Evidence for Design?

[Bobber90]

Not only God but also His Creation.
It can’t!
Not entirely. The lust for power is satisfied.

We are not given pride but the opportunity to choose to be proud. Desires are only evil if they cause harm and we give way to them knowing our actions will harm others.
Life?!

When you say that we have the opportunity to choose to be proud, do you literally believe that pride is nothing but the consequence of a choice/of choices, or are you saying it in the sense that one would use to coach someone into not being a generally proud person. As in “You can choose to reject pride, not to be led by it.”?

If pride is the consequences of misinformed choices, then it is not necessarily our fault that we were too short-sighted to avoid it. If pride is somewhat foundational and itself a cause of choices, then it is part or our character and even if barely present, it is a blemish God is responsible for. Surely?

Couldn’t we lose just the bad drives and instead have been created as neutral vessels for learning about God’s love? I would hate to bring in something as crass and inflammatory as a Hitchens quote, but isn’t there an alternative to being created sick and ordered to be well?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Yes, I agree. It’s simpler and more elegant to say that all secondary causes are the product of natural laws. But I think that’s over-simplistic and therefore not an accurate representation of reality. The natural laws (as far as we know what they are and how they work) are not as absolute as it would seem. Even the laws of mathematics encounter paradoxes. God has designed the world with an understandable, but at the same time, paradoxical structure.

Jesus taught us the spiritual laws of the universe – and they are paradoxical. A person who thinks that everything operates by fixed natural laws (as evolutionists do) will not be able to understand the spiritual teachings of Catholicism.

Give and you shall receive. Die and you will live. Love your life and you will lose it. Blessed are those who mourn, who are poor, who are persecuted.

These are just some of the paradoxes that Jesus came to teach us.

That’s a very relevant quote also. By moving natural causes, He does not impede nature.
The false assumption of scientism is that we fully comprehend the natural laws, and therefore reality.

The Darwinian idea is reductionist. Everything is reduced to the molecular level. Beings in their wholeness are really just the sum of their parts.

But doesn’t this argue against ‘irreducible complexity’? What we do not understand today does not necessitate that we will not understand tomorrow. That’s why I don’t argue for biological ID, today we can say it is irreducible, tomorrow might prove that wrong.

Yes, exactly. And among many other evidences in nature in my opinion.

True, but agents have varying degrees of perfection (actuality). So, while an unintelligent agent is still governed by the perfection of divine providence, the effects that it causes (secondarily) are far less perfect than those of an intelligent agent like a human being.

For example, tfiring of spark plugs and the movement of pistons are a secondary cause. The intelligence which comes before those physical actions has more actuality – more perfection. The intelligence which created the engine acted with purpose and intention – and created the wholeness of the engine. The spark-plugs can only do what an unintelligent agent does. Yes, it is moved from potentiality to act through a greater perfection, but its act is less perfect.

The human mind is an expression of God’s perfection.

I think we agree that the product of the human person is God-breathed, concerning the soul (the form) and the hylemorphic dualism of the person. But the humanoid (the matter) is a result of natural evolution in the teleological sense.

 

[tonyrey]

*All love entails sacrifice.
No man (or woman) is an island! We are not isolated individuals but members of the human race.
We don’t exist purely to suffer but to enjoy life - only not at the expense of others…

Thank you for all these searching questions!
We can enjoy life fully if we exercise some degree of self-control. That is why excessive wealth is a disadvantage.

If we keep from hurting others, enjoy life, understand and love God’s decision to create us and wish to atone for Adam and Eve, what is the nature of the sacrifice we would have to make to deserve heaven?

We have to do more than keep from hurting others by doing what we can to alleviate their suffering.

If it is important for God’s creation to make a journey towards Him and to learn and progress spiritually from a low base (earth), then why not put everyone who sins and fails in life into purgatory? No need for Hell - people don’t learn about God in there.

I believe we have a foretaste of Purgatory, Heaven and Hell in this life but the final outcome is not decided here because we don’t have full understanding of the consequences of our decisions. No one learns or needs to learn about God in Hell because the damned have demonstrated their allegiance - to themselves!
“None are so blind as those who will not see”. All evil is a form of ignorance but it is culpable ignorance because we can distinguish good from evil and we’re well aware when we have caused needless suffering for our own benefit. I believe the lust for power is the root of all evil…

 

[tonyrey]

*Not only God but also His Creation.
It can’t!
Not entirely. The lust for power is satisfied.

