<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d13721725\x26blogName\x3dDivineTalk+...+God+inspired+Commentar...\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://divinetalk.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3446630450564529066', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

God created man? (I)

As promised, we'd take a good look at evolution slowly but surely. Here is an entry dedicated to Creationism ...

According to Genesis: The Creation Week

Day 1: separation of light and darkness, day and night
Day 2: separation of water and sky, the expanse
Day 3: separation of land and water; creation of plants
Day 4: creation of sun and moon to govern the day and night
Day 5: creation of animals for the water and the sky
Day 6: creation of animals for the land, and humans to govern all animals
Day 7: creation completed; God rests (His Almight needed a break?)

Let’s put the ‘In the beginning …’ aside, which I’d talk about together with some other related issues including but not limited to evolution of the universe in the near future.

Today, I am going to examine just one specific aspect of creationism: Did God actually created man from scratch?

According to an ‘Intelligent Design (ID)’ guru: Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of ‘Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (1999)’If we are indeed created by God from scratch, then we are actually a very lousy design … a FLAWED creation, so to speak!

While you may browse for the details at sites like PBS, I am going to focus on what is so sloppy about us … The God’s Children.

Among others, one of the biggest flaw lied in our eye

EYE?

Yes, our eye is such a badly designed gadget that it simply doesn’t befit the skills of the Almighty … Actually, scientists claimed they could design a way better one! Ooops …

The proponents of intelligent design assert that the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye could only have been "designed" from scratch. After all, how could evolution, acting on one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many independent parts, such as a retina, which would itself be useless without a lens, or a lens, which would be useless without a retina?

In a Darwinian world, the exquisite adaptations and specializations of living organisms are the products of natural selection, a process whereby the genetic variations -- such as size, shape, and coloration -- that give individuals the best chance to survive and reproduce are passed on to subsequent generations.

The Design Flaws

Another way to respond to the theory of intelligent design is to carefully examine complex biological systems for errors that no intelligent designer would have committed. Because intelligent design works from a clean sheet of paper, it should produce organisms that have been optimally designed for the tasks they perform. Conversely, because evolution is confined to modifying existing structures, it should not necessarily produce perfection. Which is it?

The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, offers an answer. We have already sung the virtues of this extraordinary organ, but we have not considered specific aspects of its design, such as the neural wiring of its light-sensing units. These photoreceptor cells, located in the retina, pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain.

An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina.

Next, more imperfections or plain flaws on our eyes and the conclusion …

12 Comments:

Blogger Creationism said...

I can't argue about the impecfection. It's true men are imperfect but could it be G-d wanted us to be imperfect? But why? Is it because we are sinners?

2:42 PM  
Blogger shelray said...

"Actually, scientists claimed they could design a way better one! Ooops …"
This claim runs pretty hollow when there is a need for "better" eyes for people who are blind or have lost their "flawed" original eye. So far, all I have seen are marbles (that look like eyes). Do these scientist enjoy the blind remaining blind? Where are the new and improved eyes? Maybe the scientist should start with something simple like a making a simple blade of grass from scratch. I am not arguing against evolution (at some level), but where did the first micro organism come from? It always was.

6:14 PM  
Blogger La Bona said...

shelray “ Do these scientist enjoy the blind remaining blind?”

I am sure nobody does.

“Where are the new and improved eyes? Maybe the scientist should start with something simple like a making a simple blade of grass from scratch.”

As far as I know, producing or to be more exact, cloning of a living organism is already an undisputable reality except there are political hindrance typically those coming from religious bodies.

Thanks to 9/11, we all know how Bush withdrew funding on cell cloning just because there are complaints from the Christian communities saying such breakthroughs are against God’s will …

So who is to blame for keeping the blind remains blind? The scientist or the soldiers of God?

Science and religion especially those based upon some kind of written dogma eg Bible/Koran are just that ... dilemma. The more science discovers, the more flimsy is the foundation of such religions.

Guess there is only one solution, let there be new ‘agents’ of God who is ‘authorized’ to amend the holy books from to time or, just forget about the books.


“I am not arguing against evolution (at some level), but where did the first micro organism come from? It always was.”

First micro organism? It is not from the Bible's God for sure … Otherwise, Genesis is to be archived in the Disney Collections without any futher consideration

7:24 PM  
Blogger shelray said...

I thought "design" meant creating an eye, not attempting to improve on an eye that was already created. My bad, I misunderstood. I don't disagree on your point that it is possible to make CHANGES through cloning. On your other responses, we will just agree to disagree. Good luck with your blog.

