Biological origin of human values

[itinerant1]

Intelligent Design is number one on the Ideological list for ideas slated for destruction.

First, the Church declares actual design in nature. Second, regardless of the vast storytelling capabilities of imaginitive scientists, there are specific, complex and interelated machinery in a cell far beyond any hope of occurring by chance.
Ed

That the Church “declares actual design in nature” cannot be extended as a proposition in support of Intelligent Design theory. The fact there is order, design and purpose in nature does not constitute evidence in support of Intelligent Design theory. The problem pertains to how ID theorists attempt to account for design in nature. The way in which ID explains design is scientifically and philosophically untenable. Exposing ID fallacies is something I can easily do, but I will not do here in this particular post.

That the ID explanation for design is badly flawed is why Cardinal Shonborn says he will not align himself with the ID movement. Furthermore, an article in the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, says Intelligent Design confuses science and religion, and came down clearly in opposition to ID stating: “Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation.” (Jan. 17, 2006)

You can access a news report about the Vatican’s article here at Catholic News Service

The fact remains that the mind of the Church is opposed to Intelligent Design theory. So, it is misleading for you to cite that the Church recognizes design in nature. Worse yet, people like ReggieM pontificate on matters, such as Jaki’s work, when he is totally clueless when it comes to the kind of in-depth analysis represented by such eminent scholars as Fr. Jaki. It appears that some people on CAF are determined to never let facts stand in the way of their opinions.

A further egregious error in logic is committed by ID representatives when they cite elements of Darwinian materialist ideology, such as irreducible chance and randomness, and take those Darwinian errors as proof or support for ID theory. Every evolutionists sees through this transparent abuse of reasoning.

So, there are very good reasons why ID gains no support from either the Vatican or evolutionists. Darwinism, insofar as it is science, and not ideology, possesses the potential to become a solid scientific explanation of origins. In theory, its scientific aspects are potentially quantifiable. That is something ID does not have and cannot truthfully claim.

For an additional explanation of the bad philosophy represented by Intelligent Design theory, you can refer to the article by Father Edward Oakes on ZENIT, entitled Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Pt. 2).

 

[redhen]

Clearly, human values arise naturally, like hair color. More storytelling to convince the unwary.

Facial expressions in non-human primates and the emotions they express may be difficult for lay persons to discern. But I bet everyone with a dog can tell when it’s afraid and when it’s angry by it’s body posture.

amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477

Here’s an interesting book I’m reading. In it, it points out some experiments where chimps receive food after pressing a lever, but once that food release is tied to electro-shocking another chimp in an adjacent area which can be seen by the first one, it will refuse to press the lever. This goes on for several days, to the point of risk of starvation.

Food for thought.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s an interesting book I’m reading. In it, it points out some experiments where chimps receive food after pressing a lever, but once that food release is tied to electro-shocking another chimp in an adjacent area which can be seen by the first one, it will refuse to press the lever. This goes on for several days, to the point of risk of starvation.

In your opinion, what separates humans from chimps?

 

[reggieM]

The fact there is order, design and purpose in nature does not constitute evidence in support of Intelligent Design theory.

What would constitute evidence in support of ID theory?

Also, what is your evidence to show that there is “order, design and purpose” in nature? What kind of support from evolutionists does your “fact” receive?

Worse yet, people like ReggieM pontificate on matters, such as Jaki’s work, when he is totally clueless when it comes to the kind of in-depth analysis represented by such eminent scholars as Fr. Jaki.

I noted how you were incapable of discussing this matter without offering insults. Apparently, the first five times you stated I was “clueless” was not enough – so you added another one here as a reminder. I’ll guess that you read a lot of Darwinian material – thus the misrepresentation of ID and thus the resort to ridicule rather than dialogue.

Furthermore, an article in the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, says Intelligent Design confuses science and religion,

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”.

You can access a news report about the Vatican’s article here at Catholic News Service

It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of ID scholarship and writing.

The fact remains that the mind of the Church is opposed to Intelligent Design theory.

