Creation or Evolution

[edwest2]

The Pontifial Academy of Sciences does do science. Most early centers of learning were established by the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

The Pontifial Academy of Sciences does do science. Most early centers of learning were established by the Church.

Peace,
Ed

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of science is done in secular institutions. When religion interferes with science it ceases to be valuable science but it is acceptable to the religious folks.

 

[Nullasalus]

I don’t have a plan. ID isn’t science at all.

Religion can’t do science because religion is all about belief and science has no room for belief.

Science has plenty of room for belief - maybe not dogma, but that certainly hasn’t stopped plenty of scientists from being dogmatic. And science can’t touch on every aspect of reality either, with the existence of God being a perfect example of one subject.

And hey, if you admit that you can discern God in nature, you admit to ID’s basic gameplan (Which I do not personally endorse - I know science has a limit.) So, take your choice. God is a topic open to science, and therefore ID has a foot in the door. Or God is a topic science can’t falsify, and ID is left outside (along with atheism).

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of science is done in secular institutions. When religion interferes with science it ceases to be valuable science but it is acceptable to the religious folks.

Religious people doing science is not an ‘interference’.

Wow. It’s impressive to see so much ignorance of science, and the limits of science, on all sides here.

 

[Church_Militant]

I must disagree here. This does not follow. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church makes pronouncements about science all the time. There is a Catholic Bioethics Center staffed by priests and religious who have a competent understanding of scientific issues.

ncbcenter.org/

Peace,
EdNot the point though. This discussion is about creation and evolution and neither field can definitively prove their case.

 

[edwest2]

Why is science so important here? If facts are facts, they should speak for themselves, but too many here are arguing from a purely political view.

Catholics know what the Church teaches, and it comments on science all the time. If ID has done no credible science then it should be a dead issue, but it is not due to purely political, not scientific, concerns.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of science is done in secular institutions. When religion interferes with science it ceases to be valuable science but it is acceptable to the religious folks.

What? Religion has been interfering with science for a long time. Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph, sent this first message: “What hath God wrought?” Gregor Mendel was a monk. Just because certain ideologues have decided to excise God’s influence on science from certain books does not make that influence go away.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Not the point though. This discussion is about creation and evolution and neither field can definitively prove their case.

This is not the case. The Catholic Church teaches that random mutation and natural selection without divine providence simply cannot exist. This is what I believe. The information from science combined with divine revelation allows for the complete answer to be given.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Why is science so important here? If facts are facts, they should speak for themselves, but too many here are arguing from a purely political view.

That would be you, Ed.

Catholics know what the Church teaches, and it comments on science all the time. If ID has done no credible science then it should be a dead issue, but it is not due to purely political, not scientific, concerns.

ID is only around for political purposes as it has no other basis.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

This is not the case. The Catholic Church teaches that random mutation and natural selection without divine providence simply cannot exist. This is what I believe. The information from science combined with divine revelation allows for the complete answer to be given.

Let me ask you something Ed. Is God bound by man’s understanding of random? If not, why do you have any problem with a scientific theory that includes random mutations from a human viewpoint?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

ID is only around for political purposes as it has no other basis.

Given that there are scientists and scholars with different religious and political backgrounds who support the science of ID, I’d like to see some proof for your comment here.

I think it will be difficult for you to defend an absolute conclusion like that (ID is **only **political and has **no **other basis).

I’d think that you’ d have to read and evaluate every ID book published in order to make that kind of sweeping judgement.

 

[Orogeny]

Given that there are scientists and scholars with different religious and political backgrounds who support the science of ID, I’d like to see some proof for your comment here.

There is no scientific evidence for it. Since the proponents of ID continue to push it as a viable science without evidence, it is either a faith or a political position. Take your pick.

I think it will be difficult for you to defend an absolute conclusion like that (ID is **only **political and has **no **other basis).

You are right. Let me restate my position. At this time, ID is either only a political position or only a faith position.

I’d think that you’ d have to read and evaluate every ID book published in order to make that kind of sweeping judgement.

Nope. ID has the burden of proof that it is science. If any real science came out of that movement, it would be easy to find and I could skip the other, um, books.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

That would be you, Ed.ID is only around for political purposes as it has no other basis.

