Psalm 8 and Young Earth Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ploutos

Puritan Board Junior
Last Sunday (not yesterday but the week before), our pastor referenced Psalm 8 in his sermon. As a tangential point (not having to do with the main topic of the sermon), he talked about how Psalm 8 demonstrates that earth was made for the purpose of being inhabited by man, and that this is a strong argument for YEC.

I have to confess that I don't quite follow the reasoning here, and I wonder if someone could help me fill in the blanks. I already believe that the entire universe (whether it's billions of light-years in size or not) was designed for the purpose of providing a suitable environment for a solar system in which a planet at precisely our distance from the Sun would be hospitable for life. While I don't believe that the earth is billions of years old, it wouldn't be a problem for me to believe that the earth had been around for billions of years precisely for the purpose of becoming hospitable to human life.

In other words, while Psalm 8 is certainly congruent with a YEC view, I don't see how a YEC view necessarily follows from that argument nor do I see how this intentionality in the design of the earth is incompatible with an old-earth view.

Please note: I'm not an old-earth creationist. I just like for my arguments to be well-vetted.
 
Last Sunday (not yesterday but the week before), our pastor referenced Psalm 8 in his sermon. As a tangential point (not having to do with the main topic of the sermon), he talked about how Psalm 8 demonstrates that earth was made for the purpose of being inhabited by man, and that this is a strong argument for YEC.

I have to confess that I don't quite follow the reasoning here, and I wonder if someone could help me fill in the blanks. I already believe that the entire universe (whether it's billions of light-years in size or not) was designed for the purpose of providing a suitable environment for a solar system in which a planet at precisely our distance from the Sun would be hospitable for life. While I don't believe that the earth is billions of years old, it wouldn't be a problem for me to believe that the earth had been around for billions of years precisely for the purpose of becoming hospitable to human life.

In other words, while Psalm 8 is certainly congruent with a YEC view, I don't see how a YEC view necessarily follows from that argument nor do I see how this intentionality in the design of the earth is incompatible with an old-earth view.

Please note: I'm not an old-earth creationist. I just like for my arguments to be well-vetted.

Are you sure he said, "strong argument for YEC" and not "strong argument against evolution"? Or at least that was what he meant? Rather than against OEC?

In the YEC realm, there is the teaching of "overdesign" and Psalm 8:5 is a proof text against the idea that man is the "pinnacle" of an evolutionary track of progressively more complex steps.

"Overdesign" is when a system has fundamental components that include necessary elements far beyond simply what is needed for survival.

If evolution claims each function had to have arrived by adaptation for specific survival advantages, any organism that is "overdesigned" must in fact be accounted for in their model. They have historically failed to do so.

 
What I think he is trying to say is that the lights were given for man. Gary North goes into this argument in his commentary on Genesis. I don't buy it, but to be fair I don't remember all of it.
 
What I think he is trying to say is that the lights were given for man. Gary North goes into this argument in his commentary on Genesis. I don't buy it, but to be fair I don't remember all of it.

This is not in any YEC literature I read. I think because we would agree with you in that we also would not view that verse as an argument for a "young world".
 
It's a sort of leap in logic I think. But I think I know where he going with it, perhaps someone can put it into logical categories for me. I am also not sure, no offense, that I would not call it a strong argument for YEC. Though, I'd consider myself a YEC, I'm not as ardent about it as I used to be.
Anyway... basically:
If the world was made for man, then it wasn't made for the creatures let alone bacteria and dinosaurs to roam for millions of years. Basically, he sees it as a zero sum game between creatures. If we've been here for a few thousand years and it was made for 'us' then it makes little sense to have a world in which we are the pinnacle only to appear at the tail end of history.
 
It's a sort of leap in logic I think. But I think I know where he going with it, perhaps someone can put it into logical categories for me. I am also not sure, no offense, that I would not call it a strong argument for YEC. Though, I'd consider myself a YEC, I'm not as ardent about it as I used to be.
Anyway... basically:
If the world was made for man, then it wasn't made for the creatures let alone bacteria and dinosaurs to roam for millions of years. Basically, he sees it as a zero sum game between creatures. If we've been here for a few thousand years and it was made for 'us' then it makes little sense to have a world in which we are the pinnacle only to appear at the tail end of history.
That was my impression of the overall reasoning as well. But by that logic, you'd also have to believe in a small universe (comparatively speaking), unless somehow you can establish some reason to treat scale of space different than scale of time theologically.

