Intelligent Design

[JSmitty2005]

Orogeny:

He certainly does believe that God was involved, but based on this quote “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.”, I would say that he does accept the physical evolution of humans. Obviously, that doesn’t include the evolution of souls.

All I was saying was that Catholics are not at liberty to believe that a *population * of apes evolved into humans. I think that this is called paleyism (spelling is probably wrong) and it is not in line with Church dogma. It is required belief that there were an original man and woman, not a whole group of them. Also, I refuse to believe in evolution simply because the pope (supposedly) believes in it. He is a religious figure, not a scientific one. Furthermore, the scientists that educate the clergy have been known to have their own little agendas and I am suspicious of that. Included in this bunch is Stephen Hawking. Here is a quote of his:

“He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!”

The conference that Hawking is referring to was the 1981 Vatican Conference on Cosmology. I don’t think that scientists that are secretly trying to disprove a moment of Creation should be informing our Church leaders on scientific issues, but that’s just me. The article can be found at this link:
sycophants.info/hawking.html

As far as hominid evolution being a ‘convincing case,’ I beg to differ. The transitional fossils that were supposedly found ended up being either completely apes, completely human, or frauds. Listen to this radio program to hear for yourself. You may wish to right click and 'Save Target As…" if you’d like to save it to your computer. You will need RealPlayer to listen to it. Here’s the link:

download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/iq_835.ra

Here is another good one called “I Was A Teenage Darwinist.”

download.rbn.com/ewtn/g2ewtn/download/odaudio/tw35.ra

By the way, all of these are Catholic sources and not fundamentalist ones.

I would also like to point out that some Church officials are beginning to see the problems with evolution. This includes Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna. He wrote an article for the New York Times on this issue, but I can’t seem to find it. I would appreciate it if someone would post the link.

Another point that I would like to make is that in the passage that you cited, it says that “the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision.” I wouldn’t interpret this document as the Church’s endorsement of evolutionary theory since it’s saying that study into man’s origins will never be a done deal.

I am completely open-minded to hearing all sides of the story. But as it is now, the evidence to back up evolution seems to be pitifully lacking and the evidence to disprove it seems to be growing. I totally agree with the Church on the fact that truth cannot contradict truth, however I don’t believe that there is truth in Darwin’s theory. Simply because the Church stated that the evolutionary theory isn’t completely contrary to the Faith and can be reconciled with to it with some tweaking does not mean in any way that the Church is promoting Darwin’s theory.

I don’t believe in the notion that Scripture is some sort of scientific account of Creation or that God created everything in exactly 7, 24-hour days. I don’t agree with the fundamentalists on this point. How long would a day have even been before the sun and earth were created? God isn’t subject to time, time is subject to him. Time didn’t begin until God’s creative act, so how can creation have a time limit? Anyways, I think it was more likely done in 7 seconds (or rather instantaneously), but that’s just me. Like Galileo, I feel that the Bible tells us “how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” But like I said, at the moment evolution doesn’t cut it for me, but we’ll see how it goes. I’m open to anything.

Here are two more relevant articles:
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/science.html
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

 

[PhilVaz]

Smitty << I think that you should listen to the Real Audio file that I put a link for above. ID is criticized for imposing a religious philosophy on science, but the individual giving the talk explains how Darwinian evolution is just as guilty at committing this folly. >>

Heard him before, his article in Envoy is very simplistic (I don’t have his book) and he was hammered in a letter to the editor. George Sim Johnston presents all the same old dumb creationist objections to evolution that are demolished by TalkOrigins. He is at least not a young-earther, but his objections to evolution are very poor.

Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict: “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (from his commentary on Genesis, In The Beginning)

See also Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission statement, especially paragraphs 62-70.

Pope John Paul II: “…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (October 1996 to Pontifical Academy of Science)

Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna: “With this [Origin of Species], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge… I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above [Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins], it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith…I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things.” (English translation on Creation and Evolution, dated 10/2/2005, a series of lectures to be published in book form on this subject)

Need I say more. The Popes and Cardinals have spoken.

Smitty << Darwin’s Origin of Species was more philosophical than scientific. It’s all part of the materialistic mindset of the end of the 19th century. >>

I guess that’s why Darwin referred to a Creator at least seven times in Origin of Species, his book is based on his own scientific observations and scientific insights into biogeography and natural selection over a 30 year period (and confirmed and elaborated upon by biology over the next 150 years), and it was Christian creationist geologists who discovered the earth was very old well before Darwin which allowed for evolution to occur.

Phil P

 

[JSmitty2005]

When I look at this issue, I think that pro-evolution Christians are comparable to pro-contraception pro-lifers. The contradiction between the two issues may not be explicitly obvious however I believe it’s still there. Evolution has indefinately contributed to the atheistic, materialistic, secular humanist society that we live in. This is the ultimate problem I have with this issue.