Again, some people on CAF confuse facts with opinions. The mind of the Church has not required any Catholic to accept Darwinian evolution.

So, it is misleading for you to cite that the Church recognizes design in nature.

It’s only misleading for those who don’t like the implications. The challenge was given to you – you claim it’s a “fact” that there is design, order and purpose in nature. Please back that up with solid evidence.

 

[redhen]

In your opinion, what separates humans from chimps?

Several things, the most obvious one is that we are naked. But the biggest difference is the capacity for speech/language. So the missing constituent parts would be: a descended larynx, a hyoid bone, Broca’s and Warnicke’s areas in the brain.

 

[reggieM]

For an additional explanation of the bad philosophy represented by Intelligent Design theory, you can refer to the article by Father Edward Oakes on ZENIT, entitled Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Pt. 2).

Here are two examples that Fr. Oakes uses in this particularly weak explanation of his views:

“The most powerful and the most productive artists only summon from afar the ever-ready forces of nature which fashion the tree and, through the tree, the fruit. That is why Aristotle says that there is more purposefulness [in Aristotle’s Greek ‘to hou heneka’], more good, and more beauty, in the works of nature than in those of art.”

First, he compares design with artistry and beauty. He shows that this is detectable in nature, but denies that it is detectable in nature. This is the perpetual contradiction for theistic evolutionists who deal with ID theory. They’re forced to proclaim that design is evident, but then deny that it is observable.

Fr. Oakes continues with this example:

Think of primary causality, in other words, less like the ignition of a motor and more like a singer singing a song: the song is sustained only while the singer sings. But that does nothing to abrogate the laws of sound waves, of musical harmony, of the biology of vocal chords and so on.

He compares design here to a “song”. Apparently, for him, there is no way to distinguish the difference between the ordered, harmonious pattern of a song versus random noise.

In both cases, he uses examples of Intelligent Design to indicate design in nature. In the first, he compares the beauty of nature to that which human artists produce (ordering, coordinating parts to create something other than what randomness produces). In the second, he uses the example of a song – something produced by intelligence.

The problem remains – why not use an example of what we consider randomness in nature working with natural selection? Why have recourse to intelligently designed artifacts in your explanation.

When rocks come down a mountain in an avalanche, according to this view, they produce as much design as what we find in a Mozart symphony.

ID theory is “mistaken” to claim that there are greater signs of intelligence, ordering natural causes, within the symphony than within the pile of rocks at the bottom of the hill.

It’s becoming much more clear to me that theistic evolution is a rear-guard position that the Church felt it had to adopt in the face of the Darwinian assault. So, it capitulated to the absurd claims of Darwinism in hopes that the Faith would be able to retain some niche in modern culture.

I can see it in Fr. Oakes tentative explanations of how to reconcile Darwinism and Catholicism. He is afraid to attack Darwinism head-on. That’s a common attitude. It even goes farther for many who simply abandon the Faith (Ken Miller) in order to preserve Darwinian orthodoxy.

 

[reggieM]

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:

This notion that Intelligent Design is a novel and essentially Christian theory would come as a surprise to Aristotle. In his book, The Physics, he addressed an early form of Darwinism, which came through Empedocles, and rejected it as an irrational account of nature.

Aristotle sketched out Empedocles’ theory and then answered it:

'Why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a man’s crop is spoiled on the threshing—floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this—in order that the crop might be spoiled—but that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity—the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food—since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his ‘man—faced ox—progeny’ did.

Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog—days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature.’
americanthinker.com/2005/08/darwins_compost.html​

Another ancient philosopher with the same ideas …

• Anaxagoras of Clazomenae (500-428 BC) was a mediator between the ancient Ionian philosophical tradition and the emergence of the Greek tradition. ”Both Plato and Aristotle regard him Anaxagoras as the first to attribute the evident structural harmony and order in Nature to some form of intelligent design plan rather than the change concourse of atoms.”‘

(Source: Barrow J & Tipler F (1986) ”The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”. 1986/1988, p 32, ISBN 0192821474.)

