N
neophiliac
Guest
I’'m not sure if I understand this intelligent design as pertains to the creation of man. I’ve read articles, but seem to get confused. Could you please offer a simplistic answer to this question?. Thanks.
- Status
F
FuzzyBunny116
Guest
This is how my history teacher explained it, hes smart althought I don’t know if its true or not.
Basically, God wound up the world, evolution etc, and let go, so there is a God who did evolution and guided it, but doesn’t play an active role in things.
Basically, God wound up the world, evolution etc, and let go, so there is a God who did evolution and guided it, but doesn’t play an active role in things.
S
Santa_Cruz
Guest
Your history teacher may be Deist, as was a lot of the American Founding Fathers, who liken God as a watch maker who made the watch, wound it up, and now is letting it run down.
Pray for him.
J
jbuttrey
Guest
One idea that comes from design in the universe is that if something is designed then it probaby comes from an intelligent designer eg. God (the watchmaker). The big discussion is then in nature does the system’s design prove the intelligence creator. I believe it does and it is in my belief that it is almost a sure thing. For example everyone agrees that the temperature probably had to be very special and constant at the big bang to get the atoms that make up our universe. To me it means God was and is controlling the process.
The oppostite of design would be random chance and what some evolutionary darwinists who have that as their religion say is it could all come by chance. What their religion really says is there is no creator God thus no rules so I can make up my own morality.
Guess what, they want to have a culture where the stongest take advantage of the weak I want one based on God’s Laws.
Join Me
Brother John
The oppostite of design would be random chance and what some evolutionary darwinists who have that as their religion say is it could all come by chance. What their religion really says is there is no creator God thus no rules so I can make up my own morality.
Guess what, they want to have a culture where the stongest take advantage of the weak I want one based on God’s Laws.
Join Me
Brother John
M
Mystophilus
Guest
This is ‘guided evolution’, not ‘intelligent design’. I, too, made the mistake of thinking that this is what they meant, because of the name they chose.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
‘intelligent design’ is used to refer to ‘special creation’. This is the idea that life-forms, including humans, were instantaneously created from nothing by an intelligent designer (probably God,but not named as such). In other words, zap! - instant humans, no waiting, no homo erectus, no evolving whatsoever.
S
sirknightron
Guest
Peace be with you
When I was very young I used to wonder as to where the starting point of **EVERYTHING ** was including God.
What was before God if He existed all that kind of stuff.
Then I thought to myself as to what has always existed.
Befor anything else existed Truth had to exist or else nothing else could. God is all Truth and Truth has always existed for my simplest explaination. Tell me that truth does’nt exist and ask yourself if that would be the truth?
Ron
When I was very young I used to wonder as to where the starting point of **EVERYTHING ** was including God.
What was before God if He existed all that kind of stuff.
Then I thought to myself as to what has always existed.
Befor anything else existed Truth had to exist or else nothing else could. God is all Truth and Truth has always existed for my simplest explaination. Tell me that truth does’nt exist and ask yourself if that would be the truth?
Ron
E
Egg4christ
Guest
My concept of intelligent design always stated that there had to be some sort of creator, because the creations were too complex to happen by chance.
for instance, the beauty of an art masterpiece implies intelligent design, because something like that is too complex to happen by accident.
As this applies to evolution, it only states that there must be a creator, or God, but does not state which God he/she/it might be.
Opposition to this will ignore it completely saying that any species had plenty of time to grow into complex beings over many thousand years of evolution… They are wrong. For more info on this, check out a book called “The case for creation”
for instance, the beauty of an art masterpiece implies intelligent design, because something like that is too complex to happen by accident.
As this applies to evolution, it only states that there must be a creator, or God, but does not state which God he/she/it might be.
Opposition to this will ignore it completely saying that any species had plenty of time to grow into complex beings over many thousand years of evolution… They are wrong. For more info on this, check out a book called “The case for creation”
B
Beebs
Guest
The book is “Case for the Creator” Lee Stroble.
You might want to check out the EWTN website. There you can find an audio lecture call “I was a teenage darwinist” by jack Cashill
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
enter darwinist in the search and you will get it.
Beebs
A
awalt
Guest
What is the Church teaching on this? I have never heard it explained in the context of these theories…
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I love nothing about the Catholic Church so much as I love the Catechism, and I am not a Catholic. I wanted to quote the passages, but it just got too long, and so they are summarised below. I strongly suggest that you should follow the link and read them for yourself, however:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man…
285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own…[examples: monism; earth-worship; monadism; dualism]… Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins…
289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation…
295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness…
296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing”…
302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it…"
(Thus, science is a Good Thing and the creation of the cosmos ex nihilo was followed by development, which suggests support for Guided Evolution. A reference to the first three chapters of Genesis, their literary features, possible multiple authorship and the truths of creation all act together to obviate the simple, literal reading of Gen 1, which is good, because that contradicts Gen 2.)
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
An article attempting to clarify the terms used in the Darwin vs Intelligent Design positions
From the article:
“Most people do not understand the meaning of the terms being bandied about recently regarding “Evolution” or “Darwinism” and “Intelligent Design”. For a proper understanding of the heated debate, a definition of terms is in order.”….
Darwinism has a long history and paper trail. Intelligent Design is a more recent field of study, dating to the late 1980s. But ID has offered up some compelling work that merits even-handed consideration. For the debate on the relative merits of the opposing movements, a clear understanding of what each movement believes is critical.
homunculus.redstate.org/story/2005/8/31/234056/414
From the article:
“Most people do not understand the meaning of the terms being bandied about recently regarding “Evolution” or “Darwinism” and “Intelligent Design”. For a proper understanding of the heated debate, a definition of terms is in order.”….
