Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
On the contrary, Catholic Answers is telling us that that is exactly what is being promoted here.
Click to expand...
No-one on this thread or anywhere else in this forum has ever, at any time, in any way whatsoever suggested or claimed that evolution denies God.

Either put up or retract.
 
niceatheist said:
Good, then please tell me how evolution works. I find it useful at these junctures to test knowledge of the theory, even if you don’t agree with it.
Click to expand...
Again? Not gonna play. You have not been successful in your rebuttals so now you want to know if I know how it works? I know full well how they say it is supposed to work.I know how macro does not work. I know micro does. The evidence for macro is just not there. The evidence is ID is the way. Get used to it, it is not going away and getting stronger every day.

See if we can stick to arguing the actual science instead of the person. It is a pattern here, when out of arguments always attack the poster.
 
I’m not against evolution and know what I’ve been taught about it and read even. I’ve not ever heard a convincing argument here or anywhere for it except because (most folks and experts agree this is undeniable fact) ,. So I am open to believing the earth is 6,000 years old just as convincingly that it is 6,000,000,000 years old. A day can be a thousand years to God, or a thousand years can be one day but it makes your heart stay open when you hear the words in Genesis, “there was morning and there was night, the sixth day.”. So I see that flaws that could be construed from basing both views on fact, I’m just not convinced yet of either theory, especially after coming here today and seeing this debate (I’m not alone, 38% still believe in Creationism and even 21% with a post graduate education).

news.gallup.com

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

While most Americans believe God was involved in the creation of humans, fewer than four in 10 (38%) hold a strict creationist view, the lowest level in 35 years.
news.gallup.com news.gallup.com
 
Last edited:
Check both sides of the argument though, they make some good points on refuting Creationism, but very few refuters examine the science used in refuting popular evolutionary and geologic theories. The fact of the matter does seem to come down to teleology which isn’t about science at all but why.
 
I totally disagree with the how/why argument, as does the Church. If an atheist actually believed that evolution does not exclude God then he would be a deist. But I’m seeing no evidence that this is the case here. There are two camps: one is science only, the other must include God’s role in Creation.
 
I agree with you, but no one agrees with me and you! When no one can examine or question the validity of new theories or hypotheses on our origin and all that entails; then, the debate must go to questioning why we are making these theories. Is it in pursuit of truth?
I’m talking about seeing it as more than two sides, some of the science for a theistic evolution can walk in harmony with belief in God as well as obviously the traditionalist literal interpretation of Genesis (as Questioning the theories of origin of species and the age of the Earth is not really pseudoscience; questioning it to show a belief and even a proof of God is not pseudoscience either.). But as Pope Pius XII said in translation on this subject specifically (in an encylclical “Humani generis”) ‘demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.’
 
Last edited:
Science, by definition, cannot study the supernatural. Such a thing essentially does not exist. Fortunately, the Church who is given the task of interpreting Scripture correctly, can provide information that science cannot. That would be the whole truth.

Humani Generis is by Pope Pius XII.
 
I changed it but not in time,. Science is a tool like a gun, it is used morally or immorally was my point; its theories and hypotheses can and will be tested as will the supernatural; we decide how and when to use the tools we have.
 
edwest211 said:
I totally disagree with the how/why argument, as does the Church. If an atheist actually believed that evolution does not exclude God then he would be a deist. But I’m seeing no evidence that this is the case here. There are two camps: one is science only, the other must include God’s role in Creation.
Click to expand...
You keep pushing this barrow. It is complete nonsense. No-one is arguing that evolution denies God’s existence. Maybe I need that writ larger:

NO-ONE IS ARGUING THAT EVOLUTION DENIES GOD’S EXISTENCE.

D’ya get that, or do I need a larger font and bright colours?B
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
On the contrary, Catholic Answers is telling us that that is exactly what is being promoted here.
Click to expand...
But people regard evolution as a process which has an intrinsic potency to form species without God’s power and will. There is no need to say that directly but the way of evolution goes to (or imply) such thought.
Click to expand...
 
mhmtas63 said:
But people regard evolution as a process which has an intrinsic potency to form species without God’s power and will.
Click to expand...
Let’s try that in a different key:
But people regard gravity as a process which has an intrinsic potency to form planets without God’s power and will.
Click to expand...
All of science ignores all gods. That is not unique to evolution.

Would you want your science teacher to talk about the influence of Amaterasu on the geological formation of the islands of Japan?
 
mhmtas63 said:
40.png
Bradskii:
On the contrary, Catholic Answers is telling us that that is exactly what is being promoted here.
Click to expand...
But people regard evolution as a process which has an intrinsic potency to form species without God’s power and will.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The only people who believe that are people who don’t believe in God in the first instance. But there is no-one anywhere in this entire forum that uses evolution to try to deny God’s existence. Including atheists and people with different religious beliefs. Anyone who says differently only has to produce a single comment by anyone to that effect to back up what they say otherwise you will know they are making untrue statements.

What you WILL find is that Christians with fundamentalist beliefs use ID to try to prove God. Well, they say ‘an intelligent designer’ but who are they kidding…

So atheists aren’t using science to disprove God. That’s impossible. But fundamentalists are using it to try to prove His existence. An equally impossible enterprise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
But there is no-one anywhere in this entire forum that uses evolution to try to deny God’s existence.
Click to expand...
Right, they don’t get very far here as it is a Catholic site. What about some atheist sites who routinely use science to disparage and mock God? I have been on them and the debate degenerates very quickly. I haven’t participated in a while now since they are not very well moderated.
 
niceatheist said:
Theology is a scholarly pursuit, not science
Click to expand...
Might want to do a search on that. Science in its broad definition is the pursuit of knowledge. Yes, it differs from empirical science and why evolution is not, and is philosophy.
 
A broad definition might win a game of semantics, but. In the rigorous definition, theology is not science anymore than history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top