 

[reggieM]

The fact remains that the mind of the Church is opposed to Intelligent Design theory.

Kansas City, Kansas’ Archbishop Joseph Naumann states that he would be "comfortable if our public schools taught … Intelligent Design with its vision of a world whose order and beauty reveal an intelligent architect.”
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6131

Australian cardinal comfortable with Intelligent Design
“I’d be happy for them to talk about design or intelligent design.” – Cardinal George Pell

Washington DC Archbishop Wuerl Favours Intelligent Design in Schools
Last year, Bishop Wuerl threw his support behind the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternative theory of creation to materialist Darwinism. Bishop Wuerl spoke of the theory’s “reasonableness” … “Intellectual design in the world is a rational conclusion based on thousands of years of observation and reflection. It is not an “a priori” religious tenant superimposed on the facts. Rather it is the light of reason illuminating the universe.”

 

[liquidpele]

Kansas City, Kansas’ Archbishop Joseph Naumann states that he would be "comfortable if our public schools taught … Intelligent Design with its vision of a world whose order and beauty reveal an intelligent architect.”
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6131

Australian cardinal comfortable with Intelligent Design
“I’d be happy for them to talk about design or intelligent design.” – Cardinal George Pell

Washington DC Archbishop Wuerl Favours Intelligent Design in Schools
Last year, Bishop Wuerl threw his support behind the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternative theory of creation to materialist Darwinism. Bishop Wuerl spoke of the theory’s “reasonableness” … “Intellectual design in the world is a rational conclusion based on thousands of years of observation and reflection. It is not an “a priori” religious tenant superimposed on the facts. Rather it is the light of reason illuminating the universe.”

Which version of ID? I get one of two versions depeonding on who I talk to.

1. God is the abstract thing that guides mutation and evolution.
2. The earth is 6000 years old and everything was made as-is because it’s too complicated to have evolved.

Either way, neither of them are science. I don’t care if they bring up the idea in a philosophy course or religion course. Saying they are science is like trying to push automotive repair into French class because french people drive cars.

 

[reggieM]

Which version of ID? I get one of two versions depeonding on who I talk to.

1. God is the abstract thing that guides mutation and evolution.
2. The earth is 6000 years old and everything was made as-is because it’s too complicated to have evolved.

You might consider reading some ID literature and not just the critics. Look for the materials sympathetic to the ID position. There are many books written, or some key blogs which are updated daily (uncommondescent.com). You tend to post quite a lot on this topic, so why not become familiar with the materials first hand?

If you’re not interested in that, could you point me in the direction of where it has been said that ID theory claims the earth is 6,000 years old? Or that “God is the abstract thing”?

Failing that – it’s hard to deal with your question. You’re proposing different “kinds” of ID – neither of which is supported in the literature itself.

Either way, neither of them are science.

Either way, neither of them are descriptions of ID either.

Apparently, you think the only way to refute Michael Behe’s claims regarding mutation rates in bacteria is through a philosophical rebuttal and not through science?

That would be an interesting take on it. If he’s not doing science, then all the evolutionary scientists who have claimed to have “destroyed” his idea (through computer modelling of the scientific data) were acting outside of their field of expertise since they’re not philosophers or theologians.

 

[liquidpele]

You might consider reading some ID literature and not just the critics. Look for the materials sympathetic to the ID position. There are many books written, or some key blogs which are updated daily (uncommondescent.com). You tend to post quite a lot on this topic, so why not become familiar with the materials first hand?

If you’re not interested in that, could you point me in the direction of where it has been said that ID theory claims the earth is 6,000 years old? Or that “God is the abstract thing”?

Failing that – it’s hard to deal with your question. You’re proposing different “kinds” of ID – neither of which is supported in the literature itself.

Either way, neither of them are descriptions of ID either.
.

