R
reggieM
Guest
Following Ed’s comment … scientists have already put atheistic teaching into biology textbooks and made unwarranted claims. ID is merely evaluating data and matching it against scientific knowledge.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Perhaps you would like to post sources for such data that does not fit an evolutionary model?There is a considerable amount of data that does not fit the theory and I don’t think that has been handled very well by evolutionary theorists at all. Plus, there are many claims that go far beyond the evidence.
You’ve always been courteous and responsible to me in your posts and that is greatly appreciated. Many evolutionists do not take the same attitude – even fellow-believers, so that is very much to your credit. I don’t know what your interest in the Catholic faith really is and why you’d spend so much time here – but if you have an open mind, as it seems you do, and you’re interested in a positive discussion then I can only admire and appreciate that.
My interest in Catholicism is non existent truth be told. However, I talk about the same subjects on atheist forums, and I try not to get all my arguments from one point of view.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Citation? Examples?Following Ed’s comment … scientists have already put atheistic teaching into biology textbooks and made unwarranted claims.
R
reggieM
Guest
This would be an interesting topic for science class – except that it was made illegal in the U.S. Widely considered “the greatest scientist of all times”, here’s an excerpt from the introduction to his greatest work …
The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. **This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. **And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God1 usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him2 are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
— Sir Isaac Newton, General Scholium to Isaac Newton’s Principia mathematica
The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. **This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. **And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokratwr , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God1 usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him2 are all things contained and moved; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.
— Sir Isaac Newton, General Scholium to Isaac Newton’s Principia mathematica
E
edwest2
Guest
Why is it ludicrous? Why? The author worked in drug development. He didn’t need the theory. Here’s an article where it is mentioned. Note that the article is misleading and contains false statements along with bias:Who in the world was saying drugs are developed using evolution? Smells like a strawman. The link simply says that darwinian evolution does not currently have practical use in drug development - but the very idea of that is ludicrous to begin with. That’s like me writing an article against cars because no cars were needed to get from my living room to the bathroom.
I agree that if ID was proven somehow (which seems unlikely given the history of it’s claims) than atheists would simply move to other natural options - but you must admit many more scientists would likely be Christian too. It’s not like everyone hinges their belief structure on evolution, but it’s certainly one of many persuasive things.
stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evo-main.html
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
Well, you changed the issue. I’ll keep in mind that you recently claimed that if God had specially created organisms or had guided mutations to develop new functional components, then this would still be “evolution” for you.Perhaps you would like to post sources for such data that does not fit an evolutionary model?
Is there anything that doesn’t fit into your evolutionary model? That is a good question, and thus far I’d have to answer “no”. That is common among evolutionists, as I see it. Any contradiction or failed prediction is simply absorbed into a fluctating group of ideas called a “theory”.
Ok, you’re not at all interested in the purpose of this forum. Why do you think this would be a good place to talk about evolution? I mean – do you think the primary focus of this forum is to debate about scientific matters?My interest in Catholicism is non existent truth be told.
L
liquidpele
Guest
I gave an analogy already. I agree with him that Darwinian evolution doesn’t help with drug development. My point is that his argument that it doesn’t help is not an argument against evolution because as far as I know no one was claiming it should have helped to begin with.Why is it ludicrous? Why? The author worked in drug development. He didn’t need the theory. Here’s an article where it is mentioned. Note that the article is misleading and contains false statements along with bias:
stanmed.stanford.edu/2006summer/evo-main.html
Peace,
Ed
The only claim in the above link is that evolution makes drug development HARD, because the things we’re trying to get rid of keep evolving. The article specifically states that evolution must be understood to keep up with the evolving organisms, not that it’s used for drug development.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Ignoring your dramatization of it being “illegal”, watch this for a good explanation of my opinion on this matter.This would be an interesting topic for science class – except that it was made illegal in the U.S. Widely considered “the greatest scientist of all times”, here’s an excerpt from the introduction to his greatest work …
youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0
E
edwest2
Guest
“keep evolving”? Think about that. What are they evolving into? Something other than viruses or bacteria? The glib statement has been made here that “evolution is just change over time.” Really? A fish becames an amphibian which becomes a man? Those are really Big Changes, not Virus A mutated into Virus Ab2. Do you understand? It’s just like people using dog breeding as an example of “evolution.” When you breed dogs, what do you get? Dogs.I gave an analogy already. I agree with him that Darwinian evolution doesn’t help with drug development. My point is that his argument that it doesn’t help is not an argument against evolution because as far as I know no one was claiming it should have helped to begin with.
The only claim in the above link is that evolution makes drug development HARD, because the things we’re trying to get rid of keep evolving.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Here they are:Citation? Examples?
Biology textbook
Peace,I did a little research and I think we can prove quite easily that mainstream evolution does not support the evidence of intelligent design in nature at all. Evolution is defined as a blind, undirected process built mainly on randomness. There is no plan or purpose for evolution – this contradicts the claim that “everything is designed” and that there is design to be found in nature.
We can see this in current biology textbooks:
“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)
“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)
“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)
“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)
“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)
“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s a YouTube explanation of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia?Ignoring your dramatization of it being “illegal”, watch this for a good explanation of my opinion on this matter.
youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0
L
liquidpele
Guest
Seriously? The ones that sound like they could even be public school textbooks don’t even go against ID, they simply state the obvious such as humans being a twig on the tree of life and stating that things evolve (ie change over time). Or are you going back to stating that ID is more like creationism? I fail to see how any of those quotes should be interpreted as pro-atheist in any way.Here they are:
Biology textbook
Peace,
Ed
The others have titles that can only mean they are college level, and one was a Dawkin’s quote?? Come on.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Haha, no, but it does talk about his quotes regarding religion.It’s a YouTube explanation of Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia?