@No Other Name - it was a very tangential aside and he did not stop to give it any further explanation. But he clearly stated "young earth".
 
That was my impression of the overall reasoning as well. But by that logic, you'd also have to believe in a small universe (comparatively speaking), unless somehow you can establish some reason to treat scale of space different than scale of time theologically.

You lost me in the bolded. How so, brother?
 
If it's "not fitting" in some way for the universe to exist for billions of years so that humanity could come on the scene at the very tail end of that vast period of time, it would seem similarly unfitting to have a universe that's billions of light-years in size just so that humanity could exist in a tiny planet at the end of one of the universe's more inconsequential galaxies.

Did that make any more sense? I promise, this is all flawlessly logical inside my head!
 
If it's "not fitting" in some way for the universe to exist for billions of years so that humanity could come on the scene at the very tail end of that vast period of time, it would seem similarly unfitting to have a universe that's billions of light-years in size just so that humanity could exist in a tiny planet at the end of one of the universe's more inconsequential galaxies.

Did that make any more sense? I promise, this is all flawlessly logical inside my head!

I am still struggling to understand. I have heard many people say that since man is the pinnacle of creation that it is a gift that God gives such a large universe for us to explore with no theological or logical incongruency in their head. I know of no one who separates the scale of space and the scale of time theologically, but I would not doubt their existence hahahaha
 
I just don't think that we have to presuppose a certain level of significance or prominence for mankind in worldly terms. The earth, and man, can be absurdly small and insignificant in size compared to the rest of the universe. I think the same could be true on the scale of time as well. If God could give us such a large expanse of space to explore, there's no reason why he can't give a similarly vast expanse of time to explore.

My main point is that I don't see how the pre-eminence of man, or the special role God has for him, would have anything to size about the age of the universe any more than it would about his size. Even on a young-earth time scale, God oriented thousands of years of history at a 3-year period of time in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It's not conceptually much different for him to orient millions or billions of years of pre-history toward a few thousand years of preserved history.

I don't think he actually did that, but for other reasons; it just doesn't seem to me that this line of reasoning drawn from Psalm 8 is really all that incongruent with an old-earth view.
 
Please note: I'm not an old-earth creationist. I just like for my arguments to be well-vetted.

And good for you that that is your attitude.

One thought that we should all keep in mind is that Creation was a miracle. Why is that important?
As we can clearly see in many other miracles, the result of a miracle is outside of the set of things we can learn from God's Book of Nature. There is simply nothing that empirical scientific methods can test. NOTHING!

I only have a minute right now, but let's consider just one of Jesus' miracles. On two occasions, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. What would the scientific method reveal about one of those many fishes?

An honest appraisal of the fish would determine at least the following with absolute certainty: The fish was about three years old and was caught x number of hours ago, then cleaned and cooked previously to the disbursement among the crowds. The man of science might notice some anomalies, like the absence of mercury in its cells, the perfect teeth with no indication of normal wear, etc. But wait a minute. Do you know that a miracle would have these anomalies? Might it not have all the signs of age? Who knows?

But generally speaking, even a scientist who saw Jesus' miracle with his own eyes would still necessarily conclude the findings I mentioned above according to established rules of science. Why? Because miracles are totally outside the realm of science.

