Creation or Evolution

[reggieM]

rWhile it did seem Cardinal Schonborn in his original July 2005 NY Times editorial supported the upper-case ID variety of the Discovery Institute, you’ll find he clarified himself and changed his mind in his book and in the Pope’s conference book on the subject.

He can always change his mind again in that case. Intelligent Design is a fairly new field of study and it is gaining support, not losing it.

Additionally, I don’t think there is as much difference between the lower case and upper case Intelligent Design theories as you’ve presented (I could be wrong because I’m not sure what you mean by those).

 

[beeliner]

Intelligent Design is a fairly new field of study and it is gaining support, not losing it.

The issue is intelligent design as SCIENCE. I do not believe that that is gaining support, except possibly that its proponents keep beating the drum louder and louder - that proves nothing.

Personally, I believe in intelligent design - as a matter of religious faith.

I do not believe that it has been proven scientifically - not even close.

 

[beeliner]

“Evolution cannot be proven.” Pope Benedict

Ending each post with a bogus ‘quote’ only weakens your position.

 

[ricmat]

The issue is intelligent design as SCIENCE.

I do not believe that it has been proven scientifically - not even close.

You are actually addressing 2 separate concerns here.

The first question is “Does the search for design in nature involve properly applied science?”

My answer to this is yes, in most cases. One can always look at the way the research and studies were conducted, and see whether or not the scientific method was applied properly. There are probably cases where it was and cases where it wasn’t. But that’s actually no different than biology, or global warming, etc. So one must look at the details of who, what, where, and when to answer this question. There is no absolute yes or no answer to this question.

**The second question is **“Has this search for design in nature been successful?” [Some others on this forum have actually argued that since ID has not been successful yet, that it’s actually religion and not science.]

My answer to this would be - I guess that it has not been wildly successful yet. But then, everyone absolutely knew that the Wright brothers’ heavier than air plane wouldn’t fly. If you believed in it you were an idiot. Right up to the time it flew. Then if you didn’t believe it, you were an idiot. Their experiments weren’t “religion” the whole time right up to “liftoff” at which time it became science.

I’m not sure if you are against looking for design in nature on principle or not (it wasn’t clear from your post above).

 

[elts1956]

Well, I see that as a very good foundation for doubting, questioning and/or outright rejecting the “fact” of evolution.

“Evolution” does not exist – at least as the ambiguous term you’ve given here. “Evolution” is a theory about how things developed, supposedly. Again, the details, pace, paths and mechanisms are all in question, all subject to doubts, and many are overturned and “shrouded in mystery”.

To say that in spite of this, “evolution” (whatever that means) is “a fact” is stretching credibility (at least for me). It’s covering up the significant problems and giving the pretense that there is nothing to question about the theory of evolution itself.

You posted a news story about a group of “superstar scientists” who are meeting to “create a new theory of evolution” – because for them, the old one is obviously inadequate (a nice term for “false”).

Again, to pose the notion that “evolution” is a theory that admits no doubts or serious questions does not seem to be a very scientific or objective approach to me.

I think you have misread the posts giving Pope Benedict XVI’s statement regarding evolution. All the “facts” aren’t in and probably never will be. As far as rejecting outright the theory of Evolution and since this theory is highly debated and since new evidence pops up quite often, I will keep an open mind. When one absolutely judges and closes one’s mind to possibilities, learning stops.

 

[beeliner]

But then, everyone absolutely knew that the Wright brothers’ heavier than air plane wouldn’t fly. If you believed in it you were an idiot. Right up to the time it flew. Then if you didn’t believe it, you were an idiot.

Well stated up to the Wright Bros., where you go seriously astray!

"Everyone’ didn’t ‘absolutely know’ that, only those completely ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics ‘knew’ that. Birds are obviously heavier than air and had been flying long before the Wrights.

I might add. though it may be a bit off the subject, that some ‘creationists’ actually believe that the moon landings were faked and that, in ‘fact’, the moon and the other heavenly bodies are not solid objects at all but only lights that God has placed in the sky for us, illusions if you will. Silly? Of course, but not really much sillier than accepting the Bible as legitimate science.

