifies that there is no creator.  It specifically denies the existence of a creator or "guiding hand."

You're right that it's an assertion of omission.  But since an omission can never be verified, what is it doing in a scientific theory?

You're playing with semantics here.  OK, the absence of a creator cannot be denied with absolute certainty (although you seem to have the false impression that any scientific theory must be proven with absolute certainty).  Fine.  That doesn't change the fact that the existence of a creator is higher improbable, unsupportable and without any sort of logical or scientific merit.

But going back to the OP, if creationists want to make their religion into a science, they have the burden of proof to actively explain evidence that contradicts their own model, and explain how intelligent design better fits the principle of parsimony.

That's right.  So if you formulated a scientific theory that included that statement, you'd have a problem then, wouldn't you?

I would for entirely unrelated reasons, that is, that anybody who publishes a paper on the lack of flying unicorns on Mars is probably on drugs.

But I would certainly not object to the theory on the grounds of it being wrong, because it surely isn't.

See...now there's the problem.  Introducing the word "unguided" into the theory is exactly the issue.  The mechanism is connected adaptation and genetics--i.e., natural selection.  There's no way of determining whether or not it's guided or not.

OK, I'll repeat myself again.  Nothing can be "determined" beyond a shadow of a doubt in science.  However, unguided evolution better fits the evidence by a very clear and convincing margin than guided evidence, because:

1. It introduces no superfluous elements
2. It introduces no supernatural phenomena
3. It explains vestigial adaptations
4. It explains experiments demonstrating that micro-scale evolution can occur within human lifespans without direct manipulation
5. It explains why evolution is such a slow and conditional process

So the statement:

"There is definitely no divine plan behind evolution."

Is technically incorrect.  We should say:

"The probability of there being a divine plan behind evolution is infinitesimally small."

So please drop the semantics argument.

No, I'm actually addressing your presumption--that whatever God has made must not have made any "mistakes" in creation.  I will admit that, given the statements of some young-earth creationists, your presumption has some merit.  But I'm just calling it into question.  Is it reasonable?  What is it presuming?

I'm assuming that you believe God to be perfect and benevolent.  So explain why he'd design a female body that can miscarry, or parasitic insects that slowly eat animals alive.

And the problem with this statement is that you are claiming to know and understand the intention of a purported creator.

Using this logic, you could simply dismiss any argument, no matter how reasonable, against your theory by saying that "God works in mysterious ways". 

Furthermore, you say that evolution by natural selection is a "best fit."  But up until now, it isn't.  There are huge numbers of unanswered questions.  It may very well be the best naturalistic fit.  That doesn't make it the best fit.

These "unanswered questions" hardly compare to the inability of any creationist on this board to even attempt to explain a simple question.

[Solar]

Amazing, the fact that we even exist, is proof of creation of some kind, yet Atheists simply can't see the forest fore the trees.

[MFA]

MFA, I appreciate it that you're actually attempting a point by point rebuttal, rather than responding to a vague generalization of my post.

Why, thank you!

You're playing with semantics here.  OK, the absence of a creator cannot be denied with absolute certainty (although you seem to have the false impression that any scientific theory must be proven with absolute certainty).  Fine.  That doesn't change the fact that the existence of a creator is higher improbable, unsupportable and without any sort of logical or scientific merit.

Maybe, maybe not.  But even though a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven with absolute certainty (it simply needs to be a "best fit" a là logical positivism), it's unfalsifiable to assert that evolution, but definition, is unguided.  It's not a scientific statement.  That's my point.

But going back to the OP, if creationists want to make their religion into a science, they have the burden of proof to actively explain evidence that contradicts their own model, and explain how intelligent design better fits the principle of parsimony.

You're right.  Some religious people would say that science and religion answer different questions.  Others say that science and religion, when done right, are in harmony (more specifically, that both science and religion are interpretation, a fallible process).  I would lead towards the second.  But if someone does want to "make their religion into a science," then yes, they do have the burden of proof to explain the evidence.

I would for entirely unrelated reasons, that is, that anybody who publishes a paper on the lack of flying unicorns on Mars is probably on drugs.

But I would certainly not object to the theory on the grounds of it being wrong, because it surely isn't.

But I didn't say that it was "wrong."  I said it was a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one.  Could be right or wrong.  But it's not "science."

OK, I'll repeat myself again.  Nothing can be "determined" beyond a shadow of a doubt in science.  However, unguided evolution better fits the evidence by a very clear and convincing margin than guided evidence, because:

1. It introduces no superfluous elements
2. It introduces no supernatural phenomena
3. It explains vestigial adaptations
4. It explains experiments demonstrating that micro-scale evolution can occur within human lifespans without direct manipulation
5. It explains why evolution is such a slow and conditional process

So the statement:

"There is definitely no divine plan behind evolution."

Is technically incorrect.  We should say:

"The probability of there being a divine plan behind evolution is infinitesimally small."

So please drop the semantics argument.

I'm assuming that you believe God to be perfect and benevolent.  So explain why he'd design a female body that can miscarry, or parasitic insects that slowly eat animals alive.

Using this logic, you could simply dismiss any argument, no matter how reasonable, against your theory by saying that "God works in mysterious ways". 

These "unanswered questions" hardly compare to the inability of any creationist on this board to even attempt to explain a simple question.

I believe God to be perfect and benevolent.  I don't believe this requires that his biological creation is necessarily "perfect," whatever that even means.