 

[PhilVaz]

Smitty << As far as hominid evolution being a ‘convincing case,’ I beg to differ. The transitional fossils that were supposedly found ended up being either completely apes, completely human, or frauds. Listen to this radio program to hear for yourself. >>

Buddy you are listening to the wrong radio programs. Forget George Sim Johnston, forget Crisis magazine. Here are the radio programs you need to listen to:

Science Friday on anthropology

Just a couple of those will do the trick. They are by the paleoanthropologists themselves, neither Catholic nor fundamentalist. Simply scientists. And here is a picture for you.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/homin2.jpg

(A) Pan troglodytes, modern chimpanzee; (B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 My; (C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 My; (D) Homo habilis, 1.9 My; (E) Homo habilis, 1.8 My; (F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 My; (G) primitive Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium, 1.75 My; (H) Homo ergaster (late H. erectus), 1.75 My; (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 - 125,000 y; (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 70,000 y; (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 60,000 y; (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 45,000 y; (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon, 30,000 y; (N) modern Homo sapiens sapiens

And some articles:

Hominid Species: Neither ape, nor human, nor frauds

Discussion of the convincing genetics evidence

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

And some books, available at your local university library (I found them at USF):

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata (Springer, 2002)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

Smitty << This includes Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna. He wrote an article for the New York Times on this issue, but I can’t seem to find it. I would appreciate it if someone would post the link. >>

We’ve discussed the Cardinal’s statement in here, in fact when it came out in July. You’ve missed the past 1 1/2 years of discussion on this topic in here. The Cardinal has clarified himself a bit, quoted above. I look forward to his book on the subject which will be based on his new catechetical lecture series. Good stuff.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Smitty << Listen to this radio program to hear for yourself. You may wish to right click and 'Save Target As…" if you’d like to save it to your computer. You will need RealPlayer to listen to it. Here’s the link: … By the way, all of these are Catholic sources and not fundamentalist ones.
Those two EWTN programs (St. Joseph Radio, etc) are embarrassing. I’ve heard and downloaded them before. I doubt Tim Staples would endorse much of that today (maybe I’m wrong, maybe he still is a young-earther). The arguments are based on the same old anti-evolution fundamentalist young-earth creationism of the 1960s, 70s, 80s. Talk Origins deals with all that stuff.

If you want a good and fair debate on creation and evolution, nothing beats the Firing Line debate from 1997. The arguments of Johnson, Behe, and the rest are at least a bit more sophisticated than the programs you’ve linked. And please check out the Science Friday archives, you’ll learn quite a bit.

Phil P

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

PhilVaz:

Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict: “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (from his commentary on Genesis, In The Beginning)

See also Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission statement, especially paragraphs 62-70.

Pope John Paul II: “…new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than a hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (October 1996 to Pontifical Academy of Science)

Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna: “With this [Origin of Species], his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge… I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above [Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins], it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith…I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things.” (English translation on Creation and Evolution, dated 10/2/2005, a series of lectures to be published in book form on this subject)

Need I say more. The Popes and Cardinals have spoken.

Phil P

The problem that I have with all of this is that the alleged “pre-Adamic” fossil record shows evidence of violent death (i.e. by scalping), cannibalism, disease, etc…If all this existed before Adam, then what was the result of “the Fall”? A purely spiritual death with no observable physical effects?

This is in direct opposition to Trent (5th Session) which makes clear that that physical pain, suffering, and death are the legacy of Original Sin.

Trent 5th Session:
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

How do reconcile these positions, pray tell?

Richard

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

I agree with that. ID, however, doesn’t allow for that because once something is declared “designed” or “irreducibly complex”, what is the point of further research.

Peace

Tim

Yeah, that sure does seem like a catch-22. On the other hand spending countless dollars pursuuing a theory that will never be proven is also pointless.

I am not sure how to get out of this loop.

 

[JSmitty2005]

PhilVaz:

If you want a good and fair debate on creation and evolution, nothing beats the Firing Line debate from 1997. The arguments of Johnson, Behe, and the rest are at least a bit more sophisticated than the programs you’ve linked.

Any time I see a representative of the AU (Barry Lynn), I’m naturally drawn to the other side of the debate, but I’ll listen to it when I get a chance.

 

[PhilVaz]

Smitty << (Barry Lynn), I’m naturally drawn to the other side of the debate, but I’ll listen to it when I get a chance. >>

While I would probably disagree with Barry Lynn on other issues, on the creation-evolution issue and his statements made in that Firing Line debate, he is 100% right on (in my opinion). Same with Ken Miller, but Phil Johnson and Mike Behe had interesting things to say as well. Berlinski and Buckley didn’t add much.

