Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
…the odd thing is, Ed and others like him seem devoid of what I would call religious faith. They exhibit a desperate need to “prove” design by aping the methods of science (e.g., DNA proves the existence of God because it’;s like a language). What they don’t realize is how methodologically inappropriate it is for ID to attempt to use science to prove religion.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I’ve read quite a few of Ed’s posts, and although I disagree with him on some issues, it’s pretty obvious that he is not devoid of religious faith.

Your phrase “others like him” - you mean anyone who disagrees with you?

What is really odd is that you, a professed Catholic, seem to fear that ID will use science to find evidence of a designing intelligence in nature. As a Catholic, why do you fear that?
 
ricmat said:
I’ve read quite a few of Ed’s posts, and although I disagree with him on some issues, it’s pretty obvious that he is not devoid of religious faith.

Your phrase “others like him” - you mean anyone who disagrees with you?

What is really odd is that you, a professed Catholic, seem to fear that ID will use science to find evidence of a designing intelligence in nature. As a Catholic, why do you fear that?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone fears that ID will do anything. If someone finds real evidence of a designer, so be it. Evidence is evidence. The real problem with ID is that it’s proponents keep holding up evidence that’s not. After a while, you just start getting annoyed and question their motives.
 
ricmat said:
IWhat is really odd is that you, a professed Catholic, seem to fear that ID will use science to find evidence of a designing intelligence in nature. As a Catholic, why do you fear that?
Click to expand...
I don’t fear it – I’m just waiting. The Discovery Institute has a lab now, and test tubes, and bunsen burners, and really cool lab coats. I wait their possible announcement that they’ve found evidence of a designing intelligence in nature. Meanwhile, even if they don’t announce it, my faith is intact!

StAnastasia
 
liquidpele said:
I don’t think anyone fears that ID will do anything. If someone finds real evidence of a designer, so be it. Evidence is evidence. The real problem with ID is that it’s proponents keep holding up evidence that’s not. After a while, you just start getting annoyed and question their motives.
Click to expand...
Thank you for keeping an open mind on evidence (even if you don’t think valid evidence has yet been found). 🙂 That attitude beats fearing that evidence will be found.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t fear it – I’m just waiting. The Discovery Institute has a lab now, and test tubes, and bunsen burners, and really cool lab coats. I wait their possible announcement that they’ve found evidence of a designing intelligence in nature.
Click to expand...
It’s quite obvious from your comments, like those above, that you would refuse to believe evidence of a designing intelligence in nature, no matter the source. You ridicule such efforts at every opportunity. Is it fear that motivates you?
StAnastasia said:
Meanwhile, even if they don’t announce it, my faith is intact!
Click to expand...
Golly gee whiz…Us too!!!

You say that people who search for evidence of a designer in nature have no faith. That’s an extraordinary (and false) claim. You should stop making it. Such a claim makes you look bad.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t fear it – I’m just waiting. The Discovery Institute has a lab now, and test tubes, and bunsen burners, and really cool lab coats. I wait their possible announcement that they’ve found evidence of a designing intelligence in nature. Meanwhile, even if they don’t announce it, my faith is intact!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Excuse me, we see and intuitively know design everyday. We have observed things in the past and only recently has it been empirically tested in a lab.
 
ricmat said:
It’s quite obvious from your comments, like those above, that you would refuse to believe evidence of a designing intelligence in nature, no matter the source. You ridicule such efforts at every opportunity. Is it fear that motivates you?.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? I’m not ridiculing the DI – just waiting for results.
 
buffalo said:
Excuse me, we see and intuitively know design everyday. We have observed things in the past and only recently has it been empirically tested in a lab.
Click to expand...
Of course we do – honey combs, fish scales, ice crystals.
 
ricmat said:
It’s quite obvious from your comments, like those above, that you would refuse to believe evidence of a designing intelligence in nature, no matter the source. You ridicule such efforts at every opportunity. Is it fear that motivates you?.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t particularly want to jump to StAnastasia’s defence, but the IDers hold themselves up to ridicule because they have a transparently theological agenda, but try to wear the mantle of dispassionate seekers after truth.