Dare any of us presume a set of rules God must follow?
Which of you was an eyewitness of Creation? I can almost hear God's rebuke for thinking we know anything at all beyond what is written in Holy Writ.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter V. Of Providence
I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
III. God in his ordinary providence maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
~~~~~~~​

Job 38:1–34 KJV
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man;
For I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
Or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
Or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors,
When it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof,
And thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place,
And set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further:
And here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days;
And caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
That the wicked might be shaken out of it?
14 It is turned as clay to the seal;
And they stand as a garment.
15 And from the wicked their light is withholden,
And the high arm shall be broken.
16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?
Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee?
Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth?
Declare if thou knowest it all.
19 Where is the way where light dwelleth?
And as for darkness, where is the place thereof,
20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof,
And that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?
21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born?
Or because the number of thy days is great?
22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?
Or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble,
Against the day of battle and war?
24 By what way is the light parted,
Which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?
25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters,
Or a way for the lightning of thunder;
26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is;
On the wilderness, wherein there is no man;
27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground;
And to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?
28 Hath the rain a father?
Or who hath begotten the drops of dew?
29 Out of whose womb came the ice?
And the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30 The waters are hid as with a stone,
And the face of the deep is frozen.
31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades,
Or loose the bands of Orion?
32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season?
Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?
Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds,
That abundance of waters may cover thee?
~~~~~~~​
 
My main point is that I don't see how the pre-eminence of man, or the special role God has for him, would have anything to size about the age of the universe any more than it would about his size. Even on a young-earth time scale, God oriented thousands of years of history at a 3-year period of time in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. It's not conceptually much different for him to orient millions or billions of years of pre-history toward a few thousand years of preserved history.

I don't think he actually did that, but for other reasons; it just doesn't seem to me that this line of reasoning drawn from Psalm 8 is really all that incongruent with an old-earth view.

I agree with all of this. Jacob (who I believe is OEC or maybe framework) likes that we do not see Psalm 8 as a proof for a young age since that would be stretching the verse to fit our view.

This is the quote I am struggling with:

I just don't think that we have to presuppose a certain level of significance or prominence for mankind in worldly terms. The earth, and man, can be absurdly small and insignificant in size compared to the rest of the universe. I think the same could be true on the scale of time as well. If God could give us such a large expanse of space to explore, there's no reason why he can't give a similarly vast expanse of time to explore.

You seem to see space and time as two separated entities, and when you say "The earth, and man, can be absurdly small and insignificant in size compared to the rest of the universe" I am fine, of course, because it is so obviously true, but then you say " I think the same could be true on the scale of time as well" as if time is transcendent of the universe? But that is not what I think you mean. I am genuinely asking and not presuming or reading into your comment, I promise.
 
Last edited:
@No Other Name - I read the article on overdesign. I'm not sure how that's a strong argument for intelligent design. If evolution is true, it would make sense that some unnecessary features would survive, as long as they didn't outright disadvantage a species. If blind chance is in charge of everything, why should we assume that only that which is absolutely needed will survive?
 
If blind chance is in charge of everything, why should we assume that only that which is absolutely needed will survive?

Ask the evolutionist; not me. To be fair, the evolutionist would say that blind chance leaves some vestigial "dead-ends" but it is they who claim that "organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." (National Academies of the Sciences)

But I don't think you understand over-design in the context of irreducible complexity. Inherent within this context is the fact that several features in life cannot possibly evolve without other features which could not possibly evolve without other features etc etc. (And this is within fully functioning organisms and not so-called "vestigial dead-ends")

But that is understandable if you do not know it, since the article was only focused on overdesign of facial expressions. (Remember, I only posted it for the use of Psalm 8:5 wondering if your pastor might have had this in mind, that's all).
 
I think irreducible complexity is a very strong argument for intelligent design.

I just don't see the overdesign argument as being incompatible with an evolutionary worldview since it seems to me that pure chance can generate overdesign. Some features are incompatible with life; others are necessary for life; and some are neither.

As for whether overdesign played into my head pastor's thinking, that's a good question. I don't know. Maybe he was saying the earth is overdesigned not just for human survival but also for human enjoyment? I wouldn't see how that ties into the necessity of a young earth.
 
I think irreducible complexity is a very strong argument for intelligent design.

This is excellent.

I just don't see the overdesign argument as being incompatible with an evolutionary worldview since it seems to me that pure chance can generate overdesign. Some features are incompatible with life; others are necessary for life; and some are neither.

Wait, I thought you said irreducible complexity is a very strong argument?

Overdesign is just an extension within the model of irreducible complexity. A sub-category.

DEF: "Irreducible complexity (looking at a system of complex parts) is a term used to describe a characteristic of these complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.”

DEF: "Overdesign is when a system (with fundamental components) that has these fundamental components include necessary elements far beyond simply what is needed for survival."