We are not given pride but the opportunity to choose to be proud. Desires are only evil if they cause harm and we give way to them knowing our actions will harm others.
Life?! *

Pride is obviously a complex subject. Some are born proud, some make themselves proud and some have pride thrust upon them (with apologies to William!). It can be a blemish but God didn’t create us as we are. We are the product of many factors but very few of us have no responsibility whatsoever for what we choose to do and be - as we discover if we have to appear in a court of law.

Couldn’t we lose just the bad drives and instead have been created as neutral vessels for learning about God’s love? I would hate to bring in something as crass and inflammatory as a Hitchens quote, but isn’t there an alternative to being created sick and ordered to be well?

How could we be created neutral? In any case we are not sick but weak and vulnerable as the inevitable result of being members of a community vitiated by the crimes committed by our ancestors. The bloodstained history of the human race is ample evidence that we live in a polluted moral environment. A neutral Utopia is sheer fantasy!

 

[grannymh]

Well I have seen defences of the problem of evil which say that evil is the act of going against God. How can any measure of disagreeing with God be good? If it is not truly good, then whatever ‘compensations’ it has are illusory. Hence we have been given pride and desires which do nothing other than lead us to hell. What do we lose by not having these desires?

In practical free will language. Catholicism teaches that a person’s will is naturally directed toward the greatest good which is eternal peace with God. In this case, less can be bad.

What happens in our real world is that not everything we desire is for our greatest good. Too much dark chocolate is not good for my waistline. However, long, full blouses are in style so why should I worry. By munching a dark chocolate bar, in reality I am choosing a lesser good. If I were diabetic, it would be more of a lesser good.

What I am saying is that being humans, we often prefer to fool ourselves about what really is our greatest good. When we deliberately fool ourselves, then we take responsibility for our choice and its consequences. Yes, I am including a loop hole because I am not qualified to judge other people’s choices. This is why I love the idea of choosing Jesus as my personal Savior. He understands me outside in and still He offers me the opportunity to be with Him forever. Then He respects my choice, good or bad.

 

[Bobber90]

Pride is obviously a complex subject. Some are born proud, some make themselves proud and some have pride thrust upon them (with apologies to William!). It can be a blemish but God didn’t create us as we are. We are the product of many factors but very few of us have no responsibility whatsoever for what we choose to do and be - as we discover if we have to appear in a court of law.

How could we be created neutral? In any case we are not sick but weak and vulnerable as the inevitable result of being members of a community vitiated by the crimes committed by our ancestors. The bloodstained history of the human race is ample evidence that we live in a polluted moral environment. A neutral Utopia is sheer fantasy!

I can see that we are all the product of many factors, I just cannot so easily see that we are yet the product in some measure only of ourselves. I cannot see how we could create the origins of a causal chain which then directs our actions. There are always causes of our thoughts…?

I’m imagining another line of questioning that goes something like this:

Are your thoughts caused, tonyrey?

Tonyrey: “Yes, I deliberately cause them in line with reason, as much as I can. They do not come from a swirl of chemicals, as you think”.

Do you cause them with your soul?

Tonyrey: “They come from me alone, so yes they come from my soul”

Do your thoughts cause you to change, either in intention or action?

Tonyrey:“Yes.”

Does that change your soul?

Tonyrey: “No, my soul is my soul”

Ok, so do your thoughts change you?

Tonyrey: “When I think rationally, I decide that I should be compelled by them, so I guess I can accept that my thoughts change me. I know what you’re going to say though, that therefore my thoughts change my soul, that’s not the case.”

Ok, I won’t say it.

Tonyrey: “Good.”

Well if your thoughts change ‘you’, and you are your soul, then your thoughts change your soul.

Tonyrey: “I knew you would say it.”

So if your thoughts cause your soul and your soul causes your thoughts, which bit is you? And where do your thoughts come from?

Tonyrey: “Typical agnostic”

[continues anyway] How do we cause the start of a chain that determines our behaviour?

 

[grannymh]

How do we cause the start of a chain that determines our behaviour?

I want to know the answer since I would like to get rid of some annoying habits. Dark chocolate is one. The scale is no good as far as starting a chain.

