V
vern_humphrey
Guest
buffalo said:
And did he say, “Hallelujah! Thanks to Behe and crew, I now see the light?” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
- Status
And did he say, “Hallelujah! Thanks to Behe and crew, I now see the light?” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Therefore when the proponents of Intelligent Design say something like this; “In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”
you ought to hear alarm bells going off!
O
Orogeny
Guest
I dunno. I can’t comprehend quantum physics.
You don’t have to. Others have made a career out of trying to pass ID off as science.
By the way, do you think that ID is science?
I agree. However, that should not be taught in a science class.
Peace
Tim
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Vern << And did he say, “Hallelujah! Thanks to Behe and crew, I now see the light?” >>
As a matter of fact, Yes. I have the 2003 book Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate (held in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the infamous 1948 Copleston-Russell debate), and Flew mentions Behe near the end of the book. He was about to write a very positive review of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box until Richard Dawkins recommended to him Kenneth Miller’s rebuttal in Finding Darwin’s God.
So apparently, both Mike Behe and Ken Miller (along with William Lane Craig, who is pro-ID I believe) were instrumental in helping Antony Flew see a necessary cause and/or intelligence behind the universe. Very interesting!
From that article Buffalo linked above: Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
Thanks for the link Buffalo! The first I heard of this. So one of the biggest atheists of all time is now a deist.
But I mostly agree with the anti-ID arguments in this thread so far.
Keep going, we’ll hit 500 posts in a few days. 
Phil P
As a matter of fact, Yes. I have the 2003 book Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate (held in 1998 on the 50th anniversary of the infamous 1948 Copleston-Russell debate), and Flew mentions Behe near the end of the book. He was about to write a very positive review of Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box until Richard Dawkins recommended to him Kenneth Miller’s rebuttal in Finding Darwin’s God.
So apparently, both Mike Behe and Ken Miller (along with William Lane Craig, who is pro-ID I believe) were instrumental in helping Antony Flew see a necessary cause and/or intelligence behind the universe. Very interesting!
From that article Buffalo linked above: Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.
Thanks for the link Buffalo! The first I heard of this. So one of the biggest atheists of all time is now a deist.
But I mostly agree with the anti-ID arguments in this thread so far.
Keep going, we’ll hit 500 posts in a few days. Phil P
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A shame he didn’t attribute his conversion to the true Church.
I don’t think any Catholic can argue that God did not create the Universe and all life. But neither can we reject the evidence that both evolution and random (or probabalistic) elements are present – as I said earlier, to reject the latter is ultimately to reject Free Will.
The problem is to accept intelligent design (small i, small d) and not be sucked in by Intelligent Design (capital, I capital D.)
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Again, how does this pertain to Intelligent Design? You’ve yet to show one shred of evidence of ID scientists promoting a certain system of doctrine.
It certainly is within the lawful rights of lay-men, even non-Catholics, to look at creation and, on philosophical and scientific grounds, say that the created world is the product of intelligent design, and has some kind of purpose. (Though what this purpose is would be a matter of faith, which we learn from the true Church.)
There is much that can be known by natural philosophy: that God is one, infinitely powerful, infinitely good, that there is a moaral law, etc.
This is not the exclusive domain of the Church.
Again by your illogic, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all dogmatic fundamentalists who had no place telling people anything at all about God or (vaguely) the meaning of life, what it means to live life well…
It’s a very un-Catholic approach. In fact, if anything it is *your * approach to this which has historically been condemned by the Church. She has condemned the heresy of fideism, which says that God and all his ways can only be known through the Church, and not by the light of unaided reason. It was this fideism that was anathematized by Vatican I.
You have it in your head that you’re right, and refuse to substantiate your remarks or face seriously the challenges posed to you by others.
And lastly I remind you, that “Intelligent Design” does not have an official website. Duh! Neither does evolution, quantam physics, etc.
Even if you were to find a pseudo-scientific site that endorsed Intelligent Design as a religion (which you haven’t), it would not discredit Intelligent Design or its proponents.
And there is no difference between a lower- or upper-case Intelligent Design. This is a construct which you have just pulled out of your rar. It don’t exist.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
First of all, I think we agree that ID ISN’T science – although its proponents claim it is. Secondly, they are imposing their theological interpretations on the science and demanding that THEIR ideas be taught – with neither science nor Magesterial authority behind them.
Yes, it is within one’s lawful RIGHTS to say anything one chooses. The issue is, should Catholics believe and promote some of these ideas?
To follow Behe, et al, is just like following, say Jimmy Swaggart or Jack Chick – they have a right to say what they say, but that doesn’t mean what they say is RIGHT. And you would definitely not urge other Catholics to believe them, would you?
Come on, now – you really don’t mean to play that card, do you?
You don’t claim that because I don’t swallow what Behe, or Jimmy Swaggart, or Jack Chick say, I have to automatically reject Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle?
So to be Catholic, I have to follow Behe and company?
Actually, there is. Behe and the boys have taken the phrase as their own. And it is THEIR explanation of it that is Fundamentalist. They are the ones who make claims of “objectivity” and “science.”
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
Not! God being active in his creation is not the same as determinism.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Not having another instance of my browser open at the time, I had to shell out after the last post.
The claim is made that there is no “official” ID website. Actually, there is. The website of Intelligent Design, Incorporated is at intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Note that as a corporation they own the term “Intelligent Design” (Capital I, capital D) under US Copyright and trademark laws. This refutes the claim that there is no difference between upper- and lower-case Intelligent Design.
At the outset, Intelligent Design, Inc, claims:
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science.
They go on to state that they promote " a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes"
The claim is made that there is no “official” ID website. Actually, there is. The website of Intelligent Design, Incorporated is at intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Note that as a corporation they own the term “Intelligent Design” (Capital I, capital D) under US Copyright and trademark laws. This refutes the claim that there is no difference between upper- and lower-case Intelligent Design.
