E
edwest2
Guest
I am definitely opposed to embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds and on the fact that a human embryo is a human being. Ask any embryologist.
Peace,
Ed
Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
- Status
Peace,
Ed
Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.
R
ricmat
Guest
It’s a threat to no one, except young atheists.
Yes, they are in a panic that God might exist. I’d be afraid too, not of creationists, but of God.
R
rossum
Guest
Then your previous statement that you were “not opposed to any sort of research to fight human illnesses” [emphasis added] could be corrected. Perhaps replace “any” by “most”.
Of course. That is why I asked the question.
rossum
E
edwest2
Guest
A
Alex246
Guest
To end the possibly thread-hijacking discussion on stem cells, they can also be gotten without harm from adults. yes, i know the results may be limited to the organ they are taken from, but I also know that they can be found in many organs and are less likely to cause rejection. Read this. stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp
Now let’s get back to intelligent design.
I personally believe that evolution exists, but was guided by God until he arrived with the ideal body to give an everlasting soul to. This view is not condemned by the Catholic church, and I learned this from this very website. I hope we can sometime stop debating about this and get on to more important things.
Now let’s get back to intelligent design.
I personally believe that evolution exists, but was guided by God until he arrived with the ideal body to give an everlasting soul to. This view is not condemned by the Catholic church, and I learned this from this very website. I hope we can sometime stop debating about this and get on to more important things.
E
edwest2
Guest
“get on to more important things”?
Please cite Church sources that indicate God waited around until an “ideal body” He could drop a soul into appeared. It’s not true.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Gosh, origins is one of the most compelling and neat things to discuss.
A
Alex246
Guest
Okay, I think I did a bad job of explaining myself on that one. I tend to do that.
Here’s the original article from this site (with a nihil obstat and imprimatur). I hope this is the kind of source you were looking for. Especially read the section of human evolution. It’s kind of what I tried to explain but did a very bad job of.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp
Also, I’m sorry if my “more important things” remark offended anyone. I just find the heated debate on this issue kind of annoying, what with the leeway the Church gives on this subject. Believing in evolution (not the atheistic kind, of course) is permitted. Creationism also is permitted. Intelligent design is permitted. To me the debate seems pointless. I guess that means I’ll just have to stay out of these debates and leave them to people who have interest. I probably should have thought before I wrote that.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Hubriss
Ugh, disgusting. This is just the cosmological argument, except wrapped up in a new skin to make it seem sophisticated and current, similar to how intelligent design is just repackaged creationism (we’ll keep saying it because it’s true).
And is the Big Bang also just repackaged creationism? “Let there be light!”
Ugh, disgusting. This is just the cosmological argument, except wrapped up in a new skin to make it seem sophisticated and current, similar to how intelligent design is just repackaged creationism (we’ll keep saying it because it’s true).
And is the Big Bang also just repackaged creationism? “Let there be light!”
J
JRPO
Guest
Does design exist?
B
buffalo
Guest
Absolutely it does. Those that have issues with ID avoid this question ever time I ask it.
H
Hubriss
Guest
No, because there is actually evidence and reasoning for the Big Bang.
I think buffalo cited Kenneth Miller earlier. Why would you do that? He testified in court against intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, and rejects this rubbish book and the Discovery Institute as much as any other scientist can. His only contention with Coyne was that Kenneth supports the ability to accommodate religion while having a scientific materialistic mindset that is required in order to do good science. Coyne believes it’s a contradiction and is an anti-accommodationist, and doesn’t believe people should say that religious thought is compatible with the scientific method. I agree with Coyne because science has to do with evidence, logic, and reason, and religion has to do with faith. They are two different standards that are the exact opposite of each other.
But yeah, agreeing with Miller doesn’t help you. Miller agrees with the whole European Council thing you guys are quoting. He does not think ID should be at all taught in schools because it is not scientific, and it threatens to confuse children as to what is the best method of obtaining real knowledge. Most people would prefer the scientific method over faith any day.