BUT mostly why would you even think "pure chance" can generate anything at all? Chance is not an entity that can "cause" anything at all. Evolution loses right out of the gate as a model. Period.
 
I don't see irreducible complexity and overdesign as being inextricably linked. Unless I'm missing something, it seems pretty plain that you can have each one with out the other.

I don't think pure chance can generate anything at all. But the evolutionary worldview does believe that. Within that worldview, where chance generates everything, I don't see why you won't have some overdesign along the way. On the flip side, there's no way for evolution to arrive at irreducible complexity even conceptually.
 
I'll try explaining this another way: if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way. Given the vast time scales involved, and the assumed premise that you can progress from inanimate sludge to life forms, why wouldn't you also have some mutations or jumps that are purely ornamental with neither benefit nor harm?

But even if you grant evolution's "axioms", arriving at irreducible complexity is an absurdity. There is no way that it fits within the (flawed) starting premises of the evolutionary worldview.
 
I'll try explaining this another way: if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way.

This sentence is completely baffling to me. How could you possibly reach the probability of overdesign with "chance-as-blind-agency" as a starting premise? I am completely stunned.

As far as your handwringing over a possible overstatement in the article I posted I think the key misunderstanding lies here:

"Overdesign cannot be produced by evolution because, with evolution, every aspect of design must have arisen because of some specific survival advantage."

In evolution, everything that exists (biologically speaking) is extremely utilitarian: it has either a survival advantage or is vestigial.

So, the evolutionist would object to that quote from the article, (and I suspect you can see where and how they would object) but that is because we do not see vestigial organs like the appendix as a "useless organ" (Britannica) and certainly not as "evidence for chance-as-blind-agency evolution".

So, if that quote is now re-read by you in the framework that vestigial mechanisms are discounted by our YEC model, this simply leaves only survival advantages - which the evolutionist does in fact claim. (See my previous quote in Post # 15)

As a matter of fact, an evolutionist wrote a letter to the editor in reply to that overdesign article.

And while you (thankfully) acknowledge that irreducible complexity counts as evidence against evolution, the respondent did not. And that is his logical fallacy. A fallacy that not even Darwin committed as he admitted irreducible complexity would overthrow evolution.

But in his objections to this overdesign idea, you might find what he wrote interesting, He wrote the following;

"Moreover, if you want to take this over design idea to a logical extrapolation, our intellects, intelligence are also over designed. From a survival of the species point of view they are not necessary. Unless these emergent properties are in fact our evolutionary destiny or purpose. To discern the mind of God, by understanding the true nature of the universe."

A fascinating observation from this unbelieving scientist, huh? The reply from the author went directly to Romans 1:19-20.

I hope this clears up some things but honestly, if you still insist that "if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way," you are going to have to explain how that follows.

God bless you.
 
Last edited:
This sentence is completely baffling to me. How could you possibly reach the probability of overdesign with "chance-as-blind-agency" as a starting premise? I am completely stunned.

As far as your handwringing over a possible overstatement in the article I posted I think the key misunderstanding lies here:

"Overdesign cannot be produced by evolution because, with evolution, every aspect of design must have arisen because of some specific survival advantage."

In evolution, everything that exists (biologically speaking) is extremely utilitarian: it has either a survival advantage or is vestigial.

So, the evolutionist would object to that quote from the article, (and I suspect you can see where and how they would object) but that is because we do not see vestigial organs like the appendix as a "useless organ" (Britannica) and certainly not as "evidence for chance-as-blind-agency evolution".

So, if that quote is now re-read by you in the framework that vestigial mechanisms are discounted by our YEC model, this simply leaves only survival advantages - which the evolutionist does in fact claim. (See my previous quote in Post # 15)

As a matter of fact, an evolutionist wrote a letter to the editor in reply to that overdesign article.

And while you (thankfully) acknowledge that irreducible complexity counts as evidence against evolution, the respondent did not. And that is his logical fallacy. A fallacy that not even Darwin committed as he admitted irreducible complexity would overthrow evolution.