At the outset, Intelligent Design, Inc, claims:
Intelligent Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks objectivity in origins science.
They go on to state that they promote " a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes"
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
It sure is scientific in some respects. Why do you say it isn’t?
Again, where do you get this from? There’s nothing “theological” about saying that the world as it is must have been created by something intelligent. This is philophical; and philsophy isn’t simply something a person guesses to try and make sense of something. It is coming to true conclusions based on reason. Why shouldn’t these theories be taught in schools?
And again, what the !@#$ does “Magisterial authority” have to do with this? This has nothing to do with religion, but whether or not the world is the product of an Intelligent Designer. The two really are distinctive.
To worship God is religious. To believe in the Trinity is religious. These require the grace of faith.
To know, not just to feel but to know, from reason, that God exists is not religious. It’s an act of intelectual sanity, along with “the earth is round” and “anything with mass has exerts a gravitational pull”.
A secularish can believe in the existence of God, and not be religious.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Now you’re just being stupid, Ven.
Any organization can take a common name that hasn’t been copyrighted, and become incorporated. This particular organization, Intelligent Design, Inc., consists of people who believe in the theory of intelligent design and wish to teach and propogate it. It’s not a religion of any sorts, and is not an “official” website for the theory, or a particular brand of the theory. Another group of people, with the exact same convictions, can form another organization with the same or similarr goals, change the name only slightly, and become incorporated.
Or is “Catholic Answers, Inc.” the official website of Catholicism’s answers to Fundamentalists?
Once again, you assertions are unsubstantiated.
I’m only surprised that no one else here is as amazed by how stupid this is becoming.
Any organization can take a common name that hasn’t been copyrighted, and become incorporated. This particular organization, Intelligent Design, Inc., consists of people who believe in the theory of intelligent design and wish to teach and propogate it. It’s not a religion of any sorts, and is not an “official” website for the theory, or a particular brand of the theory. Another group of people, with the exact same convictions, can form another organization with the same or similarr goals, change the name only slightly, and become incorporated.
Or is “Catholic Answers, Inc.” the official website of Catholicism’s answers to Fundamentalists?
Once again, you assertions are unsubstantiated.
I’m only surprised that no one else here is as amazed by how stupid this is becoming.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Show me the science!
There’s nothing theological about saying, “Good morning,” either. But if the person saying it is a Pentecostal Minister, and he’s in his pulpit and you’re in a pew, you’re not in a Catholic Church.
For the same reason magic and witchcraft shouldn’t be taught in school.
When you give your faith and allegience to Intelligent Design, Inc., you’re accepting their particular version – and they have a Fundamentalist agenda behind what they do – and you can read it at their website.
Why do you think they keep harping on “science” in their approach?
And you think we ought to leave the Catholic Church and join Intelligent Design, Inc.?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And you keep pretending that there is no official body of doctrine that promotes ID . There is – it is as if you denied Plato was a Platonist, or that Platonism is defined by Plato – and he didn’t even have a copyright.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
B
buffalo
Guest
OK Vern. What part of ID can we not accept as Catholics? How does this differ with id?
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Oh, come on! “Faith and Allegience”? Documentaion, please?!?!?! Mornic, absolutely moronic.
Again, you’re ignorant.
There are several organizations that promote the Intelligent Design theory. See: intelligentdesignnetwork.org/links.htm
Just like there are several organizations which promote evolutionary theory. Does this mean evolution has an official organization or website?
According to you, anyone who believes in any scientific theory must belong to some organization with an agenda.
To be a Catholic, you have to belong to the Catholic Church.
To be a Mason, you have to belong to a Lodge.
But to believe in intelligent design, or any scientific theory, you don’t have to join any orgnization. Nor is there an organization (including ID, Inc.) that is actively inventing these kinds of theories and binding their members to them with religious submission. Belonging to ID, Inc. is like belonging to MADD, the local Italian Men’s Club, et al.
And you’ve yet to quote a sinlge iota of religion from the group’s web site. A single, solitary quotation. Why do they “harp” on science? Because they are scientists, and perhaps want to make clear their non-affiliation with radical pseudoscientific Creationist groups.
It’s not my job to show you the science or try and validate their arguments for it. You can check them out yourself, and decide for yourself their merits (or lack thereof). None of this merits the branding that you have done, however.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
But that’s not what you said. You virtually claimed that God cannot chose to use probabalistic rules in His creation.
When you reject THAT, you are very close to determinism.
God CAN create a universe where we can never precisely know the location of the electron at a specific time. He CAN create a universe where tiny changes in initial conditions can have major effects later.
Who are we to tell Him He can’t?
Rejection of the role of probability leads to acceptance of determanism.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Why don’t we start by NOT touting a specific, non-Catholic group?
We can go on from there to examine Catholic positions – as you know, the Church does not reject evolution. We have no Catholic warrant to construct a new “science” to reject what the Church does not reject. So why do it?
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
You seem to be confusing intelligent design with creationism.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Pardon the pun, but does the Lord go with you when you use words like “mornonic” and “ignorant?”
And they interlock.
Just like there are several organizations which promote evolutionary theory. Does this mean evolution has an official organization or website?]
Do you know of a site called “Theory of Evolution, Inc.?” Do the people who are members of the board of that corporation also control other, related sites?
DominvsVobiscvm:
No, because ID is not and cannot be science – despite what its pushers claim.
DominvsVobiscvm:
I have done what you suggest – there is neigher science nor objectivity there, despite their claims.
B
buffalo
Guest
vern humphrey:
Nope. Never said that. Quantum physics is all about probabilities.
- Status