I also believe that evolution by itself has such huge questions to answer that addressing the basic mechanisms is certainly valid.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Amazing, the fact that we even exist, is proof of creation of some kind

By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...

This is basic logical reasoning, which you yet again fail to grasp in even the most superficial contexts.

[MFA]

By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...

Only if you hold to some inferior definition of "God."

[Solar]

By that logic, the 'fact' that God even exists proves that there is a God of God, and the fact that this God of God even exists proves that there is a God of God of Gods...

This is basic logical reasoning, which you yet again fail to grasp in even the most superficial contexts.

I'll play. So you admit them, that there is a Creator, or God for reference?

[Sci Fi Fan]

I'll play. So you admit them, that there is a Creator, or God for reference?

No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).

But I'll play too.  Let's just assume that there is a creator.  Who created this creator?

[Solar]

No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).

But I'll play too.  Let's just assume that there is a creator.  Who created this creator?

Good question, one that is beyond mans ability to comprehend.
If we knew the answer, would that not take the mystery out of life itself?

Seriously, I'm not asking for an answer, just theory, in that if man knew the purpose behind life, would it not change the entire aspect?
Like why am I here, when life is better where I came from. Or, I can steal, rape, murder with impunity, because I know there will be no consequences when I leave.
Or, knowing that the punishment is so severe, that it would hamper his ability to take risks, for fear of reprisal.

Point is, were not supposed to know, that would remove the drive to discover all that life has to offer, would it not?

[MFA]

No, I was presuming for the sake of argument (maybe I should avoid doing this around you, since you still don't understand what "by that logic" implies).

But I'll play too.  Let's just assume that there is a creator.  Who created this creator?

What makes you think a creator "must" be created?

[Eyesabide]

It is irrelevant if there is a God of God. That is, until the existence of God is accepted.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Good question, one that is beyond mans ability to comprehend.
If we knew the answer, would that not take the mystery out of life itself?

You claim to not know the origins of the universe, yet, assuming you are religious...you claim to know the origins of the universe.   

Of course, your "I don't know!" appeal to ignorance is only pulled out when it's convenient.

Like why am I here, when life is better where I came from. Or, I can steal, rape, murder with impunity, because I know there will be no consequences when I leave.

A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that.  You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works.  That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.

Point is, were not supposed to know, that would remove the drive to discover all that life has to offer, would it not?

There is plenty in life to discover outside of whether or not a deity exists (even though, hypocritically enough, Christians claim to know this with more certainty than atheists).  I am fairly certain that there is no God, but I still learn something new every day.

[MFA]

A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that.  You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works.  That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.

No, someone shouldn't (and doesn't) need eternal reward or punishment to do "good works."

However, if God doesn't exist, you have a pretty tough time defining what "good" is (unless by "good" you simply mean "my preference").

[Sci Fi Fan]

No, someone shouldn't (and doesn't) need eternal reward or punishment to do "good works."

However, if God doesn't exist, you have a pretty tough time defining what "good" is (unless by "good" you simply mean "my preference").

Interesting argument.

Name a single moral philosophy espoused by the bible that you couldn't defend using secular morality.

[MFA]

Interesting argument.

Name a single moral philosophy espoused by the bible that you couldn't defend using secular morality.

Irrelevant.  We're not talking about "morality as contained in the Bible."  We're talking about the necessity of a transcendent being for the existence of morality.

I think you understand this, that you are stuck, and you're trying to distract with an irrelevant tangent.

[Solar]

You claim to not know the origins of the universe, yet, assuming you are religious...you claim to know the origins of the universe.   

Of course, your "I don't know!" appeal to ignorance is only pulled out when it's convenient.

A common religious argument against atheism, and a rather poor one at that.  You shouldn't need some fiery hell to fear in order to do good works.  That isn't really altuism or even decency any more than Stalin not starting the nuclear holocaust was evidence of his noble concern for the human race.

There is plenty in life to discover outside of whether or not a deity exists (even though, hypocritically enough, Christians claim to know this with more certainty than atheists).  I am fairly certain that there is no God, but I still learn something new every day.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.
I pose a spiritual question, and you claim it's Religious dogma?  What an pitiful little man you are, it was a serious question, one obviously well beyond your comprehension.

So you're claiming you know more about our origins than I do, is that your claim, because if it is, you are a bigger idiot than I thought.
You may have spent your spiritual years combating Religion and the existence of God, but son, I passed that crap decades ago, and ventured into questioning our sole existence, and for me, I found an answer, and believe me, you are missing out on a huge part of life.

Though I do pity you in a sense, you stagnated long ago when you refused to open your mind and look beyond the little room of walls you've created to protect your idled view of life, like that of a scared little child.

I have no idea what the real answer is, but I do know there is an energy waiting to be tapped, another realm that will blow your mind, if only you are willing to open your mind and enter it.
Some call it God, others believe it's the love of Jesus, some even refer to it as the force or electricity, maybe they are all correct, but regardless, it is what gave me complete happiness and allowed me to retire in my early 40s.

Can your religion do that, can you claim total fulfillment through your belief system, were you able to achieve your every dream, every goal, accomplish everything you wanted and more than you ever could have dreamed possible?

Well I did, and I give all the credit to God, that's right, God, I asked his guidance everyday of my life as far back as I can remember, and I never questioned it once, and my life has exceeded my wildest expectations.

Yes, I pity you because you are so closed minded that you are not willing to accept that there is an energy more powerful than you can imagine, just waiting to help you, and ask nothing in return other than being true to yourself and others you come in contact with.

That is proof enough for me that God does exist.