ACLU Vs Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Brad:
All scientific theories can have holes poked in them and be falsified.
Click to expand...
Exactly; this is a key characteristic of any scientific theory. This is why “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory - it makes no predictions that can be falsified.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Exactly; this is a key characteristic of any scientific theory. This is why “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory - it makes no predictions that can be falsified.
Click to expand...
Really?? For example??
 
40.png
Brad:
On that note, scientists cannot explain the quantum leap - the nucleus, per say, of the big bang. Perhaps there was some divine intervention?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But science class should stick with what science can explain. Which, as the Holy Father points out, is not everything.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Perhaps. But science class should stick with what science can explain. Which, as the Holy Father points out, is not everything.
Click to expand...
Right. But science hasn’t REALLY explained evolution past a THEORY has it??

Scientists are reaching the “inteligent design” theory THROUGH SCIENCE, not church.
 
40.png
JMJ_Pinoy:
Christianity is bad religion?!? :confused: Your **CINO **is showing. 😉
Click to expand...
Creationism is bad religion. Many Protestant denominations insist on taking every word in the Bible literally; this is what can happen when everyone interprets the Bible for themselves. Catholicism is one of the few (if not only) branches of Christianity that acknowledges that true faith and true science can never be in conflict, as they both come from God. Even Pope John Paul II said that evolution is more than just a theory.
 
40.png
jlw:
Right. But science hasn’t REALLY explained evolution past a THEORY has it??
Click to expand...
Whatever. I’m not saying that science should teach theory as fact. Science class should teach what a scientific theory is, how evolution is a scientific theory, what evidence supports that theory, what evidence remains to be explained, what kind of future discoveries could falsify evolution, etc., you know, science.
40.png
jlw:
Scientists are reaching the “inteligent design” theory THROUGH SCIENCE, not church.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. People can pretend that this is so for arguing a case in court, but “intelligent design” is not science in any accepted meaning of the term.
 
Whatever. I’m not saying that science should teach theory as fact. Science class should teach what a scientific theory is, how evolution is a scientific theory, what evidence supports that theory, what evidence remains to be explained, what kind of future discoveries could falsify evolution, etc., you know, science.

The evidence that REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED is what we are talking about!! How does an object move? It must have had a equal or greater force MOVE it. No??

Actually, no. People can pretend that this is so for arguing a case in court, but “intelligent design” is not science in any accepted meaning of the term.

*ACTUALLY, YES. *
**
YES, YES, and YES, AGAIN.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Actually, no. People can pretend that this is so for arguing a case in court, but “intelligent design” is not science in any accepted meaning of the term.
Click to expand...
There you are wrong. It is a scientific theory. That you have a set of non-Christian beliefs that prevent you from seeing that does not make it any less of a scientific theory.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
People can pretend that this is so for arguing a case in court, but “intelligent design” is not science in any accepted meaning of the term.
Click to expand...
That must come as a terrible shock to quite a few scientists. Oh, but wait. They’re probably not scientists “in any accepted meaning of the term.”

You referenced the late Stephen Jay Gould earlier. So, then, you accept Gould’s contention that evolutionary theory renders religious belief in a Creator completely untenable?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
gilliam:
There you are wrong. It is a scientific theory. That you have a set of non-Christian beliefs that prevent you from seeing that does not make it any less of a scientific theory.
Click to expand...
Then what predictions does it make that can falsify it?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Exactly; this is a key characteristic of any scientific theory. This is why “intelligent design” is not a scientific theory - it makes no predictions that can be falsified.
Click to expand...
Really??? For example???
 
40.png
jlw:
Really??? For example???
Click to expand...
What do you want an example of? A paper on intelligent design that makes no predictions that can be falsified?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
What do you want an example of? A paper on intelligent design that makes no predictions that can be falsified?
Click to expand...
No. You were making a statement. I just wanted you to back it up.
 
40.png
mlchance:
That must come as a terrible shock to quite a few scientists. Oh, but wait. They’re probably not scientists “in any accepted meaning of the term.”
Click to expand...
I did a search on “intelligent design” on the top universities in biological science, but founding nothing to indicate that it is taken seriously in any of their biology departments.
40.png
mlchance:
You referenced the late Stephen Jay Gould earlier. So, then, you accept Gould’s contention that evolutionary theory renders religious belief in a Creator completely untenable?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of this, and I don’t agree with it. Still, the question is whether “intelligent design” has the defining characteristics of what constitutes a scientific theory.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I don’t see how this has anything to do with the question of whether “intelligent design” falls within the realm of science, which, as we’ve all agreed, does not cover everything.
Click to expand...
So, a scientist, looking at scientific laws of nature, and theorizing xy and z somehow is “not in the realm of science”???

Again, the guy is not going to church to get his scientific data!!

There’s no more “religion” here than in a rabid darwinist.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I don’t see how this has anything to do with the question of whether “intelligent design” falls within the realm of science, which, as we’ve all agreed, does not cover everything.
Click to expand...
So, a scientist, looking at creation (you know, the world?) through the laws of nature, formed by scientific study and re-study, is hypothesizing xy and z, and somehow he’s “out of the realm of science”??

Again, he’s not going to church to come to these conclusions!!!

There’s no more “religion” in him than in a faithful darwinist.
 
40.png
jlw:
No. You were making a statement. I just wanted you to back it up.
Click to expand...
Well, based on what the name “intelligent design” implies, I would think that the existence of the appendix (or the defective gene that would allow the body to synthesize vitamin C if it were corrected) in humans falsifies that theory. Maybe someone should start a “semi-intelligent design” theory.

If an evolutionary feature that developed on mammals showed up in a new species of insect, this would falsify universal common descent, a key aspect of evolution. Applying this to automobiles, we can see that cars do not have universal common descent, because it could not explain how intermittant wipers jumped from Ford automobiles to GM and Chrysler automobiles.
 
40.png
jlw:
So, a scientist, looking at creation (you know, the world?) through the laws of nature, formed by scientific study and re-study, is hypothesizing xy and z, and somehow he’s “out of the realm of science”??
Click to expand...
The realm of science is defined by what can be determined using the scientific method. I doubt the existence of God can be proven by the scientific method. Hence the Holy Father’s statement that science cannot find the “final truth about mankind”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top