Ed, I’m sorry you see only two choices of world – it must be hard for you. And I’m sorry the provisional nature of science bothers you, but that’s the way it is. The fact that some physicians in the 1950s recommended smoking cigarettes doesn’t mean it was a good thing to do. Now we know better.Here is the explanation of the two worlds some people want everyone else to live in:…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
Why does it matter? How does the statement of a religious fugure change any facts if they are, indeed, facts?As an Anglican, I am inclined to wonder how many biologists he consulted before making that statement.
May I ask you a question? Was the God you believe in involved in any truly causal way with the development of life? If so, how do you know that?Ed, I’m sorry you see only two choices of world – it must be hard for you. And I’m sorry the provisional nature of science bothers you, but that’s the way it is. The fact that some physicians in the 1950s recommended smoking cigarettes doesn’t mean it was a good thing to do. Now we know better.
It doesn’t change any facts, but since, so far as I know, he isn’t a trained scientist, one would hope that he would have consulted people who are before opening his mouth.Why does it matter? How does the statement of a religious fugure change any facts if they are, indeed, facts?
Peace,
Ed
Oh well, that just about wraps them up then. A covern of atheists, many of them wearing clerical collars, financed by the Vatican.The entire Pontifical Academy of Science are atheist. There are around 90 or so, I believe.
Of course! I assume God wills the universe and the appearance of morally sensitive and spiritually responsive life. I don’t *know *it, but I believe it.May I ask you a question? Was the God you believe in involved in any truly causal way with the development of life? If so, how do you know that? Peace,
Ed
And dispassionate truth cannot include a designing intelligence who might turn out to be what we call God?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.
Have you read any of their books? Try Privileged Planet.What do you mean? I’m not ridiculing the DI – just waiting for results.
It is sorrowful indeed that you limit the scope of God’s power to those things outside what science measures. After all, God gave us those things too.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.
So it’s one or the other? The search for Beauty and Purpose in nature, or Faith In Jesus Christ. But not both?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.
You apparently didn’t read the rest of that post, did you?And dispassionate truth cannot include a designing intelligence who might turn out to be what we call God?
That’s interesting for an Anglican to say. Or, perhaps not, these days.
Of course it’s both.So it’s one or the other? The search for Beauty and Purpose in nature, or Faith In Jesus Christ. But not both?
I don’t limit God at all. For that it takes someone who tells us that God could not have so constituted the world that bacterial flagellae evolve.It is sorrowful indeed that you limit the scope of God’s power to those things outside what science measures. After all, God gave us those things too.
Nobody is saying that God “could not” have so constituted the world so that bacterial flagellae evolve. The question at hand is “How did God so constitute the world so that we have bacterial flagellae?”I don’t limit God at all. For that it takes someone who tells us that God could not have so constituted the world that bacterial flagellae evolve.
There is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. You seem to have an objection but I’m not sure what it is. His not being a trained scientist does not, I think, call into question his own ability to get information, learn and understand it, and draw from it.It doesn’t change any facts, but since, so far as I know, he isn’t a trained scientist, one would hope that he would have consulted people who are before opening his mouth.
You’re right. Sorry.You apparently didn’t read the rest of that post, did you?
I merely expressed the hope that he did so. I suppose what is coming to the surface is my distrust of a highly centralised organisation, with the world’s last absolute monarch at its head.There is a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. You seem to have an objection but I’m not sure what it is. His not being a trained scientist does not, I think, call into question his own ability to get information, learn and understand it, and draw from it.
But you imply that it is not “both” for the DI / ID folks. Of course it is for them too.Of course it’s both.
Those are your words, not mine.And you assume that “constitute” has no element of “design” in it. Why are you limiting God to (apparently) being unable to do (or unwilling to participate in) design?
It may well be both for them. It will be interesting to see whether the ID movement ever discovers the design for which it has been searching. Michael Behe’s colleagues at Lehigh are not too sure.But you imply that it is not “both” for the DI / ID folks. Of course it is for them too.