D
drpmjhess
Guest
Evidently not viable enough for Judges Jones (a Republican and Bush appointee) to deem it science at the conclusion of the Dover trial.
Don’t forget to watch the NOVA film Judgdment Day Tuesday night!
Petrus
- Status
Don’t forget to watch the NOVA film Judgdment Day Tuesday night!
Petrus
O
Orogeny
Guest
Wow, I have never heard of this before. Can you help me out, Ed, by giving me an example of an irreducibly complex biological feature?
I’m glad they have published as well, Ed, because it allows for the discussion of their ideas. That is a good thing. Just because it turns out that their ideas are fatally flawed, there is no reason to deny that the discussion has been fun!
Peace
Tim
T
TMC
Guest
Are they mutually contradictory in some way? Or are you saying they are imcompatible with preternatural gifts?
I do not find my points to conflict either with each other or preternatural gifts, so I am confused by your comment.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Orogeny << Wow, I have never heard of this before. Can you help me out, Ed, by giving me an example of an irreducibly complex biological feature? >>
(Edited) Come on people, 1100+ replies in this thread and we’re not getting anywhere.
Judgment Day on NOVA, about the Dover ID Trial, see it this Tues night.
Not to be confused with Terminator 2: Judgment Day the 1991 movie with Governor Ahhrnold about irreducibly complex special effects. See it on DVD.
Phil P
(Edited) Come on people, 1100+ replies in this thread and we’re not getting anywhere.
Judgment Day on NOVA, about the Dover ID Trial, see it this Tues night.
Not to be confused with Terminator 2: Judgment Day the 1991 movie with Governor Ahhrnold about irreducibly complex special effects. See it on DVD.
Phil P
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
No, they are not mentioned in the Bible. And they don’t contradict the Bible, either.
O
Orogeny
Guest
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
Look at the scientific discoveries beginning in the Middle Ages by Catholic scientists. They didn’t believe that they descended from a common ancestor with the apes, and nether do I.
T
TMC
Guest
Didn’t we do the preternatural gifts thing like 800 posts back? I don’t have the energy to find it. I will just say that nothing in evolution would deny God the power or authority to convey any gifts He wanted on anyone He wants to. Or do anything else He wants to.
So with that circle back I am checking out of this thread. 1200 or so posts is enough “I know you are but what am I?” arguing for me.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
If Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism constitute real science, why don’t they have conferences attended by hundreds or thousands of professional scientists? Why aren’t their journals carrying articles refereed by professional scientists? Why don’t we see lots of theses and dissertations by graduate students announcing non-discoveries, or announcing that x or y problem is off limits to investigation because we begin with the assumption that it is irreducibly complex?
I have no problem with Young Earth or Intelligent Design Creationism remaining the pious hobbies of nonscientsts; IDC and YEC are no more harmful than “World of Warcraft” or bridge or lawn bowling. Just don’t pretend they have any scientific credibility, or that they will ever demonstrate meaningful results.
Petrus
A
abu_kamoon
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Fortunately, the Intelligent Designer has identified Himself, it is God. There is no reason to believe the universe can will itself into existence much less DNA. Pope Benedict has identified God as the first cause. Jesus Christ demonstrated how God works by performing miracles.
Intelligent Design, guided by God, is consistent with Church teaching and is far more sensible to me than the Theory of Evolution.
God bless,
Ed
Intelligent Design, guided by God, is consistent with Church teaching and is far more sensible to me than the Theory of Evolution.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Yes, God is the designer of the universe, in our Catholic view, and in the view of other theists. But assumptions of intelligent design – such as “irreducible complexity” – can never be scientific principles. Laboratories cannot meaningfully function according to the foundational principle that this or that aspect of nature cannot be investigated.
That would be analogous to a physician telling a patient, "You are possessed by the devil, and there is no hypothesis we can test, no test we can run, that could prove your disease to have a natural etiology or treatment
Petrus
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
orogeny:
I believe that people who fancy themselves as theistic evolutionists while not believing in anything miraculous between the big bang and the resurrection of Christ are not Catholic and are wrong!
In other words there is a difference between theirtic evolution and Catholic theisitc evolution.
Generic theistic evolutionists don’t believe that Anything miraculous happened between the Big Bang and Adam and Eve and profess to posit that as fact!
Catholic theistic evolutionists would never posit that as fact!
So there is a difference!
I believe that people who fancy themselves as theistic evolutionists while not believing in anything miraculous between the big bang and the resurrection of Christ are not Catholic and are wrong!
In other words there is a difference between theirtic evolution and Catholic theisitc evolution.
