E
edwest2
Guest
Then it should be presented as a fact. Just like gravity and electricity. It should be taught that all living things are designed.
Peace,
Ed
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Your statement is not logical. It is a faith statement, a belief only, that something nonliving could be turned into life. There is zero science to back up that assertion.Actually, this one is a hypothesis. And it is falsifiable like any valid scientific hypothesis. If life was ever created of something nonliving in a lab, it would be shown to be false. Until then, it is accepted as provisionally true. That is why it is taught in elementary school science class. But this has nothing to do with Darwinism which only needs to rely on the fact that the first living thing existed at some time in the past.
What is Darwinism? Intelligent design is the topic.
Peace,
Ed
D
DavWan
Guest
An intriguing way to express it. Might I ask you what you mean by Intelligent Design however? Perhaps part of the problem is that terms like “Darwinism,” “Neo-Darwinism,” “Intelligent Design,” “Evolutionism” and the like are being used with different assumed meanings by different people.This is the great sin of “Intelligent Design.” Lacking faith in the means God has provided us for knowing Him, they seek to recruit science to shore up their faith. Science can’t do it. Trust God, not science.
Would you consider Intelligent Design to mean something different than a general belief that God was involved in evolution with the ultimate end viewed by God to be man?
It would seem to me that such a belief as I stated would not be a “great sin,” though it would properly fit into Theology and Philosophy, rather than empirical science. However, judging by your statements it seems this is not what you intend by Intelligent Design.
T
TDiGaetano
Guest
This statement is an interesting one… Our brains have developed over time to be less driven by our lower/mid brains and the upper brain allows us to express freewill and comprehend the world.The increase in the size of the cerebral cortex allowed a considerable greater flexibility in behavior, with more of it driven by experience, and less by the lower and midbrains.
Our Upper brain functions develope from experiences, So to deny someone an experience would be taking away their freewill, and thus hendering their development.
When people give into the temptations that favor the lower and mid brains, they don’t gain experience and thus surpress their own freewill and hender their own development.
To only educate our children in the natural order and leave out anything of the supernatural, contridicts the supernatural, or goes against the supernatural will hender their development.
To educate our children in the supernatural order that contridicts or goes against the natural order will hener their development.
The Church has many teachings on both the Supernatural and Natural order of our world, and possibly contains more knowledge of the history of Society, The natural order, and the supernatural order then any other society or country or community in the world.
So why do people keep wanting to shut out one or the other instead of embracing both the natural world and the supernatural both of which are a reality to us?
But maybe its not about favoring one order over the other but instead trying to create a new order out of Money, which comes purely from man, and which ever side is more profitable is the side that wins the dispute and what is taught.
E
edwest2
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that God can be detected in nature by the light of natural (i.e. not religious) reason.This is the great sin of “Intelligent Design.” Lacking faith in the means God has provided us for knowing Him, they seek to recruit science to shore up their faith. Science can’t do it. Trust God, not science.
If I’m not mistaken, it was the great Aquinas himself who said that there can be no ultimate conflict between faith and reason. So yes, ultimately science, which is supposed to be strictly rational, can be enlisted to support the idea of God, as Einstein argues, though it certainly is not essential, and there was a great deal more faith in the medieval world than there is in the present age of science … not that this need always be so.
“age of science”? What age of science? People get up, go to the lab, do things and get a paycheck. That’s it. People should not regard science as anything more than a business. Big pharmaceutical companies. Genetics companies. They are all working on getting out product that you and I will spend money on. And they are also giving the perception that soon, all things will be known and all problems will be solved. They cannot heal the human heart.
Time magazine ran a special issue focusing on all the incredible advances in medical technology on the horizon. Guess what? The next issue, a letter was published by a prominent doctor who said: Not once, in the entire issue, did you mention behavior. Even if half these medical advances come to pass, the majority of the population will still be at risk for preventable illnesses if they don’t change their behavior.
Peace,
Ed
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
Augustine thought that a form of evolution produced many things.
As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.
Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn’t necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine’s theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.’ His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. **
sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm
The issue is not Catholicism vs. theistic evolution; it’s deism vs. theistic evolution.
Augustine thought that a form of evolution produced many things.
**Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ should be interpreted:Source?
As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.
Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn’t necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine’s theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.’ His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. **
sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm
The issue is not Catholicism vs. theistic evolution; it’s deism vs. theistic evolution.