 

[ricmat]

"Everyone’ didn’t ‘absolutely know’ that, only those completely ignorant of the laws of aerodynamics ‘knew’ that. Birds are obviously heavier than air and had been flying long before the Wrights.

The laws of aerodynamics were pretty thin prior to the Wrights doing their experiments. I did exaggerate when I said “everybody”, but many of the best scientists of the time believed that heavier than air flight was impossible.

I like the story of the Wright Bros. Bicycle mechanics who made it happen. But for this comparison, there are probably better examples than the Wrights. But my point is that that science tends to ridicule people right up to the point at which they have the smoking gun. Then they give them a Nobel prize.

I might add. though it may be a bit off the subject, that some ‘creationists’ actually believe that the moon landings were faked and that, in ‘fact’, the moon and the other heavenly bodies are not solid objects at all but only lights that God has placed in the sky for us, illusions if you will. Silly? Of course, but not really much sillier than accepting the Bible as legitimate science.

I’m not a creationist, and I agree that the Bible is not meant to be a science book, but it seems to me that there are many people who are not creationists who also believe that the moon landings were faked. And who believe in UFOs, bigfoot, that they were Napoleon in a previous life, and so forth. So what?

 

[beeliner]

1. … many of the best scientists of the time believed that heavier than air flight was impossible.
2. …there are many people who are not creationists who also believe that the moon landings were faked. And who believe in UFOs, bigfoot, that they were Napoleon in a previous life, and so forth. So what?

1. Can you provide some documentation of that? I’m not certain that you’re wrong, but somehow it doesn’t ring true. They may have believed that MAN-POWERED flight was impossible, that was believed until recently when several successful man-powered aircraft were produced.
2. Indeed, and that is just the point. The claims of the ‘creationists’ are just as looney, yet they continue fighting to have their nonsense taught as science in public schools.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So where does Pope Benedict get his intricate understanding of evolutionary theory? Is he taking scientists’ word for it? Has he studied it extensively?

As chairman of the International Theological Commission, studying faith and science, Cardinal Ratzinger had the benefit of some of the world’s great scientists considering the nature of evolution and the Church.

He has learned a great deal about it, and although he is not a trained biologist, he does have considerable understanding of the process.

 

[The_Barbarian]

He can always change his mind again in that case. Intelligent Design is a fairly new field of study and it is gaining support, not losing it.

It’s about a hundred years old, as we know it. Had a couple of name changes, though. First it was “Flood Geology”, then “Scientific Creationism”, and now “Intelligent Design.” We’ll probably see one or two more in the coming decades.

 

[ricmat]

1. Can you provide some documentation of that? I’m not certain that you’re wrong, but somehow it doesn’t ring true. They may have believed that MAN-POWERED flight was impossible, that was believed until recently when several successful man-powered aircraft were produced.
2. Indeed, and that is just the point. The claims of the ‘creationists’ are just as looney, yet they continue fighting to have their nonsense taught as science in public schools.

How about Lord Kelvin? This was the first hit on google for heavier than air flight impossible.

ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/09/lord-kelvin-1895-heavier-than-air.html

 

[rusty20]

As chairman of the International Theological Commission, studying faith and science, Cardinal Ratzinger had the benefit of some of the world’s great scientists considering the nature of evolution and the Church.

He has learned a great deal about it, and although he is not a trained biologist, he does have considerable understanding of the process.

Yay! An answer to my question. thanks! That clears things up a little for me

 

[ricmat]

1. Indeed, and that is just the point. The claims of the ‘creationists’ are just as looney, yet they continue fighting to have their nonsense taught as science in public schools.

I’m not for teaching creationism as science, but it should be noted that what is taught as science is our “best guess at the time.” In college, we were told not to get too cocky because half of the science we were taught was going to be obsolete (i.e. "wrong) in 5 years (or maybe it was 10 years). So I guess it could be said that even without creationism, we’re already teaching science nonsense in our public schools

 

[Pelagius]

I suppose evolution is a difficulty for some Catholics because Catholics don’t always take the side of the Pope, in this case John Paul II. Well, this non-Catholic takes the Pope’s side. There is simply too much evidence for evolution, including the genetic material human beings have in common not only with animals but with plants. Does evolution contradict Genesis? To me this is simply not a difficulty. After all, some parts of Scripture contradict other parts, e.g., Yahwistic versus Elohistic passages. Did Jesus feed five thousand on one occasion and four thousand on another, or, more likely, are these variant versions of one incident?