But in his objections to this overdesign idea, you might find what he wrote interesting, He wrote the following;

"Moreover, if you want to take this over design idea to a logical extrapolation, our intellects, intelligence are also over designed. From a survival of the species point of view they are not necessary. Unless these emergent properties are in fact our evolutionary destiny or purpose. To discern the mind of God, by understanding the true nature of the universe."

A fascinating observation from this unbelieving scientist, huh? The reply from the author went directly to Romans 1:19-20.

I hope this clears up some things but honestly, if you still insist that "if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way," you are going to have to explain how that follows.

God bless you.
You can be stunned and baffled all you want. The concept of overdesign was relatively new to me, and I was giving what I thought was a perfectly logical initial response to it. I'm happy to be shown wrong and if evolutionists themselves view overdesign as a strong argument for intelligent design, then I think that's great and I'll be happy to adjust my thinking. I'm also happy to be shown that I don't grasp the evolutionary mindset and that my elementary attempt at conducting a thought experiment from the evolutionary POV failed. What a shock, that I would fail to comprehend a mindset totally at odds with my values system!
 
Sadly, with each post you make I get more confused, not less. And that gives me great pause, since I think highly of you as a contributor here.
Within that worldview, where chance generates everything, I don't see why you won't have some overdesign along the way. On the flip side, there's no way for evolution to arrive at irreducible complexity even conceptually.

You said this but when I said "chance cannot generate anything", you said:

I don't think pure chance can generate anything at all. But the evolutionary worldview does believe that.

Which I am grateful for, but then if chance cannot possibly generate anything, why would we engage with a worldview that is so misguided as to believe it does?

You can be stunned and baffled all you want.

Thanks I guess. This seems unnecessarily dismissive of my posts but ok then.
The concept of overdesign was relatively new to me, and I was giving what I thought was a perfectly logical initial response to it.

But where is even the response to it that you thought was logical?

You basically claimed you personally don't see any connection to irreducible complexity [even though it is factually a concept built upon the complexity of systems (ie facial expressions with ability to communicate non-verbally emerging from the complex functionality of facial skin, muscles, tendons, cellular structures etc)].

I thought that idea was expressed in the definitions well enough so I just moved away from your inability to see the connection and chose to simply focus on your baffling willingness to grant that chance can do anything [rather than simply account for probability of outcomes from cause-effect chains that should it make it obvious enough (even to unbelievers) that chance has no active agency or dominion - no place anywhere within that cause-effect chain; that its equations are entirely external.]

I was hoping that you could see that fact so plainly enough that you would retract saying: "if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way," as it was as non sequitur as saying: "if you grant witchcraft's starting premises, then having a good day seems quite probable somewhere along the way".

Again I am grateful that you see irreducible complexity as disproving evolution, yet simultaneously you cannot see overdesign as logically connected, huh, well ok, but leaving aside your inability to see them as connected,

the question would at least remain: why should anyone here (such as your genuinely esteemed self) take the starting premise of evolution seriously (even if hypothetically) before engaging with why YEC scientists see a connection between irreducible complexity and the concept of overdesign?

I'm happy to be shown wrong and if evolutionists themselves view overdesign as a strong argument for intelligent design, then I think that's great and I'll be happy to adjust my thinking.

Evolutionists do not view overdesign as a strong argument for creation. Not at all. (See my quote from an evolutionist above where he tips his hand that the biggest "problem" with overdesign would be it goes where he does not like: the truth Scripture proclaims!).

Some evolutionists deny overdesign and irreducible complexity altogether and some grudgingly accept some features of these but deny that is a problem for evolution - and they do so against all laws of logic and reasoning.
 
Last edited:
If we've been here for a few thousand years and it was made for 'us' then it makes little sense to have a world in which we are the pinnacle only to appear at the tail end of history.
Having read a fair amount of OEC literature and having had lengthy discussions with proponents of OEC (I adhere to YEC; though, I do have respect for many people who adhere to OEC), they would not view this simply as the “tail end of history”. They would view man’s entrance as the climax, and just like any well-written story, the climax is right before the end.
 
I'll try explaining this another way: if you grant evolution's starting premises, overdesign seems quite probable somewhere along the way. Given the vast time scales involved, and the assumed premise that you can progress from inanimate sludge to life forms, why wouldn't you also have some mutations or jumps that are purely ornamental with neither benefit nor harm?