L
Leela
Guest
I think we could say that creatures appear to be designed, which pretty much goes without saying. I don’t know how we could ever say that we know that creatures actually are designed.Then it should be presented as a fact. Just like gravity and electricity. It should be taught that all living things are designed.
L
Leela
Guest
What assertion are you talking about? I never said that something nonliving could be turned into life. I just said that we can assert that abiogenesis is impossible as a valid hypothesis since we know exactly what sort of evidence would convince us that the hypothesis is false. I said we acceot this hypothesis as provisionally true.Your statement is not logical. It is a faith statement, a belief only, that something nonliving could be turned into life. There is zero science to back up that assertion.
H
Henry_Green
Guest
Mendel was a creationist. He believed God spoke the world into existence and formed man from the dust of the earth. You are claiming any change as evolution. When I say evolution I mean common ancestor theory and unlike you do not equivocate to deceive and misrepresent. Stalin murdered all of his geneticist who followed Mendel precisely because Mendel was a creationist, your knowledge of history is a joke sir. Millions starved because of Stalins promotion of Darwinism . Not only did he murder the geneticist and replaced them with Darwinists which led to to starvation of millions of Russians it gave him an outlook on human life that murdering millions was of no more moral consequence than “mowing the grass” . If I was an evolutionists and wanted to lie about a creationist it would not be Mendel.Some Major Branches of Science founded by “evolutionists:”
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Evolutionary science - Charles Darwin
Population Biology - J.B.S. Haldane
Statistical Thermodynamics - Boltzmann
Want to learn about some laws?
Evolutionary science? There is no such branch of science. Where does one go to get a job as an evolutionists? What would he or she do? What branch of science require the belief in spontaneous generation and transformism. Evolution existed that we know of prior to the 6th century before Christ , the apostle Paul debated evolutionists on Mars Hill and Darwins grandfather wrote evolutionary poems before Darwin was born based on the poems of the 1 B.C. Epicurean poet evolutionists that Paul debated} Lucretius. The Epicureans were some of the evolutionists that Paul debated on Mars Hill. To claim Darwin founded any science is absurd even if evolution was science it existed thousands of years before he did.
Population biology is not a major anything.
Statistical Thermodynamics is a sub branch , I said major branch. Thermodynamics is the brainchild of creationists, as all the laws of nature and major branches are.
Try again.
B
buffalo
Guest
In both cases St Augustine believed they had the potentiality.Barbarian observes:
Augustine thought that a form of evolution produced many things.
**Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions. He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ should be interpreted:
As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.
Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself. God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn’t necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine’s theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.’ His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas simply quoted Augustine’s teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.**
sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm
The issue is not Catholicism vs. theistic evolution; it’s deism vs. theistic evolution.
AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION
A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE
…WE now go on to investigate St. Augustine’s concept of the relations between time and eternity.
The matter is profound; and into its profundity that great mind penetrated deeply. Nevertheless, his
word is as clear as his doctrine is deep. It calls for patient meditation. But it yields this reward, the
conviction that it cannot lead to modern Evolution.
H
Henry_Green
Guest
Wow, have you ever actually studies Augustine? Rhetorical question of course.
Who taught you what to think?
By Scripture’s authority creation was ‘as recently as within this six thousand years.’ He was also aware of long age ideas: ‘If the brevity of the time be offensive, and the years since man was made seem so few …’.
Augustine unashamedly confronted paganism’s contradiction of biblical history. Unless you want to say Augustine believed that everything evolved by dumb luck in a few years after the flood he also believed him or you have been exposed as unworthy of consideration as a scholar.
Who taught you what to think?
By Scripture’s authority creation was ‘as recently as within this six thousand years.’ He was also aware of long age ideas: ‘If the brevity of the time be offensive, and the years since man was made seem so few …’.
Augustine unashamedly confronted paganism’s contradiction of biblical history. Unless you want to say Augustine believed that everything evolved by dumb luck in a few years after the flood he also believed him or you have been exposed as unworthy of consideration as a scholar.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
So the laws of science predict the end of the world, and scripture predicts the end of the world. I agree, but the question is about whether ID predicts the end of the world (or anything at all) as you claim. I can’t see how.