Here is somebody who is definitely not an IDer, but appears to have done their job for them with greater success:
Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super- calculating intellect must have designed
the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through
the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.’ Of course you would . . … A common
sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics,
as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to
put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Click to expand...
Fred Hoyle
Click to expand...
Hoyle’s atheism started to unravel when he realised just how finely tuned the conditions inside stars have to be before carbon can be produced. Since then “coincidence” upon “coincidence” has turned up in the world of physics until, to him at least, “coincidence” stopped sounding plausible.

What makes his testimony worth listening to is that he didn’t start out with a preconceived agenda.
 
ricmat said:
You say that people who search for evidence of a designer in nature have no faith.
Click to expand...
The search takes faith, as it has for thousands of years. I seek not a mere designer of cystals or DNA or flagellae, but almighty God, maker of heaven and earth. I see the hand of God not in what science measures, but in the world and in the people around me.
 
mathematician said:
the IDers hold themselves up to ridicule because they have a transparently theological agenda, but try to wear the mantle of dispassionate seekers after truth.
Click to expand...
And to what end? What is the agenda? What is the purpose? The early Christian martyrs died not on the strength of apparently intelligent design, but on the strength of their faith in Jesus Christ, son of the Living God.
 
StAnastasia said:
The search takes faith, as it has for thousands of years. I seek not a mere designer of cystals or DNA or flagellae, but almighty God, maker of heaven and earth. I see the hand of God not in what science measures, but in the world and in the people around me.
Click to expand...
Here is the explanation of the two worlds some people want everyone else to live in:

World A) The atheist world where nothing made you and you die to nothing. It wants zero interface with the religious world. It seeks to establish a hierarchy of facts that can be agreed upon by all parties. HOWEVER, human beings are known to lie, to purposely confuse others and even, on occasion, to invent/create ‘evidence.’ While people are free to not believe in anything, it needs to be pointed out that since their life is all they have, some might be inclined to use dishonest means to steer society in a direction that appeals to them.

World B) The religious world where, for Christians, an actual person, namely Jesus Christ, actually lived, actually died and actually rose again. Regardless of how stupid some may think Bronze age sheep herders were, one of the followers of Jesus was smart enough to say: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. You got that? If this did not actually happen, for real, you’ve got nothing.

To put it another way:

Faith does not deal with reality, at all. It’s a comfort to some people, it puts them at ease, whatever… It’s not real.

Science, on the other hand, is strictly real. But that assumes that human beings are not attempting to manipulate other human beings in the name of science. The following example may seem trivial, but if science is going to be considered reliable and trustworthy, we can’t be told one month that Food A will kill you, lead to heart disease, etc., only to be told a few months later, by a different set of experts, Oh no, Food A is good for you.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Here is the explanation of the two worlds some people want everyone else to live in:

World A) The atheist world where nothing made you and you die to nothing. It wants zero interface with the religious world. It seeks to establish a hierarchy of facts that can be agreed upon by all parties. HOWEVER, human beings are known to lie, to purposely confuse others and even, on occasion, to invent/create ‘evidence.’ While people are free to not believe in anything, it needs to be pointed out that since their life is all they have, some might be inclined to use dishonest means to steer society in a direction that appeals to them.

World B) The religious world where, for Christians, an actual person, namely Jesus Christ, actually lived, actually died and actually rose again. Regardless of how stupid some may think Bronze age sheep herders were, one of the followers of Jesus was smart enough to say: If Christ is not risen then your faith is in vain. You got that? If this did not actually happen, for real, you’ve got nothing.
Click to expand...
What has any of that got to do with evolution?

Are you saying that +Pope John Paul II, who accepted evolution as “more than a theory”, didn’t believe in Jesus Christ? :confused:
 
theistgal said:
What has any of that got to do with evolution?

Are you saying that +Pope John Paul II, who accepted evolution as “more than a theory”, didn’t believe in Jesus Christ? :confused:
Click to expand...
What are you confused about? Pope John Paul II said 'evolution is more than a hypothesis." Pope Benedict, referring to that statement, went on to say: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
What are you confused about? Pope John Paul II said 'evolution is more than a hypothesis." Pope Benedict, referring to that statement, went on to say: “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
Click to expand...
As an Anglican, I am inclined to wonder how many biologists he consulted before making that statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top