Oh, I’m talking about descriptions people have given me who are advocates for ID. If those are not good descriptions of what ID really is, then perhaps there are just a LOT of people who have misunderstood it themselves even though they’re riding on the ID train. If I was pushing a strawman there, it was unintended and I apologize. Perhaps you can give a good paragraph description of ID for me?

Apparently, you think the only way to refute Michael Behe’s claims regarding mutation rates in bacteria is through a philosophical rebuttal and not through science?

That would be an interesting take on it. If he’s not doing science, then all the evolutionary scientists who have claimed to have “destroyed” his idea (through computer modelling of the scientific data) were acting outside of their field of expertise since they’re not philosophers or theologians.

Technically he’s not doing science, he’s simply interpreting other people’s scientific results. He’s also wrong according to those doing the experiments he cites:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2253464

 

[reggieM]

If I was pushing a strawman there, it was unintended and I apologize.

I appreciate your humility to apologize and yes, I think you were pushing a strawman – I hope not with the interest of offending or attacking people. Apology accepted with the hope that you’ll approach the topic with an open mind.

Perhaps you can give a good paragraph description of ID for me?

ID is a scientific discipline that studies signs of intelligence. When intelligent agents that are known (human beings, animals) create artifacts certain characteristics commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design.

Technically he’s not doing science, he’s simply interpreting other people’s scientific results. He’s also wrong according to those doing the experiments he cites:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2253464

Where does it state that “doing science” is limited to the interpretation of one’s own results and not of results generated elsewhere?

How do scientists “test” fossils and produce results without interpreting the findings of others (if they can even test fossils at all)?

All of that said – you referred to a peer-reviewed work in a scientific journal and at the same time imply that it should have only appeared in philosophical or theological journals.

Beyond that – quite simply, there are scientists who are more credible and accomplished than you are who disagree with your view on ID. So, I accept your opinion for what it is.

 

[liquidpele]

I appreciate your humility to apologize and yes, I think you were pushing a strawman – I hope not with the interest of offending or attacking people. Apology accepted with the hope that you’ll approach the topic with an open mind.

ID is a scientific discipline that studies signs of intelligence. When intelligent agents that are known (human beings, animals) create artifacts certain characteristics commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design.

Where does it state that “doing science” is limited to the interpretation of one’s own results and not of results generated elsewhere?

How do scientists “test” fossils and produce results without interpreting the findings of others (if they can even test fossils at all)?

All of that said – you referred to a peer-reviewed work in a scientific journal and at the same time imply that it should have only appeared in philosophical or theological journals.

Beyond that – quite simply, there are scientists who are more credible and accomplished than you are who disagree with your view on ID. So, I accept your opinion for what it is.

It was not meant to offend or attack, howover, when most of the pro-X people you talk to say that X means Y, you typically assume that Y and X are related.

How exactly can you scientifically determine if something is a sign of intelligence or not? This seems just a matter of interpretation of data to me.

“Doing science” typically means taking part in the scientific method. This includes a phase called the “experiment”. I’m not sure where you are going with the “testing fossils” comment. Perhaps you think physical data from radiative decay rates can be interpreted different ways?

You said:

Beyond that – quite simply, there are scientists who are more credible and accomplished than you are who disagree with your view on ID.

First of all that’s an ad hominem as you know nothing about me. You’re implying I’m incapable of asserting anything because I have no credibility. Second, I could just as easily say the same for you. Third, by that logic, there are 98% of scientists who agree that ID is nonsense. Lets not go down this road.

 

[reggieM]

It was not meant to offend or attack, howover, when most of the pro-X people you talk to say that X means Y, you typically assume that Y and X are related.

Who are these “most of the proX” people you’re talking about and where are their posts stating that ID claims that the earth is 6,000 years old? You made a very large error there regarding this topic so perhaps you could help me see where you got this information. Many ID supporters may consider the earth to be a certain age, but that is not a part of ID theory.

How exactly can you scientifically determine if something is a sign of intelligence or not? This seems just a matter of interpretation of data to me.