God (the Intelligent Designer) is behind the laws of the universe, according to Einstein. If the laws of the universe are products of God’s mind (rationality, reason, etc) then God’s intelligent design predicts outcomes through those laws, as you have just admitted. These laws of predictability do not belong to science. They were created by Intelligent Design. By God, both Einstein’s God and ours.
See previous quotes from Einstein.
So the laws of science predict the end of the world, and scripture predicts the end of the world. I agree, but the question is about whether ID predicts the end of the world (or anything at all) as you claim. I can’t see how.
God (the Intelligent Designer) is behind the laws of the universe, according to Einstein. If the laws of the universe are products of God’s mind (rationality, reason, etc) then God’s intelligent design predicts outcomes through those laws, as you have just admitted. These laws of predictability do not belong to science. They were created by Intelligent Design. By God, both Einstein’s God and ours.
See previous quotes from Einstein.
B
buffalo
Guest
And therefore we should be able to see God’s intelligence in nature.Leela
So the laws of science predict the end of the world, and scripture predicts the end of the world. I agree, but the question is about whether ID predicts the end of the world (or anything at all) as you claim. I can’t see how.
God (the Intelligent Designer) is behind the laws of the universe, according to Einstein. If the laws of the universe are products of God’s mind (rationality, reason, etc) then God’s intelligent design predicts outcomes through those laws, as you have just admitted. These laws of predictability do not belong to science. They were created by Intelligent Design. By God, both Einstein’s God and ours.
See previous quotes from Einstein.
L
Leela
Guest
This is so strange to me for a number of reasons. First of all, you originally brought Einstein into the discussion to demonstrate how (in your mind) someone who is an expert on science could be ignorant on other subjects. Now you want to say that Einstein has been on your side all along. If you hadn’t recently said that you found his remarks about anything other than physics “unimpressive,” I’d be much less confused about your sudden admiration for him.Leela
So the laws of science predict the end of the world, and scripture predicts the end of the world. I agree, but the question is about whether ID predicts the end of the world (or anything at all) as you claim. I can’t see how.
God (the Intelligent Designer) is behind the laws of the universe, according to Einstein. If the laws of the universe are products of God’s mind (rationality, reason, etc) then God’s intelligent design predicts outcomes through those laws, as you have just admitted. These laws of predictability do not belong to science. They were created by Intelligent Design. By God, both Einstein’s God and ours.
See previous quotes from Einstein.
Secondly, the idea that ID is a theory that includes all of physics is absurd. It is supposed to be a competeting theory to Darwinism in explaining biological evolution. Since it doesn’t make any predictions in that field, you are trying to claim that whatever science says about anything is a prediction made by ID “theory.”
And third, the whole issue is about whether ID should be taught in school. If you think that you help your case that ID is science rather than religion by claiming that the intelligent designer is God, you are mistaken.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
I’m sure that you see evidence of God’s intelligence everywhere. If God exists, and the universe is his creation, then everything is evidence of God’s intelligence. Unless you are saying that some things are the result of God’s direct intervention and other things are not, and that we can recognize God’s intervention. Even if you could come up with a method for recognizing the difference, that recognition would be an observation, not a hypothesis or a theory, so it is no alternative to Darwinism to be taught in schools in its place.And therefore we should be able to see God’s intelligence in nature.
Best,
Leela
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
This is so strange to me for a number of reasons. First of all, you originally brought Einstein into the discussion to demonstrate how (in your mind) someone who is an expert on science could be ignorant on other subjects. Now you want to say that Einstein has been on your side all along. If you hadn’t recently said that you found his remarks about anything other than physics “unimpressive,” I’d be much less confused about your sudden admiration for him.
Well, I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly than I did.
If I ever had reservations about Einstein, they were about his rejection of the Christian God, not the idea of God per se. I have always admired Einstein for his genius as a physicist, but it’s well known that when he gets away from physics, he is often on unsteady grounds. Nor did I ever say that he said nothing “impressive” on any subject other than physics. Please point out where I made such a statement.
*Secondly, the idea that ID is a theory that includes all of physics is absurd. It is supposed to be a competeting theory to Darwinism in explaining biological evolution. *
You need to distinguish in your mind the “theory” of ID and ID itself. One comes from man, the other comes from God, as Einstein suggested. Einstein’s concession to ID (the God behind the laws) is not to the theory, but to the reality. What else could he have meant by his statement, “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this”?