 

[ricmat]

It’s about a hundred years old, as we know it. Had a couple of name changes, though. First it was “Flood Geology”, then “Scientific Creationism”, and now “Intelligent Design.” We’ll probably see one or two more in the coming decades.

Intelligent design goes back more than 100 years.

The key attribute of ID is finding order and design in nature. A short excerpt of the origins of ID is shown below…From this article:

Plato and Aristotle both argued that nature is teleological, a term that comes from the Greek telos meaning “directed by goal or purpose”. In other words, the evidence of nature leads logically to the idea that behind the purely natural is some kind of rational, non-natural order, something Plato referred to as “Form” and which Aristotle referred to as “Idea”.

Indeed, as Barbarian points out there have been some creationists, who wishing to push their own agenda have attempted to ride the coattails of intelligent design to advance their own agenda. Much like atheists attempt to ride the coattails of random mutations and natural selection (evolution) to push their agenda.

 

[Brian_Millar]

I’m having fun with this thread, please, keep it cival people, I have faith that we can have a respectful discusion along this matter.

 

[beeliner]

I’m not for teaching creationism as science, but it should be noted that what is taught as science is our “best guess at the time.” In college, we were told not to get too cocky because half of the science we were taught was going to be obsolete (i.e. "wrong) in 5 years (or maybe it was 10 years). So I guess it could be said that even without creationism, we’re already teaching science nonsense in our public schools

I’m with you right up to your last sentence.

Teaching what is known is not ‘nonsense’ simply because other things are not yet known.

Newton, Freud, Einstein, one could name scores of others whose work has been improved upon over the years and centuries. That does not make their seminal contributions to human knowledge any less important.

The point is, whatever new findings come along in biology, anthropology, cosmology and the other physical sciences, those findings have not gone, and will not be going in the direction of ‘creationism’ but away from it.

 

[ricmat]

I’m with you right up to your last sentence.

Teaching what is known is not ‘nonsense’ simply because other things are not yet known.

Newton, Freud, Einstein, one could name scores of others whose work has been improved upon over the years and centuries. That does not make their seminal contributions to human knowledge any less important.

The point is, whatever new findings come along in biology, anthropology, cosmology and the other physical sciences, those findings have not gone, and will not be going in the direction of ‘creationism’ but away from it.

I’m not trying to defend creationism as science here. I’m not against scientific advancements. I’m not against teaching what we think we know as correct in science class.

My comment was not about what’s unknown. It’s about what one thinks IS known - as is “taught with certainty that it is true”, and later turns out to be false.

My main point was just that science that used to be taught is now seen as nonsense. Like maggots spontaneously being generated from dead flesh. Now we say “nonsense.” But 400 years ago, that’s what was learned in science class.

Some scientists (as well as others, of course) are full of hubris because they “know everything, or almost everything.” This is a dangerous attitude, especially if one looks to the past to see what has happened. Lord Kelvin is one good example. The mighty being brought down from his throne…

 

[reggieM]

The point is, whatever new findings come along in biology, anthropology, cosmology and the other physical sciences, those findings have not gone, and will not be going in the direction of ‘creationism’ but away from it.

This upcoming Conference at Oxford University indicates an increasing interest in the academic value of Intelligent Design arguments (from many aspects).

users.ox.ac.uk/~theo0038/Conferenceinfo/Callforpapers.htm

 

[beeliner]

This upcoming Conference at Oxford University indicates an increasing interest in the academic value of Intelligent Design arguments (from many aspects).

users.ox.ac.uk/~theo0038/Conferenceinfo/Callforpapers.htm

And it appears that it will be a very interesting conference indeed, BUT…

It’s being sponsored by the THEOLOGY department. That’s fine, of course, and I have personally stated here that I believe in ID as a matter of religious faith. So, I’m sure, do many of those, though probably not all, who will be participating.

A similar conference given by the department of Astromony, Biology, Chemistry, or Physics would be much more indicative of an ‘increasing interest’ in ID. I doubt that that will occur any time soon.

The Theological interest has been there all along.