For RichHurtz, on the “death before sin” objection, while the young-earth creationism interpretation, which I assume you hold to, might deal with some of the theological objections, it totally ignores and contradicts the fact that death has occurred before the rise of homo sapiens on this planet. That is a scientific fact, so all of this needs to be reconciled. Dinosaurs, and millions of species lived, died, and went extinct before the rise of homo sapiens, for example.

Different Christians reconcile this different ways, I don’t have a complete orthodox Catholic solution yet. Dennis Bonnette deals with “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve before their Fall (quoted in another thread, and here).

Other Christian interpretations are that animal death before the Fall is in fact not even taught in the Bible, I’ve provided dozens of links before, here are some of them:

Creature Mortality, from creation or the Fall?
No Death Before the Fall, a young-earth heresy
Death Before the Fall, the Theology
Animal Death Before the Fall

BTW, who discovered that millions of animals died before Adam/Eve? Hint: it wasn’t atheists, it wasn’t agnostics, it wasn’t humanists, or Bible-hating, Genesis-depising skeptics. It was, for the most part, Bible-believing, Genesis-affirming Christian creationist geologists and paleontologists of the 18th, early 19th centuries. Here are the historical details by evangelical geologist Davis Young.

Now are you saying that no cockroach, no ant, no leaf on a tree, no cell whatever could die before the Fall of Adam/Eve? Is that what the Catholic dogma really is? It seems I’ve had this discussion in here before.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

RichHurtz citing Trent << being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. >>

Yes, Adam/Eve were the first true human beings with souls, they disobeyed, and because of this original sin and Fall, death spread to them, and to all human beings descended from them. But even the modern Catechism says much of this language is “figurative” or “symbolical” (note explicitly paragraphs 337-338, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396), as does Cardinal Ratzinger in his commentary on Genesis. Pope John Paul II wrote on Genesis:

“The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

None of the modern popes are young-earthers in case you didn’t notice, so I will continue to include them all on the pro-evolution pro-science pro-Catholic side to drive you traditionalist young-earthers nuts, contrary to your understandings of the Council of Trent, other Councils, or previous Popes.

But Trent (and Romans 5) is not talking about cockroaches, plant leaves, or cells being immortal before Adam/Eve. That’s what I need from you and Trent: “whoever says cells could die before Adam/Eve, let him be anathema…” The Bible doesn’t teach that in Romans 5 either (see evangelical Protestant articles linked above). These texts deal with human death, not animal death before the Fall.

And Glenn Morton (former young-earther, now theist evolutionist) makes a good case that God created cellular “death codes” since without them birth and life as we know it on this earth is not possible.

If you postulate the “Paradise” (Garden of Eden) of Genesis was / is something like heaven, and existed / exists outside this space-time-universe, that is another possible solution to the “death before the Fall” theological objections. And it is not testable or falsifiable by science, so it is not a scientific problem. See previous threads on this topic.

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

Behe differs with his fellow biochemists (not biologists) on ID, as well as with his fellow Catholics. His co-religionists at the Discovery Institute include Protestants, Moonies, and others.

They are united in their desire to establish God in science, (their manifesto, the “Wedge Document” lists this as a “governing goal”)
something specifically mentioned as an error by John Paul II.

 

[rossum]

buffalo:

On the other hand spending countless dollars pursuuing a theory that will never be proven is also pointless.

Then you are saying that all of science is pointless. No scientific theory is ever “proven”. Any theory can only ever be “the best explanation we currently have”. Proof is for mathematics, and alcohol. All scientific theories are provisional and can be replaced by better theories that provide a superior explanation of the available data.

Newton’s theory of gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s theory. We already know that there are inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; they give different answers to some questions about the Big Bang. One or both of these is going to have to be replaced at some point. Darwin’s original version of evolution has already been altered by the incorporation of Mendel’s work on genetics and the discovery of DNA.

It is only by spending the money that we can gather the data on which the new and better theories will be based. Science is a work in progress by which new data is gathered to try to improve our existing theories and to develop new ones. Spending the money is worthwhile as is shown by the results of science.

rossum

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Barbarian:

Behe differs with his fellow biochemists (not biologists) on ID, as well as with his fellow Catholics. His co-religionists at the Discovery Institute include Protestants, Moonies, and others.

They are united in their desire to establish God in science, (their manifesto, the “Wedge Document” lists this as a “governing goal”)
something specifically mentioned as an error by John Paul II.

I doubt that JP2 believes in excluding God from anything, including science. Notice above how Stephen Hawking was disappointed when JP2 discouraged investigation into the Big Band b/c it was the work of God.

 

[Anonymous_1]

I am intensley interested in this discussion. However i could not possibly read ervyones posts.