Darwinism has a long history and paper trail. Intelligent Design is a more recent field of study, dating to the late 1980s. But ID has offered up some compelling work that merits even-handed consideration. For the debate on the relative merits of the opposing movements, a clear understanding of what each movement believes is critical.
homunculus.redstate.org/story/2005/8/31/234056/414
D
Donald45
Guest
Rather than this book—Stroble is neither Catholic, nor a scientist—I’d recommend a few others:
Edward J. Larson, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (2004).
Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God & Evolution (1999).
Robert Pennock, Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism (1999).
Keith Miller, Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (2003).
Michael Ruse, Darwin & Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? (2003).
Happy reading!
Don
A
Anonymous_1
Guest
Santa Cruz:
desism dosent makes ense though…lol if the universe in the dimension of space and time is approximated to be 14 Billion years old…and if life arose on earth approximatley 4 billion years ago…this suggests that this impersonal creator…did not just “wind the clock” and let it go but rather acted on space and time long after the clock was wound
A
Anonymous_1
Guest
Strobel is a journalist and he gathers the case and articulates it in a way that looks at both sides of the argument and is easily understandable…it is comprehensive…Strobel indeed is not Catholic…but its not like he proposes anything in the ID argument that is Uncatholic…in fact…some of the books donald mention comprimise the ID case at the expense of “scientific truth” so i dont reccomend reading a book like Finding Darwins God…
O
Orogeny
Guest
Why would you not recommend “Finding Darwin’s God”? The point that Miller is making in that book is that ID is not science while giving a very good general discussion of the vast amount of science that backs evolution.
Peace
Tim
A
Anonymous_1
Guest
looks at the case for Intelligent Design as proposed by the Discovery Institue and you will see that it is indeed science…
my problem is that Miller makes the our Faith out to to be founded upon “blind faith” which is of course is not. It is like saying, Science is truth becasue it employs the use of objective, empirical observations and experimentation, but Science can not refute things of Faith becasue Faith appeals to faith; things that can not be shown or proven or disproven which I believe to be incorrect as the ID proponents are showing.
Faith is certainly one aspect of my Catholic Christian belief, but my faith is not blind. As Josh Mcdowell well put it, “My heart can not dleight in what my mind rejects.”
anyway, my opinion is that Case for a Creator lays before the reader a powerful argument for Intelligent Design, and also proliferates the more notable rebuttals and refutations, and employs science and Faith in a way that will help us to discover and know God. I mean you can tell something about an artist by his paintings right? In the same way by looking at creation we can see God’s “finger prints” everywhere, and it only makes sense. By investigating aspects of creation we can also learn about this Creator…Anyway just my opinion, and I am entitled to that, and so are you…
God bless you brother and may He enlighten our minds…
my problem is that Miller makes the our Faith out to to be founded upon “blind faith” which is of course is not. It is like saying, Science is truth becasue it employs the use of objective, empirical observations and experimentation, but Science can not refute things of Faith becasue Faith appeals to faith; things that can not be shown or proven or disproven which I believe to be incorrect as the ID proponents are showing.
Faith is certainly one aspect of my Catholic Christian belief, but my faith is not blind. As Josh Mcdowell well put it, “My heart can not dleight in what my mind rejects.”
anyway, my opinion is that Case for a Creator lays before the reader a powerful argument for Intelligent Design, and also proliferates the more notable rebuttals and refutations, and employs science and Faith in a way that will help us to discover and know God. I mean you can tell something about an artist by his paintings right? In the same way by looking at creation we can see God’s “finger prints” everywhere, and it only makes sense. By investigating aspects of creation we can also learn about this Creator…Anyway just my opinion, and I am entitled to that, and so are you…
God bless you brother and may He enlighten our minds…
J
JimO
Guest
This article provides a good concise summary of Intelligent Design (ID). What it doesn’t address is an area that I, as a geologist, believe will be a very fertile future field for ID, that is statistics. Using modeling and statistical approaches one can evaluate the likelihood that Outcome A came about from Processes X, Y and Z. If the data are good, then a reasonable comparison can be made among various processes that may have caused a given natural system to come about.
Chaos theory has revolutionized weather models. Those models predict the formation and behavior of various complex weather systems. The same approach may some day be used to evaluate the likelihood, for example, that life sprung from a “primordial soup” or that mutation caused diversification species - both foundational principles in atheistic evolution. If these are shown to be statistically unlikely, then statistical evidence can be built to support creation.
D
Donald45
Guest
I certainly agree that our faith should not merely be a blind credulity. We should have sound reasons for believing that something is true. I would also suggest that having reasons is good, but that not everything that flows from reason is “science.” St. Thomas Aquinas compiled perhaps the finest case from reason ever produced for the truth of the Christian faith—*but the *Summa Theologica is not a “scientific” theory. He appeals to the workings of the natural world to demonstrate God’s existence, but his arguments and conclusions are theological and philosophical, not “scientific.”
This is a Catholic forum, though I’m not sure if you’re Catholic (welcome anyway, if you’re not!). Yet, your repeated reference to Evangelical Protestant writings seems to indicate a leaning on your part toward a particularly Protestant approach to Christian apologetics, and its generally Enlightenment-inspired application of “scientific reason” to issues of religious faith. I agree with McDowell’s statement, but not his overall rational approach to evangelization.
Yes, an artist is revealed in his paintings, and God is revealed in his creation, but neither of these observations would qualify as “science.” The Teleological Argument, which seeks to demonstrate God from his creation, is a religio-philosophical concept, not a “scientific” one.
In Christ,
Don
- Status