A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I did not say that you did. Again another misreading of my posts. It really gets tiresome.
- Status
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
No, the Church does not refer to the human anatomy of Adam (which would have been the same as that of humanoids immediately preceding him), but to human metaphysical nature, which includes both the immaterial soul and the biological body.
But I see that my point will never be understood. I give up.
Goodbye.
(And by the way, monogenism has nothing to do with genetics, a concept that only arose in the 20th century with the discovery of the gene. or should we discard all Church teaching before the 20th century? I don’t think so. So there is no reason to become so hung up on genetics.)
B
buffalo
Guest
Definition of Intelligent Design
Code:
What is intelligent design?
Code:
See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
**Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
**Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for your assistance!
G
grannymh
Guest
Unfortunately, you posted this before I finished making the corrections.
By the way…
The human person, due to God’s monogenism, is the greatest, yes the greatest example of “Design”. Human nature is peerless. Human nature is so complex that it cannot be reduced except by death.
If only ID could address human nature, but then there would be the problem of the first human being who needs to be defended according to some Catholics. So I solved that problem by defending Adam and now you have the crowning glory of intelligent design. It is my understanding that ID does address issues involving a kind of genetics or a first gene, including a book which was introduced way back in the thread, so I am within the topic, in my very humble opinion.
However, I have come to an end of what I can say on CAF while respecting the current ban. So I will cease. P.S. I am sure you are aware of the thread limit on posts.
Blessings,
granny
“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert
T
tonyrey
Guest
A timely reminder of the difference between intelligent design and Design of which it is a modern development.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Thank you for pointing out that as far as we are aware human beings are the crowning glory of Design in the universe, supporting my first point:
“Design explains all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty, love, the order of the universe, the origin of life, the progressive development and existence of** rational, autonomous, moral beings **who have the capacity for unselfish love and the right to life, freedom and self-determination.”
.
T
tonyrey
Guest
That is an excellent reason for introducing another thread which shouldn’t infringe the ban because it is a philosophical issue - notably the question of free will and its scientific ramifications (if any).
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t you think all living organisms are entities which have their own purposes and that the physical universe is a necessary basis for living organisms?
R
razredge
Guest
Hmm, I think the Church (and i’m sure Pius XII when promulgating Humani Generis) would traditionally understand monogenism as descent from one breeding pair. Granny seems to agree.
What I don’t understand with your position on there being two first ‘ensouled’ persons who propagated the soul through their offspring mating with soul-less hominids, is that it seems somewhat ad hoc.
If we are departing from a literal reading of the Genesis account on numerous points, including that of an actual Adam & Eve as the sole breeding pair (biologically) - why is it necessary that we posit that there be only two first ‘humans’?
If you remember I posted a while back Pope Benedict’s own personal theory on Original Sin which do not require a pair of the first ‘ensouled’ humans, nor propagation of a soul through the species through interbreeding between humans and non-ensouled hominids
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Well, I agree too. That’s the whole point.
Here is my original post again:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327
That’s the point. I do not depart from Adam and Eve being the sole breeding pair – by human nature. I have changed my position and I now hold to theological monogenism – which is compatible with biological polygenism.
Well, the beauty is that theological monogenism does not need to be abandoned.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Did I do that, along with misreading another’s post? I AM addleheaded!And also a willingness not to introduce red herrings!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
You’re right - I misread it. It’s because there was no link posted (there did not have to be as I’m assuming it has already been posted once and you mentioned the name of the paper) and because I am on lots of pain medication today. I wasn’t aware that the medication was affecting me so much.
I am very, very, very sorry, am ashamed and humiliated, was rightfully chastised, and will do my best to never misread a post again.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’m a Catholic scientist. I don’t find it hard to believe at all.Dignity is everywhere. So is philosophy, and so is God – He can even be found in science, as hard as that might be to believe.
I would have thought it was a wild exaggeration, too, if I had not seen it with my own eyes. I was told that Pope John Paul II lied to the faithful of the world because he wanted the scientists to “feel good about themselves because he was a nice guy.” I was also told that my acceptance of what the Church has told me I can accept meant that my belief was wild, wacky, and a third “w” which I can’t remember (probably “weird”). That was in one thread. In another I was told that if things go on the way they are everyone will be forced to sign something that states they agree with the same thing the Church has stated I can accept or they won’t be let through the door for Mass. I’m not making this up nor am I exaggerating at all. I don’t lie.Interesting. In my 6 years here on CAF I’ve never seen anyone do that. That strikes me as a wild exaggeration — and that you’re upset about something.
I’m not upset about anything except my misreading of a post which has evidently caused some hard feelings.
You are very welcome.
R
razredge
Guest
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Only for those who do not take into acount the metaphysics of human nature.
[/quote]
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
On the contrary, it is the only natural solution that makes sense. If God gave a soul to two persons, would you not think that their offspring would naturally, by continued biological attraction, mate with the humanoids around them? (And yes, Adam and Eve might well have mated just with each other, while their offspring did not.)
The only alternative is that God miraculously removed them from their humanoid brethren after ensoulment, and miraculously had the descendents overcome the natural inclination against inbreeding and incest, and miraculously prevented the spread of genetic defects from inbreeding.
Now that sounds unnatural and ad hoc to me.
I
inocente
Guest
The traditional design argument speaks of the perfect purpose of creation as evidence of a perfect Creator, while ID in its childishness can only speak of the imperfect purposes of created organisms, leaving 99.9999999% of creation with no purpose other than to supply raw materials for ID’s red-neck drive-thru consumer “philosophy”.
Thanks for this hilarious thread, I’ve almost wet myself several times at the preposterous divide between ID and civilization. Seriously though, ID is the tool of the Great Deceiver. Right from the start it denies that all creation sings to God, it cannot even speak the word God without burning its lips, and has to substitute “agent” instead. But it won’t kill the Church, which was Satan’s intent, because it is far too funny to stand a snowball’s chance in hell.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Yes, it is so funny that biological ID people react to the term “natural causes” as if they were the Great Enemy, instead of them being created by God and singing His glory. With that they play directly into the hands of atheists.
And then you get such absurd notions like ‘laws of nature’ on one hand and ‘randomness’ on the other. As if randomness were not part of the laws of nature. But I guess Brownian motion of particles in fluids is allowed, while random mutations are not
So particles in fluids are ‘purposeless’ because they follow random Brownian motion? Nice try. Typical confusion of metaphysics with science, when ‘random’ becomes ‘purposeless’. With that ID people play directly into the hands of atheists as well.
In fact, the more I think about it the more ID creationists have in common with atheists – and vice versa
G
grannymh
Guest
A metaphysical design?
Are you using the word “metaphysical” to mean that human nature is essentially designed as an unique unification of *both *the spiritual and material worlds?
- Status