Some folk wish to blur the line, but imho there’s a clear distinction between the respectable pedigree of the teleological argument and the blip of ID born out of last century US politics.
There is no “baroque complexity” or political motive in the view that the origin of life is not due to a fortuitous conjunction of molecules…Some folk wish to blur the line, but imho there’s a clear distinction between the respectable pedigree of the teleological argument and the blip of ID born out of last century US politics.
On the one hand a clear and simple argument, on the other a theory of baroque complexity where no notion, no matter how poor, ever gets thrown away, which is why ID, like all those conspiracy theories, will eventually die of its own accord, no problema.
Welcome to the forum!
An impressive first post which demonstrates that some people cannot see the wood for the trees - and are on the slippery slope to non-Design…That colossal explosion didn’t put God out of action - as some might have you believe.
Thank you for two interesting sources of information. Especially useful is the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
It would take about five and a half posts to properly respond to your request. This is because Catholicism and science are not always mutually exclusive. Thus, my suggestion is to read my posts to see what position I am taking at that particular time.Thanks for your compliment!Before trying to answer your question it would be useful to know if you believe Catholicism and science are mutually exclusive…
Nobody says that, but you never tire of your old strawmen.That colossal explosion didn’t put God out of action - as some might have you believe.
Where is your sense of humour?Nobody says that, but you never tire of your old strawmen.
It remains a fact that for Christians science is not an adequate explanation of human sexuality…
It is sufficent to know that you believe Catholicism and science are not always mutually exclusive. In other words there must be common ground - of which human sexuality is but one aspect.
Yes, many would have us believe that.That colossal explosion didn’t put God out of action - as some might have you believe.
Every era finds new attacks against Christian faith – like Darwinism, Deism, mechanism – from the 19th century.
Good thoughts – certainly good application of the Design Argument.
As long as the Holy Word that urges us to “consider the lilies” (Luke 12:27) is read, the Design Argument (of the ID variety) will persist.On the one hand a clear and simple argument, on the other a theory of baroque complexity where no notion, no matter how poor, ever gets thrown away, which is why ID, like all those conspiracy theories, will eventually die of its own accord, no problema.
Excellent point. Because of design we know we have a God who is involved with His creation. It was the product of His design – intention, plan, purpose. It was not merely the accidental (unplanned, unknown, surprise) outcome of some laws He created.
That’s an essential point. A materialist-atheist, for example, who denies that there is a divine moral law, cannot justly create a sense of moral outrage about passages read from the Bible.
That’s a fascinating point and perfectly reasonable. The fact that male and female have different functions and have to join those to successfully reproduce is an indicator of design. Both male and female have to be complimentary and different. This creates inter-functional or combinatorial dependencies. Where there is a change in one thing, it affects all other parts of the system. Changes in either side of the male/female function would prevent reproduction entirely.
Exactly. It’s an illogical and irrational idea even from a secular point of view. From a Christian view it violates the relational nature of human life which is essential to the plan of God.
Or to random mutations!
At least for those who believe God is not an impotent observer…