To answer the question of “does design exist.” Not being nit-picky about the definition of the term design, yes it exists, but it must assume a designer. In other words, in order to determine if something is designed, you must first know of a designer. Behe said in his book Darwin’s Black Box that Intelligent design is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” It assumes a purpose and an arranger, which is why it is circular when used to try to point to God, among other fallacies in the argument.
B
buildingwings
Guest
Who have you been asking?
The famous atheist, Richard Dawkins would tell you there is no conscious design.
As for my answer, I would have to say yes. There is design in the universe, however, I do not believe that this design is mutually exclusive with evolution. The biggest problem that I have with ID is that it is trying to be passed off as science, when it belongs in a religion or philosophy class. Why doesn’t it belong in science? Because you can’t test the theory via a scientific method, which is objective and concrete.
J
JRPO
Guest
I asked the question for a reason. ID is something new to me so excuse my ignorance. I’m trying to follow this thread to figure out exactly what is being talked about here. What is ID and what does it have to do with DNA.
p.s i’m worried I’m asking something too scientific here so keep it simple.
R
ricmat
Guest
ID is short for “Intelligent Design.” ID is a search for evidence of design in nature. Naturally, such a search seems meaningless and/or potentially dangerous to atheists. So sometimes we get into very heated discussions.
DNA is found in every living cell, and is an extremely complicated molecule. All of “us” (except our souls) has a blueprint in our DNA - our bodies, our instincts, etc. Bill Gates (Microsoft) compares DNA to a computer program, but much more complex than anything humans have ever produced. Even more complex than Vista ( LOL ).
Once DNA exists, it can replicate and mutate.
But DNA shows characteristics of being designed and/or guided into being, instead of just coming together from chemicals based on natural laws. A book “Signature in the Cell” has just been released which details the arguments for the first DNA being designed, and also describes why it cannot have come about without guidance or a plan, or design. Ditto for the first living cell.
That’s the short version…
T
tjm190
Guest
define information
J
JDaniel
Guest
Rossum:
In truth, though, ESCR and cloning could rightly be opposed on virtually any grounds. So, for you it’s merely a secular vs. religion battleground?
jd
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
You know those infomercials where some guy on a yacht is telling you how your computer can earn money for you, just set it up and it will bring in $10,000 a month while you sit back and relax? Here’s how I know they aren’t true – If the guy could actually do that, he would be spending his time setting up a room full of computers instead of making ads for late night television.
You know those people at the Discovery Institute who claim that they can measure information content and detect design? Here’s how I know they aren’t true – if they could actually do that, they would be making billions of dollars from new applications from steganography to automated computer virus detection to artificial intelligence understanding of complex data, instead of wasting all their time and effort and ability just to argue that evolution is wrong.
You know those people at the Discovery Institute who claim that they can measure information content and detect design? Here’s how I know they aren’t true – if they could actually do that, they would be making billions of dollars from new applications from steganography to automated computer virus detection to artificial intelligence understanding of complex data, instead of wasting all their time and effort and ability just to argue that evolution is wrong.
R
ricmat
Guest
“The attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.”
E
edwest2
Guest
To Just Lurking -
That is so wrong. Who funds all the archaeologists who travel around the world digging bones and artifacts out of the ground? Who? Are they making billions of dollars doing it?
Intelligent Design is determinied all the time by the archaeologists. That’s why they can detect design in a piece of clay to determine it’s a shard of pottery and not just a dried piece of clay with some discoloration. It’s obvious to them that they can detect design.
Peace,
Ed
That is so wrong. Who funds all the archaeologists who travel around the world digging bones and artifacts out of the ground? Who? Are they making billions of dollars doing it?
Intelligent Design is determinied all the time by the archaeologists. That’s why they can detect design in a piece of clay to determine it’s a shard of pottery and not just a dried piece of clay with some discoloration. It’s obvious to them that they can detect design.
Peace,
Ed
- Status