Peace

Tim

So let it run its course. Let them purse thier mission and see what they come up with. Science does this all the time and it is encouraged.

 

[Orogeny]

So let it run its course. Let them purse thier mission and see what they come up with. Science does this all the time and it is encouraged.

I’m ok with that. Let’s end the calls for it to be taught in science classes unless/until it actually comes up with something.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

I’m ok with that. Let’s end the calls for it to be taught in science classes unless/until it actually comes up with something.

Peace

Tim

I have agreed that it should not be taught in science class. Let’s stick to empirical science in the classroom and nothing else. Add metaphysics and philosophy as additional mandated courses.

 

[Orogeny]

I have agreed that it should not be taught in science class. Let’s stick to empirical science in the classroom and nothing else. Add metaphysics and philosophy as additional mandated courses.

But isn’t that a political opinion?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Let me restate my position. At this time, ID is either only a political position or only a faith position.

Well, while you’re “restating” your initial opinion, you might add that it could also be a philosophical position since that’s how it started centuries ago. Additionally, there are agnostics who support ID without a political or theological position.

Additionally, how this is categorized depends on who has the right to claim what is science and what isn’t. You claim that it is not. Other scientists claim that it is.

An atheistic-scientist on another one of these evolution threads here on CAF claims that Mathematics is a branch of science. He also claims that the study of logic is “science” since it originated as an element of scientific research (when philosophy was considered science).

So again, I wouldn’t say it’s as clear-cut or absolute as you made it seem initially, or even since you revised your views on it either.

 

[Orogeny]

Well, while you’re “restating” your initial opinion, you might add that it could also be a philosophical position since that’s how it started centuries ago. Additionally, there are agnostics who support ID without a political or theological position.

It clearly isn’t a scientific position.

Additionally, how this is categorized depends on who has the right to claim what is science and what isn’t. You claim that it is not. Other scientists claim that it is.

Then they do so from a faith position because there is no scientific evidence for it.

An atheistic-scientist on another one of these evolution threads here on CAF claims that Mathematics is a branch of science. He also claims that the study of logic is “science” since it originated as an element of scientific research (when philosophy was considered science).

So again, I wouldn’t say it’s as clear-cut or absolute as you made it seem initially, or even since you revised your views on it either.

Show me the evidence. That is the bottom line.

Did you read the post I initially responded to? If so, perhaps you understand why I posted what I did.

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

ID is a valid scientific inquiry, however, here, due to politics, it cannot be discussed correctly. While I do not agree with all the ideas brought out, the basics behind Intelligent Design work, primarily irreducible complexity and information theory, which makes the simple statement that cells cannot acquire the information they need to assemble themselves from thin air.

But, as has been demonstrated here numerous times, the problem is never the scientific questions but a profound atheism that wants to make certain that any hint of God or problems with current evolution theory never reach the classroom. This is censorship.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

ID is a valid scientific inquiry, however, here, due to politics, it cannot be discussed correctly. While I do not agree with all the ideas brought out, the basics behind Intelligent Design work, primarily irreducible complexity and information theory, which makes the simple statement that cells cannot acquire the information they need to assemble themselves from thin air.

But, as has been demonstrated here numerous times, the problem is never the scientific questions but a profound atheism that wants to make certain that any hint of God or problems with current evolution theory never reach the classroom. This is censorship.

You are backing an idea that you call scientific yet it has no evidence to support it. On the other hand, you don’t want evolution, which has a massive amount of evidence to support it, taught in school. Who is being political, Ed?

Crying “censorship” does you no good. There is nothing to censor.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Did you read the post I initially responded to? If so, perhaps you understand why I posted what I did.

No, I just jumped in at the end. I noticed that you made a rash comment that could not be supported. You corrected it somewhat from that point though (you’d say now that “ID is **only **politics, or **only **faith, or **only **philosophy or only some combination of those”.)

In any case, it doesn’t help your argument to make those kinds of absolute statements – they’re easy to refute.

It also leads me to believe that you’re overstating other points in your arguments – not thinking reflectively enough about what you’re saying.