Would a good place to begin is to get a general idea of our own human nature? And what would we like to act or be as a chain? Someone we could trust? Or a detailed appointment book and a diary?

 

[Bobber90]

In practical free will language. Catholicism teaches that a person’s will is naturally directed toward the greatest good which is eternal peace with God. In this case, less can be bad.

What happens in our real world is that not everything we desire is for our greatest good. Too much dark chocolate is not good for my waistline. However, long, full blouses are in style so why should I worry. By munching a dark chocolate bar, in reality I am choosing a lesser good. If I were diabetic, it would be more of a lesser good.

What I am saying is that being humans, we often prefer to fool ourselves about what really is our greatest good. When we deliberately fool ourselves, then we take responsibility for our choice and its consequences. Yes, I am including a loop hole because I am not qualified to judge other people’s choices. This is why I love the idea of choosing Jesus as my personal Savior. He understands me outside in and still He offers me the opportunity to be with Him forever. Then He respects my choice, good or bad.

It makes it even more pertinent to ask why we were not given morally blank or neutral characters, rather than ones loaded with pride (etc), when we consider that ‘a person’s will is naturally directed toward the greatest good’. If that is so, why not just leave us with that trait dominant, and beatitude and eternal glory on earth would reign from day one.

Instead, we have not only the ability, but the drive to lie to ourselves about what we’re really doing and what we are motivated by. By virtue of the fact that we face illusory and self-deceptive alternatives, the love of God is not made true. The love of God (and good) comes from the positive recognition of God’s nature, not by comparison with illusion. So why were we not simply made capable of instantly recognising God, and left to get on with it?

I think it is a very human way of demonstrating true appreciation of someone, to deny and subordinate an alternative - this reassures us that anyone witnessing us (and indeed ourselves, that we) can see our feelings are authentic. But God needs no-one’s approval or witness: if His creation loves Him in spite of never sinning/repenting, then they love Him. He is absolute Good, not relative good, and need not be appreciated by contrast.

 

[grannymh]

It makes it even more pertinent to ask why we were not given morally blank or neutral characters, rather than ones loaded with pride (etc), when we consider that ‘a person’s will is naturally directed toward the greatest good’. If that is so, why not just leave us with that trait dominant, and beatitude and eternal glory on earth would reign from day one.

Catholicism teaches that original human nature was not loaded with pride. Pride was the first human’s choice which resulted in original sin.

While I can sympathize with the rest of your post, it needs to take into account the difference between the Creator and the createe. It is true that the Creator is not dependent on His creatures. It is also true that His creatures are not on an equal level with their Creator. We do not have the capability to set the rules for friendship with our Creator. This is why I do not have answers to your wishes.

Nonetheless, I do trust the Catholic Church.

 

[tonyrey]

*Pride is obviously a complex subject. Some are born proud, some make themselves proud and some have pride thrust upon them (with apologies to William!). It can be a blemish but God didn’t create us as we are. We are the product of many factors but very few of us have no responsibility whatsoever for what we choose to do and be - as we discover if we have to appear in a court of law.

That is because you are thinking in terms of physical causality. In any law court we and we alone are considered responsible for our actions. We cannot appeal to “a causal claim” to disclaim guilt for a crime we may have committed. We cannot pass the buck because we are **persons **not things.We treat and respect one another as agents, not products of purposeless events…

I’m imagining another line of questioning that goes something like this:

You should be a scriptwriter!

Are your thoughts caused, tonyrey?

Tonyrey: “Yes, I deliberately cause them in line with reason, as much as I can. They do not come from a swirl of chemicals, as you think”.

Do you cause them with your soul?

Tonyrey: “They come from me alone, so yes they come from my soul”

My thoughts are caused by events and by my decisions.

Do your thoughts cause you to change, either in intention or action?

Tonyrey:“Yes.”

No. **I **choose whether or not to change.

Does that change your soul?

Tonyrey: “No, my soul is my soul”

Soul is a theological term.

Ok, so do your thoughts change you?

Tonyrey: “When I think rationally, I decide that I should be compelled by them, so I guess I can accept that my thoughts change me. I know what you’re going to say though, that therefore my thoughts change my soul, that’s not the case.”

Ok, I won’t say it.

Tonyrey: “Good.”

Well if your thoughts change ‘you’, and you are your soul, then your thoughts change your soul.

Tonyrey: “I knew you would say it.”