(where did you ever find a picture of those eyes!)

Thanks.

10:55 PM  
Blogger Baghdad said...

Sorry for the delay, been a busy week so far. To your last post LaBona, I tend to think we are more of Adam and Eve's children, as they were the first couple to be born and alive on Earth.

Regardless, we are still related not by blood or appearance but by having the same two first human beings on Earth. Not to mention, we were created the same way.

In relation to the sub-heading 'Idolizing is faithful', one has to realize that to act like an important figure such as Jesus or Mohammed or such, is generally the meaning of Idolising, without referring to the idolisation of Stones, fire, etc. No God from the 3 main faiths ask believers of Earth to follow a man metre by metre or inch by inch...did he? He may have asked us to FOLLOW his message...and these messages would usually be to believe that Jesus is God or Allah is God or that he is God's messenger.

To devote to God is not to be like someone to relate to God in the way you are and in the ways you were told to do..be it in confessions, praying to Mecca, or simply just praying on the side of your bed before bedtime. What ever it is, that is how you devote yourself to Him in regard to be truthful and respectful to other fellow human beings, in words and in belongings.


Thats the general idea of being devoted to Him....through relationship, not through being like someone that GOD named a Son, Holy Spirit, or Messenger, last prophet..Be yourself first and devote your own well being to Him, the God of all.
Sara.

12:21 AM  
Blogger La Bona said...

Thanks Shelray.

You didn't misunderstand. "Designing" an eye is creating an eye, and cloning an eye is in a way producing a new eye.

"On your other responses, we will just agree to disagree."

I really hope to see the day when church can work with scientists. Honestly, I am pro-cell-cloning for medical purpose and I am convinced God is not against cloning simply because it saves lives. We'd find a way for things to move on ...

"where did you ever find a picture of those eyes!"

I believe it is from "Ridley's Believe It Or Not?" ... The picture is real!

12:45 AM  
Blogger La Bona said...

Sara,

Good to hear from you again.

I think the clash between science and religion is precisely due to the outdated 'simplified' illustrations such as 'Adam and Eve'. I am going to try to explain the the whole thing in a comtemporary fashion as we go along.

Meanwhile, trust me, God didn't created Adam and Eve as described by the Bible. God DID CREATE us but in a relatively more complex manner ... Does that mean the Bible is flawed?

NOT AT ALL.

Like I said before, The Bible was true and remain quite true but times have changed and the holy books simply need updating, that's all.

Don't forget, Bible was written during an era when most people were illiterate, obedient, naive or generally simple minded. They simply do not have the mental capacity like we do today eg. to comprehend something as sophisticated as Evolution.

This explains why things were presented in a fairy tale manner in the old days and as such, why 'Adam and Eve' was the right format once upon a time ... We'd get into the details soon.

As for idolising, I generally concur with what you have said.

You are particularly succint when you said "That the general idea of being devoted to Him....through relationship, not through being like someone that GOD named a Son, Holy Spirit, or Messenger, last prophet..Be yourself first and devote your own well being to Him, the God of all."

Well said and that's really one of the bona fide truth.

1:16 AM  
Blogger postliberal said...

“Don't forget, Bible was written during an era when most people were illiterate, obedient, naive or generally simple minded.”

That’s incredibly patronising, if you don’t mind my saying so. The stories we have in Genesis will only seem dull or crude if we try and read them as scientific text books. Rather like you, I would say that kinda approach to them would be a mistaken modern assumption. But I think the stories, if read carefully, are amazingly insightful and perceptively told. These are, I think, plays on the human condition. They’re tales that help to explore our place in the world, told colourfully, and with layers of meaning. It’s not about intelligence in the scientific sense – but the intelligence and wit to live life well.

10:20 AM  
Blogger postliberal said...

“You are particularly succint when you said "That the general idea of being devoted to Him....through relationship, not through being like someone that GOD named a Son, Holy Spirit, or Messenger, last prophet..Be yourself first and devote your own well being to Him, the God of all." Well said and that's really one of the bona fide truth.”

The tricksy bit is that we’re rarely able to consider God as an ’objective’ thing, as an esoteric reality. More often than not, it takes people – of our world – to make God an accessible reality. This is where saints seem to come into their own, prophets and inspired figures. They live out a divinely-infused life among us, and so are not beyond veneration and imitation. And many Christians would confess more, that to live a Godly life actually involves seeking to live as Jesus Christ here and now. To pray that God would be involved in our lives in such a way as we might be like him in our time and place. I find that notion, of seeking to re-live an ideal life (even if it’s a story with mythological and embellished elements) very compelling.