But even if you grant evolution's "axioms", arriving at irreducible complexity is an absurdity. There is no way that it fits within the (flawed) starting premises of the evolutionary worldview.
Again I am grateful that you see irreducible complexity as disproving evolution, yet simultaneously you cannot see overdesign as logically connected, huh, well ok, but leaving aside your inability to see them as connected,
I believe I see where the distinction is being made:

Overdesign = functionality beyond mere survival.
Irreducible complexity = many different parts working together simultaneously for that function to occur.

If I am correct, I can see not only how they can be distinguished but also how evolutionists consider overdesign to be a weak argument for intelligent design. Irreducible complexity requires overdesign, but overdesign doesn't necessarily require irreducible complexity. Since the article Brad posted on Overdesign mentioned hands, I will just use hands as an example. Overdesign in hands is evident through the number of bones in the hand and how the hand is able to grasp a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece (or, I guess, a black square if you're into abstract art.) Irreducible complexity in hands is evident in how all the motor neurons and bones work together at the same time to make the hand grasp the paintbrush. Evolutionists don't want to look at irreducible complexity because they cannot explain it without bringing Intelligent Design into the picture, but evolutionists can talk about overdesign because they can more easily write it off as something else. For instance, the hand's ability to create art is there because somewhere along the line of evolution, humans discovered that creating art has many social benefits, and social benefits further survival, or the good of the human race.

Of course overdesign and irreducible complexity are logically connected, but are they not still two different concepts? Since evolution begins from a logically faulty premise, I would not expect an evolutionist to see the logical connection between the two concepts.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here, but I thought I would weigh in because I think I understand what both of you are saying.
 
@No Other Name - maybe I haven't made this sufficiently clear, but the article on overdesign was my first introduction to the topic. I am happy to concede that I don't have a strong grasp of overdesign, irreducible complexity, or evolutionary thought. This is not my wheelhouse or a core pre-occupation of mine at this point in time.

That said, the dramatic reaction on your part is a bit mystifying to me. I'm not endorsing evolution in any way, nor attempting to defend that worldview as in any way a realistic one - only trying to put myself in the shoes of one for just a moment. If I've done a poor job of that, very well. But the way you're reacting, one would think I had just walked into Ken Ham's living room with a leather-bound edition of The Collected Writings of Bill Nye the Science Guy.

@Taahanni - yes, that's what more or less what I'm saying. But at this point I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm just making logical abstractions on a topic of which I am largely ignorant, and consequently I'm more than glad to just stop talking. :duh:
 
Last edited:
Having read a fair amount of OEC literature and having had lengthy discussions with proponents of OEC (I adhere to YEC; though, I do have respect for many people who adhere to OEC), they would not view this simply as the “tail end of history”. They would view man’s entrance as the climax, and just like any well-written story, the climax is right before the end.
Sure. Makes sense. I was just articulating what his pastor is probably thinking. I'm not as rabid YEC as I used to be and am rather open, though theistic evolution, which I used to adhere to sometimes back, is off limits.
 
Sure. Makes sense. I was just articulating what his pastor is probably thinking. I'm not as rabid YEC as I used to be and am rather open, though theistic evolution, which I used to adhere to sometimes back, is off limits.
I agree. I think theistic evolution is antithetical to Scripture, but OEC is not. I have heard some sound arguments for it from respectable Christians at my church.
 
Overdesign = functionality beyond mere survival.
Irreducible complexity = many different parts working together simultaneously for that function to occur.

Thanks for engaging and helping out! Your contribution is most welcome. This quote isn't bad. One would need to add that for each of these, if one component is missing, the entire functionality collapses.
If I am correct, I can see not only how they can be distinguished but also how evolutionists consider overdesign to be a weak argument for intelligent design.

On a general widespread scale, evolutionists do not acknowledge overdesign yet at all. When individuals read these articles and engage with creation scientists, they are well "behind the 8-ball".
Irreducible complexity requires overdesign, but overdesign doesn't necessarily require irreducible complexity.

This should be reversed in order - or probably just not written this way at all would be better. Your examples with the hands are decent enough, but I have questions lingering about the hands (which I also have about the article as well).