So if your thoughts cause your soul and your soul causes your thoughts, which bit is you? And where do your thoughts come from?

Tonyrey: “Typical agnostic”

Not a comment I would make! I would answer the questions:

1. My thoughts don’t cause me.
2. My thoughts are caused by events **and **by **my **decisions.

[continues anyway] How do we cause the start of a chain that determines our behaviour?

I don’t claim to have insight into the ultimate nature of reality but there is no valid reason to believe persons are things produced by purposeless events. Why should everyone and **everything **be explained in the least significant aspect of life?

Materialism is a rare phenomenon in the history of civilisation because the power of the mind is generally accepted as fact rather than fiction. It is ironic that materialists use their mind to try to prove it doesn’t exist…

 

[tonyrey]

We live in a secular environment dominated by scientific ideas which push spiritual reality to the fringe of life. That is why Design is sometimes thought to be restricted to the Creation of the universe and the laws of nature with rare divine interventions like the infusion of the human soul. Yet if our belief in a loving Father is realistic we need to see His activity as a constant occurrence rather than an occasional event. He not only sustains the existence of everyone and everything but He also cares for His creatures in every possible way - if we are to accept the teaching of Jesus.

Miracles must therefore be the rule rather than the exception! They dominate every aspect of life even though we are not aware of them. Life itself is a miracle that cannot be adequately explained by chemical reactions because it has an urge to survive. There is no valid reason to believe living beings are nothing but machines. The eminent neuroscientist Sir Charles Sherrington observed that it is impossible to know at what level the spiritual aspect of life commences. Why out of all the creatures in the universe should souls be restricted to human beings? Animals are not rational to the same extent that we are but they are certainly remarkable in their individuality and responses to their environment.

The survival of life has been miraculous considering the overwhelming odds against evading all the dangers in a hostile universe over a period of billions of years. Total extinction has almost occurred several times on this planet - with the destruction of the most advanced organisms. Complexity is a serious handicap as far as survival is concerned yet the most complex phenomenon in the universe exists on this planet: the human brain. Only an irrational sceptic could fail to wonder whether this is a miracle…

Leibniz noted that there are far more houses than hospitals in the world in defence of his view that this is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire’s satire failed to demonstrate **how **the drawbacks of life could be eliminated without resorting to fantasy. The fact remains that the vast majority of living beings are not deformed or diseased or mutilated or killed by natural disasters - even though Mexico City and other human projects are disasters waiting to happen as a result of greed and stupidity.

I believe miracles are not rare events but common occurrences because the power of the mind is scientifically inexplicable. We take it for granted that we can control ourselves and our environment but the success of science proves beyond all doubt that it is not an illusion. Even before modern technology Pascal had pointed out that we are aware that the universe exists whereas the universe is unaware of our existence - or anything else for that matter. Surely this is enough to give anyone food for thought!

The most convincing evidence that miracles constantly occur is not to be found in external events but within the mind. The lives of great men and women of every race and nation are testimony to the nobility and power of the human spirit. Nor can this be attributed to “a fortuitous concourse of atoms”. Our ability to recognise and pursue truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love is not an accident but a gift intended entirely for our benefit in this life and after death…

 

[Bobber90]

Haha! If I was a scriptwriter I would only write irritating scripts. Of course we do treat each other as agents, but if it turned out that we do not cause our own actions it would be significant nonetheless.

That is because you are thinking in terms of physical causality. In any law court we and we alone are considered responsible for our actions. We cannot appeal to “a causal claim” to disclaim guilt for a crime we may have committed. We cannot pass the buck because we are **persons **not things.We treat and respect one another as agents, not products of purposeless events… You should be a scriptwriter!
My thoughts are caused by events and by my decisions.
No. **I **choose whether or not to change.

Soul is a theological term.
Not a comment I would make! I would answer the questions:

1. My thoughts don’t cause me.
2. My thoughts are caused by events **and **by **my **decisions.

I don’t claim to have insight into the ultimate nature of reality but there is no valid reason to believe persons are things produced by purposeless events. Why should everyone and **everything **be explained in the least significant aspect of life?