L
liquidpele
Guest
What are you talking about? You entirely missed my point.“keep evolving”? Think about that. What are they evolving into? Something other than viruses or bacteria? The glib statement has been made here that “evolution is just change over time.” Really? A fish becames an amphibian which becomes a man? Those are really Big Changes, not Virus A mutated into Virus Ab2. Do you understand? It’s just like people using dog breeding as an example of “evolution.” When you breed dogs, what do you get? Dogs.
Peace,
Ed
Why do you have to get a flu shot every year? Google it. It’s because viruses mutate. This is evolution. Things change over time. This is why it’s hard to keep up with organisms when developing drugs that target such things. The fact that resistant bacteria (for instance) become more prevalent because they are able to reproduce better is the poster child of Darwinian evolution, and pretty much undeniable as the reality of antibiotic resistance if you’re in the medical field.
E
edwest2
Guest
OK. It is obvious you are reading into things instead of reading what was written. They are all pro-atheist quotes. You have also apparently ignored everything I’ve written about ID. Simply, ID is pointing out that the language or code of DNA did not arise from random chance. It violates the Law of Probability. Just like the nonsensical idea that a cell, just floating around, could suddenly acquire a new part that just happened to attach itself at a location where it just happened to serve a useful function. If that cell wants to divide, it has no coding to duplicate the new part, so the new part does not get reproduced.Seriously? The ones that sound like they could even be public school textbooks don’t even go against ID, they simply state the obvious such as humans being a twig on the tree of life and stating that things evolve (ie change over time). Or are you going back to stating that ID is more like creationism? I fail to see how any of those quotes should be interpreted as pro-atheist in any way.
The others have titles that can only mean they are college level, and one was a Dawkin’s quote?? Come on.
“change over time”? Honestly, that is sounding more and more like magic, not science.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Mutation is not evolution. Viruses have the built-in ability to change. Bacteria have the built-in ability to exchange bits of genetic material with other bacteria. Do you think dog breeding could happen if the dogs involved did not already have the ability to reproduce? Bacteria were found in dirt in Canada that were already resistant to natural and synthetic antibiotics.What are you talking about? You entirely missed my point.
Why do you have to get a flu shot every year? Google it. It’s because viruses mutate. This is evolution. Things change over time. This is why it’s hard to keep up with organisms when developing drugs that target such things. The fact that resistant bacteria (for instance) become more prevalent because they are able to reproduce better is the poster child of Darwinian evolution, and pretty much undeniable as the reality of antibiotic resistance if you’re in the medical field.
sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/02/22/life/soil.grows.drug.resistant.bacteria.html
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Sorry, but your understanding of Aristotle, et al. remains flawed. It is an egregious historical error to project ID theory back into time merely on the basis that Aristotle and other recognized design, order and purpose in nature. The Aristotelian doctrine of causes actually disproves ID theory. You could, instead, compare ID theory and Paley. Yet, you quote from writers you only understand superficially at best. And you insist on committing the same elementary error in logic whenever you assert that “intelligent design” in nature is proof for Intelligent Design theory.The situation is just going to get worse and worse for Catholics who deny the ancient roots of ID theory. If it’s any consolation – it didn’t start with William Dembski or other Protestants. Perhaps you’re afraid that they stole some thunder on this issue. They didn’t. ID concepts go back. We could start on the Fathers of the Church, but since Fr. Oakes mentioned Aristotle as an authority, we could try this:
Furthermore, you cite a few Church officials who spoke favorably about ID theory, but this is not the same as representing the mind of the Church in general on the subject of ID theory. Hence, your post is highly misleading, as are your comments about Fr. Oakes.
You should try taking one or two points and seeing if you can defend them logically, with some intellectual rigor and intellectual honesty rather than using your wild shotgun approach that really addresses nothing accurately and distorts what others have said.
R
reggieM
Guest
Apparently you have a grasp on the true “mind of the Church” but the two archbishops and Cardinal I quoted from don’t. Interesting – how did you arrive at that level of certainty? Perhaps some kind of divine power you’ve received? Clearly, you might want to tell Archbishop Wuerl that he is not in line with your opinions here.Furthermore, you cite a few Church officials who spoke favorably about ID theory, but this is not the same as representing the mind of the Church
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church declares that there is actual design in nature.Sorry, but your understanding of Aristotle, et al. remains flawed. It is an egregious historical error to project ID theory back into time merely on the basis that Aristotle and other recognized design, order and purpose in nature. The Aristotelian doctrine of causes actually disproves ID theory. You could, instead, compare ID theory and Paley. Yet, you quote from writers you only understand superficially at best. And you insist on committing the same elementary error in logic whenever you assert that “intelligent design” in nature is proof for Intelligent Design theory.
Furthermore, you cite a few Church officials who spoke favorably about ID theory, but this is not the same as representing the mind of the Church in general on the subject of ID theory. Hence, your post is highly misleading, as are your comments about Fr. Oakes.
You should try taking one or two points and seeing if you can defend them logically, with some intellectual rigor and intellectual honesty rather than using your wild shotgun approach that really addresses nothing accurately and distorts what others have said.
General Audience, April 1985, Pope John Paul II:
“To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be the equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, it would be admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
Peace,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Actually, the article is consistent with the view of the current Pope. It is also consistent with the views of members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. What is it that you want?It might be helpful to know that articles in the official Vatican newspaper may merely be theological opinions and not a matter of “official position”.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.