Public schools, the media and science in general has a presupposition of naturalism, a naturalistic world view. However because science starts with a naturalistic viewpoint, it is not objective. Although I believe science is capable of discovering natural truth, supernatural truth can not simply be discovered in experimental research.

My beef with the “system” is this:
Children learn from an early age that science trumps all because it is the end all when it comes to truth. When notable people like Behe and Meyers and countless others come along with evidence that affirms that creation itself declares the creative wisdom of a Powerful Preexisting Intelligent Being…I think that should be given SOME kind of attention. To make this out to be an issue of religion verse science is non sense…to proclaim that science is is one of the only sources of verifiable truth…and that there is no scientific evidence that points to a Creator, what does this leave ignorant school children believing? This misleads them before they even have a chance at faith…What enfuriates me is that in light of some of the most recent scientific findings, THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN POSITION…for scientists to say other wise and refuse to awknowledge this woold be out of ignorance, or fear of the implications…but to deny this evidence would be a failure to accept reality…it would be decieving…

For a good read check out…Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Anonymous_1:

I am intensley interested in this discussion. However i could not possibly read ervyones posts.

Public schools, the media and science in general has a presupposition of naturalism, a naturalistic world view. However because science starts with a naturalistic viewpoint, it is not objective. Although I believe science is capable of discovering natural truth, supernatural truth can not simply be discovered in experimental research.

My beef with the “system” is this:
Children learn from an early age that science trumps all because it is the end all when it comes to truth. When notable people like Behe and Meyers and countless others come along with evidence that affirms that creation itself declares the creative wisdom of a Powerful Preexisting Intelligent Being…I think that should be given SOME kind of attention. To make this out to be an issue of religion verse science is non sense…to proclaim that science is is one of the only sources of verifiable truth…and that there is no scientific evidence that points to a Creator, what does this leave ignorant school children believing? This misleads them before they even have a chance at faith…What enfuriates me is that in light of some of the most recent scientific findings, THERE IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN POSITION…for scientists to say other wise and refuse to awknowledge this woold be out of ignorance, or fear of the implications…but to deny this evidence would be a failure to accept reality…it would be decieving…

For a good read check out…Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel…

All I have to say about your post is, “AMEN!”

 

[JSmitty2005]

“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.”
-G.K. Chesterton

 

[Donald45]

JimO:

Intelligent design…is simply a concept that says, “Hey, when you examine the complexities of life on earth and in the physical universe, there is clear evidence of intelligence behind all these systems”… Intelligent design is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology

Yes, though the concept you describe can be found in any philosophy of religion texbook, and is known as The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God. It is a decidedly philosophical idea which does not qualify as “science.” This is at the heart of the controversy over whether or not ID should be taught in the public schools. My response is that, if it is, it should not be taught as "science," since such a teleological concept is a religio-philosophical rather than scientific viewpoint. (Recall that Paley’s “watchmaker” illustration was published in his book entitled Natural Theology.)

I agree that ID “is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology,” given that ID is itself a theological construction that ought not be confused with a scientific conclusion.

Truly,
Don

 

[JSmitty2005]

"sci·ence
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science."

I got that off of www.dictionary.com I don’t see anything in that definition of ‘science’ that is in conflict with ID. Please clarify how ID is not science. I think it’s more in conflict with the naturalistic evolutionary-minded folks’s view of science more so than it is true science. Please correct me if I’ve gone astray. Thanks!

 

[Donald45]

Catholic Dude:

The best quote I have ever heard:If Man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes?

You may want to find a different favorite quote, since Darwin nowhere suggested that “man evolved from apes.” It’s simply not a part of the content of evolutionary theory. Whoever came up with the statement clearly needs to get his facts straight. What may work on a bumper sticker isn’t necessarily scientifically correct.

Truly,
Don

 

[Donald45]

“sci·ence
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena”… *(“http://www.i/”) don’t see anything in that definition of ‘science’ that is in conflict with ID. Please clarify how ID is not science.

The answer lies in the very definition you supplied: “Science” restricts itself to physical/natural/material entities and effects. The “intelligence” appealed to in ID theory is necessarily *metaphysical/supernatural/immaterial. *How do we know this? Because if the intelligence is natural, then this intelligence itself requires a further creative intelligence to explain its own existence. And that intelligence would have to be supernatural (“beyond nature”). So, either ID’s “intelligence” is just another created entity (and itself a part of nature), or it’s the immaterial Creator of all created things—and this we call “God.”

Given that “science,” according to your definition, applies to “natural phenomena,” to material causes and effects, then ID’s metaphysical “intelligent designer” is, by definition, a non-scientific cause, and is thus outside the self-imposed limits of science. The forced conclusion, then, is that ID theory—while fine as a theological argument—is not “science.”

God bless,
Don