Evolutionary theory is based on an interpretation of data. It cannot be shown empirically that one fossil is a transitional to another because the “transition” (if any) occurred millions of years ago and as evidence continually shows, evolutionary theorists have to “revise” their thinking about what ancestor became what new organism.

Beyond that, signs of Intelligent Design can be determined scientifically through probability measures and tests on the power and limits of randomness. Specified, functional, ordered, complimentary complexity … that can be defined within some probabilistic limits. The alternative is that it happened by coincidence or incredible luck. Sure, someone could say that, but it’s not much of an explanation.

I’m not sure where you are going with the “testing fossils” comment. Perhaps you think physical data from radiative decay rates can be interpreted different ways?

Perhaps you think that the only (supposed) scientific claims made about fossils are with regard to their age?

First of all that’s an ad hominem as you know nothing about me.

The challenge comes back to you. Please state your scientific credentials for me. That will help me to evaluate your credibility. If I’ve misjudged your qualifications then I apologize.

You’re implying I’m incapable of asserting anything because I have no credibility.

I didn’t mean to imply that. I will try to value your opinion appropriately.

 

[liquidpele]

Who are these “most of the proX” people you’re talking about and where are their posts stating that ID claims that the earth is 6,000 years old? You made a very large error there regarding this topic so perhaps you could help me see where you got this information. Many ID supporters may consider the earth to be a certain age, but that is not a part of ID theory.

Evolutionary theory is based on an interpretation of data. It cannot be shown empirically that one fossil is a transitional to another because the “transition” (if any) occurred millions of years ago and as evidence continually shows, evolutionary theorists have to “revise” their thinking about what ancestor became what new organism.

Beyond that, signs of Intelligent Design can be determined scientifically through probability measures and tests on the power and limits of randomness. Specified, functional, ordered, complimentary complexity … that can be defined within some probabilistic limits. The alternative is that it happened by coincidence or incredible luck. Sure, someone could say that, but it’s not much of an explanation.

Perhaps you think that the only (supposed) scientific claims made about fossils are with regard to their age?

The challenge comes back to you. Please state your scientific credentials for me. That will help me to evaluate your credibility. If I’ve misjudged your qualifications then I apologize.

I didn’t mean to imply that. I will try to value your opinion appropriately.

I don’t know who the people were, it was generally online. The two things I listed were what was described to me regarding ID (and associated beliefs I’ll admit). Essentially, people that have claimed that ID is true to me fell into one of those two categories about 90% of the time. As I said, they were then perhaps misguided about what the theory was about.

Indeed, many things are interpreted. However, when you have as much evidence pointing to a conclusion as evolution does, it’s a bit daft to be as skeptical as some are unless one comes up with some *really *good reasons to counter the claims made. I’m not going to list all the evidence, sorry, I’ve honestly just grown tired of doing that and deleted my entire bookmark folder with it all. I suspect it would not change your mind anyway.

Probability measurements often are based upon assumptions of underlying probability. A crude analogy is if you had a house, and I told you that your house was built by humans and you gave probability reasons why that couldn’t have been done but neglected to use of power tools in your calculations.

I’m not going to post my credentials, but I’ll state that I am no biologist. As I said already though, I don’t want to go down that road, otherwise we can find a reason for every single person to be unable to weigh in on the matter. Lets stick to discussing the validity of the theory.

Thank you for trying to value my opinion, even if you disagree

 

[edwest2]

The theory is 100% valid and reasonable.

Much has been made recently about chimps using “tools.” One article even described their use of what was called “tool kits” in dealing with ant hills. Strangely, no diagrams showing these “kits” were provided. These activities are being touted as signs of intelligence. Another article spoke of primates handling rocks and made the clear, unmistakable connection between this primate activity and similar human activity.

Next. We have those artifacts commonly found by archaeologists and commonly determined to be made by an intelligent agent. Even though the intelligence may have died long ago, the artifacts bear unmistakable intelligent workmanship. A triangular rock is not symmetrical, does not bear regular chip marks, or a small hole in the short dimension to accept an arrow shaft, but arrowheads show all of these tool marks. They are intelligently made.