As such, I feel more comfortable keeping the examples with the facial expressions and allow me to explain why.

Evolutionary biologists are still "dating the bad boy rebel" Dawkins and his positivist view of science. They are stuck in far more ways than just denying creation. Following this pseudo-intellectual, they still see humans as "mere survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Dawkins, a general quote I found from The Selfish Gene)

In YEC journals, a couple of engineers have come over from robotics (like Burgess the author of that original article) with a new concept in human biology, anatomy and physiology: overdesign.

The idea came from how hard it was to create robots with realistic facial expressions. It is taking decades now to "escape the uncanny valley" of having robots emote through facial expressions without producing feelings of confusion, disgust, or fright.

When engineers made the logical connection between how much intelligence it is literally requiring for them to design facial expressions - and far more design than the irreducible complexity of the cells to produce survival-focused functionality,

then we saw how much the already-irreducibly-complex cells needed to have complex coordination among clusters of "their cellular selves" in order to function as fully "able to express". And that does not even begin to account for the functionality of the "receiver" to see the expression, interpret the expressions with their eyes in junction with the neural pathways that connect the brain to understand and react accordingly!

Evolutionists don't want to look at irreducible complexity because they cannot explain it without bringing Intelligent Design into the picture, but evolutionists can talk about overdesign because they can more easily write it off as something else.

Evolutionists do not really talk about overdesign at all (that I have seen). They have not and cannot easily write any of this off.

Again, I want to post this quote from a dissenter (a lay evolutionist) from his letter to the editor. This was so astonishing to me when I read him:

"Moreover, if you want to take this over design idea to a logical extrapolation, our intellects, intelligence are also over designed. From a survival of the species point of view they are not necessary. Unless these emergent properties are in fact our evolutionary destiny or purpose. To discern the mind of God, by understanding the true nature of the universe."

Evolutionists would flip out if they even sniff one of their own hinting at an "evolutionary destiny or purpose". (Dawkins would not approve!) Astonishing how close this individual was when he wrote this. I am praying for him even now as I type these words.


I agree. I think theistic evolution is antithetical to Scripture, but OEC is not. I have heard some sound arguments for it from respectable Christians at my church.

I also agree that OEC is not antithetical to Scripture as I have read them; I would be curious as to these sound arguments you have heard one day.

Again, thank you.

That said, the dramatic reaction on your part is a bit mystifying to me.

You can be as mystified as you want. I wrote what I wrote. ...... Nah, I am totally kidding, and I do not come from that mindset at all.

But maybe that may help a little.

But the way you're reacting, one would think I had just walked into Ken Ham's living room with a leather-bound edition of The Collected Writings of Bill Nye the Science Guy.

See, this is part of my frustration here. I acknowledged you are not an evolutionist. It seems like you are not directly engaging what I say at all.

I said you never made an argument. You just claimed you personally do not see any connection that would undermine an evolutionist if you granted his premises.

But why should anyone here (such as your genuinely esteemed self) take the starting premise of evolution seriously (even if hypothetically) before engaging with why YEC scientists see a connection between irreducible complexity and the concept of overdesign?

That question still remains.

You do not have to stop talking. No one here wants you to (at least that I know of), but I definitely do not want you to stop talking.

I am far more in the camp of a guy who wants you to start talking: more directly and fully what you mean and why you do not see the connection? Why do you think an evolutionist can shrug off overdesign and not be irrational as he does so?

Thank you in advance :)
 
Last edited:
One would need to add that for each of these, if one component is missing, the entire functionality collapses.
…………..
This should be reversed in order - or probably just not written this way at all would be better.
Ah! I think I see where the differences in thinking were occurring. Let me illustrate (literally) where I think we were missing each other. IMG_9461.jpeg
I was looking at overdesign from a top down approach, and you were looking at it from a bottom up approach. You were saying overdesign needs irreducible complexity (a tree needs roots to grow). I was saying irreducible complexity needs oberdesign (the canopy has to produce an acorn that will fall to the ground before roots can grow). As you have already said, the two are inextricably linked.

This is brief, but I just thought I’d share because I was pondering this all morning, and some things “clicked” while I was on a walk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top