“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein
Finally, there is no need for Evolution and ID to be competing “theories” as you put it, except in the mind of an atheist evolutionist fanatic like Richard Dawkins. Why couldn’t evolution be intelligently designed?
I think Einstein would have found these two “theories” to be intellectually compatible, especially by virtue of his remark, “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this.”
What do you think Einstein meant by “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this”?
This is so strange to me for a number of reasons. First of all, you originally brought Einstein into the discussion to demonstrate how (in your mind) someone who is an expert on science could be ignorant on other subjects. Now you want to say that Einstein has been on your side all along. If you hadn’t recently said that you found his remarks about anything other than physics “unimpressive,” I’d be much less confused about your sudden admiration for him.
Well, I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly than I did.
If I ever had reservations about Einstein, they were about his rejection of the Christian God, not the idea of God per se. I have always admired Einstein for his genius as a physicist, but it’s well known that when he gets away from physics, he is often on unsteady grounds. Nor did I ever say that he said nothing “impressive” on any subject other than physics. Please point out where I made such a statement.
*Secondly, the idea that ID is a theory that includes all of physics is absurd. It is supposed to be a competeting theory to Darwinism in explaining biological evolution. *
You need to distinguish in your mind the “theory” of ID and ID itself. One comes from man, the other comes from God, as Einstein suggested. Einstein’s concession to ID (the God behind the laws) is not to the theory, but to the reality. What else could he have meant by his statement, “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this”?
“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.” Albert Einstein
Finally, there is no need for Evolution and ID to be competing “theories” as you put it, except in the mind of an atheist evolutionist fanatic like Richard Dawkins. Why couldn’t evolution be intelligently designed?
I think Einstein would have found these two “theories” to be intellectually compatible, especially by virtue of his remark, “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this.”
What do you think Einstein meant by “Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this”?
E
edwest2
Guest
I think Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. It’s provable and demonstratable.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
And third, the whole issue is about whether ID should be taught in school. If you think that you help your case that ID is science rather than religion by claiming that the intelligent designer is God, you are mistaken.
As I said earlier, I would be satisfied if Intelligent Design was not included in teaching evolution, so long as the quote below from the Origin of the Species was also included. It doesn’t get any better than that … straight from the horse’s mouth! Surely no teacher would object to a direct quote from the book on evolution, unless he was a hateful atheist like Dawkins.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
And third, the whole issue is about whether ID should be taught in school. If you think that you help your case that ID is science rather than religion by claiming that the intelligent designer is God, you are mistaken.
As I said earlier, I would be satisfied if Intelligent Design was not included in teaching evolution, so long as the quote below from the Origin of the Species was also included. It doesn’t get any better than that … straight from the horse’s mouth! Surely no teacher would object to a direct quote from the book on evolution, unless he was a hateful atheist like Dawkins.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Or if the previous quote from Darwin was not selected to be used in a high school biology text, this one might do:
“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Certainly not evolutionary theory. While evolution is an observed fact, there is nothing in the theory that supports spontaneous generation. That was a holdover from the days when scientists were creationists.What branch of science require the belief in spontaneous generation and transformism.
St. Augustine acknowledged a form of evolution for the diversity of living things. Long before Darwin, people realized some kind of evolution had happened. Darwin’s great discovery was the way it happens.Evolution existed that we know of prior to the 6th century before Christ , the apostle Paul debated evolutionists on Mars Hill and Darwins grandfather wrote evolutionary poems before Darwin was born based on the poems of the 1 B.C. Epicurean poet [evolutionists that Paul debated} Lucretius.
Darwin is considered the founder of evolutionary science, because he demonstrated how it works.To claim Darwin founded any science is absurd even if evolution was science it existed thousands of years before he did.
You clearly have no understanding of biology, if you believe that. There are many journals dedicated to it, entire degree programs in that field.Population biology is not a major anything.
**Statistical mechanics is the application of probability theory, which includes mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the field of mechanics, which is concerned with the motion of particles or objects when subjected to a force. It provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic or bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, therefore explaining thermodynamics as a natural result of statistics and mechanics (classical and quantum) at the microscopic level.Statistical Thermodynamics is a sub branch , I said major branch.
It provides a interpretation of thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy, allowing the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics
Presently, statistical thermodynamics is thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics is no longer used for most problems.
Libraries are free. You can learn about these things, if you bother to do it.
Will you?
[/quote]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.