Materialism is a rare phenomenon in the history of civilisation because the power of the mind is generally accepted as fact rather than fiction. It is ironic that materialists use their mind to try to prove it doesn’t exist…

I would say that if we were consciously in control of our will, we would know the answer to the question how do we initiate a causal chain (ie, make a decision)?. Because that is basically saying, describe your conscious activity as you make a decision. I do privilege the non-conscious and especially the material in explaining the mind, so I can resort to explaining cognition in terms of things which are not themselves conscious or experiencing. However, you seem to be explaining cognition in terms of cognition, which means surely you know how it is to start a causal chain out of no prior causes?

Going back to the causes of your thoughts - you say your thoughts are caused by your decisions as well as by events. But don’t we make decisions by thinking? Isn’t it fair to say that you compose your thoughts by decision, and your decision is composed by thought?

You do say that ‘**I **choose whether or not to change [on the basis of my thoughts]’ which means that you locate yourself at the point of decision. And what composes you if not your own decision-making thoughts? Hence we get the same kind of circularity I thought would exist between your soul and your thoughts:

(Me) decisions <–> thoughts

Come over to the dark side, and explain it thus:

Chemical swirl > action > perception of conscious decision

 

[tonyrey]

Haha! If I was a scriptwriter I would only write irritating scripts.

Then it’s better if you don’t!

Of course we do treat each other as agents, but if it turned out that we do not cause our own actions it would be significant nonetheless.

Why?

That is because you are thinking in terms of physical causality. In any law court we and we alone are considered responsible for our actions. We cannot appeal to “a causal claim” to disclaim guilt for a crime we may have committed. We cannot pass the buck because we are **persons **not things.We treat and respect one another as agents, not products of purposeless events…
My thoughts are caused by events and by my decisions.
No. **I **choose whether or not to change.

1. My thoughts don’t cause me.

1. My thoughts are caused by events **and **by **my **decisions.

I don’t claim to have insight into the ultimate nature of reality but there is no valid reason to believe persons are things produced by purposeless events. Why should everyone and **everything **be explained by the least significant aspect of life?

Materialism is a rare phenomenon in the history of civilisation because the power of the mind is generally accepted as fact rather than fiction. It is ironic that materialists use their mind to try to prove it doesn’t exist…

I would say that if we were consciously in control of our will, we would know the answer to the question how do we initiate a causal chain (ie, make a decision)? Because that is basically saying, describe your conscious activity as you make a decision.

Not necessarily. We can think but we don’t know how we think - unless you can explain it.

I do privilege the non-conscious and especially the material in explaining the mind, so I can resort to explaining cognition in terms of things which are not themselves conscious or experiencing. However, you seem to be explaining cognition in terms of cognition, which means surely you know how it is to start a causal chain out of no prior causes?

I’m not explaining cognition or willpower. I believe they are irreducible facts - just as you seem to believe physical energy is an irreducible fact…

Going back to the causes of your thoughts - you say your thoughts are caused by your decisions as well as by events. But don’t we make decisions by thinking? Isn’t it fair to say that you compose your thoughts by decision, and your decision is composed by thought?

We can make decisions without pausing to think! Usually we take our thoughts into account when **we **make our decisions but they don’t cause our decisions, we do…

You do say that ‘**I **choose whether or not to change [on the basis of my thoughts]’ which means that you locate yourself at the point of decision. And what composes you if not your own decision-making thoughts? Hence we get the same kind of circularity I thought would exist between your soul and your thoughts:
(Me) decisions <–> thoughts

There is no circularity because the buck stops with us. We are “prime movers”, not cogs in a machine (a view which is associated with the unproven theory of materialism).

Come over to the dark side, and explain it thus:

Chemical swirl > action > perception of conscious decision

It is far more reasonable to regard reason as a source of illumination than reduce it to irrational reactions!

 

[edwest2]

What I have added is to name the category of the actual battlefield of evidence [genetic diversity] used by current research. I have demonstrated what inferences are possible in the scientific domain. It is time to meet the scientist on her or his court.

This does not imply that the scientist herself or himself is automatically in error. It is with respect that we should talk with scientists about inferences and other people’s interpretations.

The conclusions about the ancestry of a particular gene can be on target in reference to the current population. What is being implied is that the available evidence does not warrant (infer) an universal conclusion about pre-history

At most, there can be a general conclusion of improbable while the possibility remains. Please refer to post 1148 for demonstration.