Generic theistic evolutionists don’t believe that Anything miraculous happened between the Big Bang and Adam and Eve and profess to posit that as fact!
Catholic theistic evolutionists would never posit that as fact!
So there is a difference!
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, Jerry, who are those people you speak of? I have yet to run across someone of that description on these boards in the years I have been posting here.
Where did you find that? Please show me a post on these forums where the poster claimed to be a theistic evolutionist and didn’t believe in the possibility of miracles.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Your analogy is not applicable. It is entirely reasonable, by looking at a cell, to reason that its components did not arise on their own. The DNA within is an information storage device with precise instructions, and those instructions did not write themselves.
Imagine a machine that can replicate any man-made device. It would need all of the tools necessary; a missing tool means a step cannot be executed. The device that requires that tool could not be built. Next, it would need precise instructions. But it would have no self-awareness or self-identity. It would simply continue to make devices as long as raw material was available. But consider also that it will not make a device until an intelligent operator selects one or more from its memory.
Irreducible Complexity is the very simple and reasonable idea that if components are removed from a living thing it will cease to function. Let us return to the cell. Take away a few parts and it ceases to function. But where did those parts originally come from? This is unanswered.
I believe that science combined with divine revelation gives the answer. God assembled the first life and placed within it the necessary means for it to reproduce and obtain the energy/food it needed to live.
Your example of medicinal treatment ignores the long use of herbs and the Chinese treatment for Goiter using thyroid hormone in the 7th Century A.D. The ancient Egyptians used honey on wounds.
May I respectfully point out that you appear to have fallen victim to a wave of popular (or at least, oft repeated) thinking that has little to do with examining the facts independent of an author or Institute or pundit.
God bless,
Ed
D
drpmjhess
Guest
You’re wrong again, Ed. This ground has been established time and time again on Talk origins. Your is the argument from incredulity:
talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
Please talk to some scientists, rather than just sitting in your study theorizing. Ask them how they approach biological problems, and give them the respect of believing that they know what they are talking about in their own professional work. Also, could you please give me the name of one mainstream medical researcher (not some creationist who once worked in a lab for a couple of months) who rejects the idea of the evolution of multi-drug resistance?
Thanks,
Petrus
E
edwest2
Guest
Why are you changing the subject? Why are you bringing up terms like respect?
My point is, unlike some web site run by God knows who, I can look at the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions. Bacteria have built-in ways to defend themselves and I don’t believe those ways weren’t built-in, before the fact. Bacteria have no brain to tell them what to do.
What I believe is that you and I, and bacteria, did not self-assemble or gain self-awareness or self-identity by a series of lucky rolls of the dice. We are not biological robots who just happened to be assembled the way we are assembled. God did do it. I’m backed up by a reasonable view of science and the Word of God.
God bless,
Ed
My point is, unlike some web site run by God knows who, I can look at the evidence myself and come to my own conclusions. Bacteria have built-in ways to defend themselves and I don’t believe those ways weren’t built-in, before the fact. Bacteria have no brain to tell them what to do.
What I believe is that you and I, and bacteria, did not self-assemble or gain self-awareness or self-identity by a series of lucky rolls of the dice. We are not biological robots who just happened to be assembled the way we are assembled. God did do it. I’m backed up by a reasonable view of science and the Word of God.
God bless,
Ed
T
TMC
Guest
God could have used special creation to get ensoulled humanity going, but I don’t know that whether he did or not has any meaning to me. Seems excessively complicated, but it is slightly more compatable with the Genesis account, I suppose. I have no idea what happened, so I can’t really reject the idea. If He did this, doesn’t seem provable one way or the other. Nor does it have theological significance one way or the other, to me.
He could also have used evolution to develop humanity and then granted preternatural gifts to the first real humans. That would be someting akin to special creation. That fits for me, although I am not endorsing or condemning it.
As for Eve from Adam, its not something I have given a lot of thought, frankly. This happens in only one of the Genesis accounts, the other seems to require simultaneous special creation. Again, this is a possible and not disprovable idea. It doesn’t matter much to me if Eve was specially created from Adam, or not. It has a great deal of symbolism, some good and some bad, and the tale has been used for good and bad ends.
To me the bottom line is that God is the prime mover. He created everything. I don’t know how He did it, but I believe that what He did is by definition compatable with science, not because science defines God, but because God created everything including the physical properties of the world that are revealed to us through science. God may have intervened miraculously in the middle, rather than setting it all up in advance. I can’t tell from here. Frankly don’t much care. Doesn’t effect me or my beliefs at all.
- Status