10:27 AM  
Blogger La Bona said...

PL,

Any idea why God does not communicate with His children directly, especially of late?

5:02 PM  
Blogger Creationism said...

You said "God DID CREATE us but in a relatively more complex manner"

Care to elaborate a little?

5:04 PM  
Blogger postliberal said...

“Any idea why God does not communicate with His children directly, especially of late?”

I don’t believe She’s ever stopped. But we must remember that if we hold certain stories of God’s communication with people, and visa versa, within holy scripture, then they’re going to be fixed by time. So the book of Acts, in the bible, is in some way a record of the Church in the first century AD. If we see this as the archetype of God-inspired religion, then good – but if we let it slip into a normative example, as if this is the standard by which all subsequent religion must be set, to fail if it doesn’t follow the same pattern, then we’re in trouble. Because that would assume God works in predictable ways. No matter how wonderful one scene, or inspired community, it shouldn’t be allowed to obscure any subsequent scene, or inspired community. Who’s to say God isn’t communicating with you by the person stood next to you, today?

Not all communication, even directly, has ever been with a disembodied voice (and even then, we’d best take the mythological stories with great care – so as not to turn God into some booming tannoy system). Some of us believe that God actually talked, and spoke, and shared, like the rest of us – through Jesus Christ. But he promised a helper to his followers, which we believe to be the holy spirit – inspiring people to communicate God.

6:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Should male circumcision be outlawed?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Bible the complete revelation and the whole truth from God?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Is Harry Potter bad for kids?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are Santa Claus & Mickey Mouse bad for kids?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Do pharmacists have the rights to refuse contraceptive prescriptions?
Yes
No
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Abortion: Where do you stand?
Pro-Life
Pro-Choice
Depend on the Circumstances
No Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
When does human personhood begin?
It happens at conception (the most common pro-life position)
It happens when blood first appears (a new interpretation based on the Bible)
It happens later in pregnancy (the most common pro-choice position)
It happens at 14 or 22 weeks gestation (two novel arguments)
It happens during childbirth (the traditional Jewish position)
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Who are Children of God?
All Jews (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Orthodox Jews Only
All Christians (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Born Again Christians Only
All Muslims (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
Devout & Fundamentalist Muslims Only
All faithful of Semitic religions only (Semitic Pluralism)
All Buddhists (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All Hindus (regardless of philosophy & lifestyle)
All faithful regardless of religion (Universal Pluralism)
All righteous people excluding Homosexuals
All righteous people including Homosexuals
Any Tom, Dick & Harry including Criminals
Not Children but we are all God's Slaves
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
Are people born Gay?
Aboslutely Yes!
Very likely Yes
Abosolutely Not!
Very likely Not
Not Sure
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com
My Photo
Name:
Location: God Inspired, Consensus Driven

WARNING: Blind obsession with prophecy can be perilous or even fatal, reader discretion is advised! Submitted to God as His worldly Activist on a non-exclusive basis since June 15, 2005 1:00 am ET. “La Bona” is a professional name inspired by God; it means "The Righteous", “The Virtuous” or simply “The Good” in Esperanto (a neutral international language). DivineTalk® is an Open Commentary Forum dedicated to God for His Children to engage in dialogue, discourse and debate on laws, standards and values on morality, lifestyle, ethics, business and just about anything else related to their life. God enlightened to have His Words improvised and updated with the prevailing circumstances so that the divine guidance, dogma and policy will evolve with time and stay relevant to His Children in the very era they live in as the way forward. La Bona is a Truth Seeker, Myth Buster, Freedom Fighter, Cyber Activist, Liberal Animal, Good Samaritan, Messiah Wannabe and in order to serve His Children of diverse backgrounds, La Bona is motivated and aim to eventually multitask as Divine Representative, Contemporary Prophet, Celestial Executive, Deity Clairvoyant, Holy Spiritualist ...

  • Write To Me
  • Submit A Story
  • Link To Me
  • Therapeutic Rants
  • Unchained Slave
  • Grumble Grouch
  • In Medias Res
  • Ha'emet: Truth and Peace
  • Martini Glasses
  • Your Sweet Bippy
  • Nova Vane
  • A Concerned Scientist
  • Knitting In Public
  • Reality Hole
  • Off My Blog
  • Chaos-In-Motion
  • Deliberate Chaos
  • The Eagle's Nest
  • To Everything a Time
  • Politics 101
  • Crown Heights; the View From Inside
  • Technorati Profile