Catholic apologetics has to go further into the nitty-gritty methods and materials in order to effectively counter anti-Catholic doctrine claims. Declaring Intelligent Design is not adequate especially since many Christians do not believe that literal two-person founders are necessary. This is a Catholic issue which goes to the heart of Catholicism – an area which ID does not reach.

Blessings,
the nitty-gritty granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

Hi,

Can you name one Christian denomination that does not believe in a literal two-person founders?

Thank you,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Hi,

Can you name one Christian denomination that does not believe in a literal two-person founders?

Thank you,
Ed

Just like the Catholics who do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, a number of other Christians responded to a CAF thread that they did not believe in two first parents. Currently, writers may hedge by referring to the “traditional” beliefs of Christians. Or Christians will say they believe in Adam and Eve and omit the fact that they are referring to a symbol of a population group. An example is BioLogos in its explanation of human origin.

Read the questions CAF posters ask about Adam and Eve and then the answers. Questions are proper. But the answers can be so far off that one has to assume that these Catholics learned about Adam and Eve from the cutesy children’s books filed with leaves appropriately placed. In addition to doubting Adam and Eve, many Catholics have a hard time explaining Catholic teaching about original sin.

I am relatively certain that it can be assumed that there are some Christian denominations who consider that the human species was founded by two, sole parents. Then I wonder about their belief in original sin.

I am sorry but I cannot name any current, particular denomination that actually holds the same beliefs as Catholicism regarding Adam as the first actual human who committed an actual sin which severed human friendship with God.

Bottom line is that trying to convince Catholics that Adam and Eve are real, despite rumors to the contrary, is time consuming especially on CAF where there are only a few people who have a foundation in both the pertinent parts of natural science, including the induction method, and Catholic doctrine.

 

[buffalo]

**More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
**

The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” ** is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses**, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.

“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection,** but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.**”

A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.

From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information - :yup:
*Programming - :yup:
*Symbol systems and language - :yup:
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information - :yup:
*Formal function - :yup:
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. - :yup:

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.

 

[edwest2]

Just like the Catholics who do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, a number of other Christians responded to a CAF thread that they did not believe in two first parents. Currently, writers may hedge by referring to the “traditional” beliefs of Christians. Or Christians will say they believe in Adam and Eve and omit the fact that they are referring to a symbol of a population group. An example is BioLogos in its explanation of human origin.

Read the questions CAF posters ask about Adam and Eve and then the answers. Questions are proper. But the answers can be so far off that one has to assume that these Catholics learned about Adam and Eve from the cutesy children’s books filed with leaves appropriately placed. In addition to doubting Adam and Eve, many Catholics have a hard time explaining Catholic teaching about original sin.

I am relatively certain that it can be assumed that there are some Christian denominations who consider that the human species was founded by two, sole parents. Then I wonder about their belief in original sin.

I am sorry but I cannot name any current, particular denomination that actually holds the same beliefs as Catholicism regarding Adam as the first actual human who committed an actual sin which severed human friendship with God.

Bottom line is that trying to convince Catholics that Adam and Eve are real, despite rumors to the contrary, is time consuming especially on CAF where there are only a few people who have a foundation in both the pertinent parts of natural science, including the induction method, and Catholic doctrine.

Thank you for the reply. The answer is simple, it simply bears repeating: Adam and Eve, two real individuals who committed Original Sin, and because God so loved the world He sent His only Son to live among us and then create a new covenant culminating in His death on the cross and His resurrection.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sair]

Thank you for the reply. The answer is simple, it simply bears repeating: Adam and Eve, two real individuals who committed Original Sin, and because God so loved the world He sent His only Son to live among us and then create a new covenant culminating in His death on the cross and His resurrection.

Peace,
Ed

This still seems like a remarkably flawed design, coming from a supposedly perfect designer. He should not have needed a contingency plan, surely…

 

[tonyrey]

**More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. **

The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” ** is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses**, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…

Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.

“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection,** but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.**”

A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.

From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:

*High levels of prescriptive information - :yup:
*Programming - :yup:
*Symbol systems and language - :yup:
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information - :yup:
*Formal function - :yup:
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. - :yup:

Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.

The reviews also support its scientific and philosophical value. The only critical review does not refute one single point made in the book!

 

[tonyrey]

This still seems like a remarkably flawed design, coming from a supposedly perfect designer.

Only the Supreme Being is perfect in every respect…

He should not have needed a contingency plan, surely…

It wasn’t a contingency plan!