On the biological level, there is a code called DNA. It is specific, and even the so-called “junk” (non-coding regions) play a role.

But let me get to the point. The only reason most go on the attack when ID is mentioned is because, in their minds, ID is, and can only be, God back in schools. That was the reason for the lawsuit and the Dover case. To get everyone to believe that it is about religion while ignoring everything else.

ID is an excellent idea, but it is buried in the popular imagination as “Oh just ignore that. It’s religion.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

But let me get to the point. The only reason most go on the attack when ID is mentioned is because, in their minds, ID is, and can only be, God back in schools. That was the reason for the lawsuit and the Dover case. To get everyone to believe that it is about religion while ignoring everything else.

ID is an excellent idea, but it is buried in the popular imagination as “Oh just ignore that. It’s religion.”

If only the majority of people pushing ID realized that. I mean, just look at kirk cameron… shutter. Just watch this, the man actually pulls out a picture of a crocaduck.

youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw

These are the people that are jumping onto ID as if it’s a train into getting religion into the school system. How would you feel if scientists started petitioning to put a sticker on bibles in your church saying it’s only a theory?

http://www.oklascience.org/Wolf_In_Sheeps_Clothes.gif

 

[edwest2]

If only the majority of people pushing ID realized that. I mean, just look at kirk cameron… shutter. Just watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=LNTGmoTb8sw

These are the people that are jumping onto ID as if it’s a train into getting religion into the school system. How would you feel if scientists started petitioning to put a sticker on bibles in your church saying it’s only a theory?

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education – Promoting science education in Oklahoma

I understand. So, let’s take this a step at a time. I often hear how new drugs to battle bacteria and viruses rely on evolution. Not the case according to this man who has done the research himself:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/

I really cannot overstate the case that once any group of scientists looks at the code in DNA and decides that this is, in fact, a sign of intelligent agency, outside of the realm of chance, alarms bells will instantly go off in the atheist community. Why? Because this would be perceived as a shift in the balance of power. Right now, the cuurrent theory, as taught, safely allows atheists to say, See. No God required. You’re just another animal. God wasn’t needed to bring you into existence. Keep all that religious talk at home or that building you go to once a week. I don’t wanna hear it.

And of course, since only natural explanations are required, scientists will point to:

A) Comets brought life to earth.

B) An alien form of life came to earth and seeded it with life, and departed, or died here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

I understand. So, let’s take this a step at a time. I often hear how new drugs to battle bacteria and viruses rely on evolution. Not the case according to this man who has done the research himself:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/

I really cannot overstate the case that once any group of scientists looks at the code in DNA and decides that this is, in fact, a sign of intelligent agency, outside of the realm of chance, alarms bells will instantly go off in the atheist community. Why? Because this would be perceived as a shift in the balance of power. Right now, the cuurrent theory, as taught, safely allows atheists to say, See. No God required. You’re just another animal. God wasn’t needed to bring you into existence. Keep all that religious talk at home or that building you go to once a week. I don’t wanna hear it.

And of course, since only natural explanations are required, scientists will point to:

A) Comets brought life to earth.

B) An alien form of life came to earth and seeded it with life, and departed, or died here.

Peace,
Ed

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.

 

[reggieM]

Essentially, people that have claimed that ID is true to me fell into one of those two categories about 90% of the time. As I said, they were then perhaps misguided about what the theory was about.

Ok, but again – it’s good to go to a sympathetic source and see what they think. Why not? Here’s a list which might help also:

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

Agree or disagree, at least you’d know that the arguments are addressed and this is what a major ID organization is claiming. Beyond that, the uncommondescent blog offers posts every day and several atheists and ID-skeptics participate.

However, when you have as much evidence pointing to a conclusion as evolution does, it’s a bit daft to be as skeptical as some are unless one comes up with some *really *good reasons to counter the claims made.

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.

Thank you for trying to value my opinion, even if you disagree

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.