W
wanerious
Guest
Donald45 said:
This was originally a one-liner from the deadpan comedian Steven Wright. It was a joke.
- Status
This was originally a one-liner from the deadpan comedian Steven Wright. It was a joke.
W
wanerious
Guest
Well, not really evidence, but just a failure of imagination.
…which is? What is this evidence? The scientific community has been waiting.
D
dts
Guest
Grove City College website
gcc.savvior.com/Response%20to%20the%20Dover,%20PA%20Trial%20Concerning%20Intelligent%20Design.php
Response to the Dover, PA Trial Concerning Intelligent Design
By Dr. David H. Jones
October 25, 2005
**. . . **
The almost hysterical reaction of the scientific establishment to the desire to read a one-minute statement to freshman biology students about “Intelligent Design” is very interesting and revealing. It reflects, I believe, a misunderstanding of the true nature of the debate over origins. The typical argument is that, since intelligent design infers the activity of a creator, it is a form of philosophy or religion and should thus be excluded from the teaching of science. Naturalistic Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is upheld as scientific, free from philosophical or religious implications and should be taught exclusively.
Whether we admit it or not, all assumptions concerning the origin of life operate from one of two worldviews: the super-naturalist or theistic assumption and the naturalist or atheistic assumption. A super-naturalist will hold that some outside (divine) power brought the universe and all living things into existence, while the naturalist assumes that all can be explained by random chance. Neither assumption can be proven scientifically and so must be accepted by faith alone; the mechanism of the origin of life is not experimentally repeatable and cannot really be proven scientifically. Inferences can be made based on things such as similarities among animals or patterns in the fossil record, for instance, but the conclusions reached will ultimately depend upon a person’s worldview. Super-naturalism and naturalism are both, therefore, faith commitments or, if you will, religions. Often the debate over evolution is framed in terms of a conflict between science and religion, whereas it is actually a conflict between two different worldviews or religions.
**. . . **
gcc.savvior.com/Response%20to%20the%20Dover,%20PA%20Trial%20Concerning%20Intelligent%20Design.php
Response to the Dover, PA Trial Concerning Intelligent Design
By Dr. David H. Jones
October 25, 2005
**. . . **
The almost hysterical reaction of the scientific establishment to the desire to read a one-minute statement to freshman biology students about “Intelligent Design” is very interesting and revealing. It reflects, I believe, a misunderstanding of the true nature of the debate over origins. The typical argument is that, since intelligent design infers the activity of a creator, it is a form of philosophy or religion and should thus be excluded from the teaching of science. Naturalistic Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is upheld as scientific, free from philosophical or religious implications and should be taught exclusively.
Whether we admit it or not, all assumptions concerning the origin of life operate from one of two worldviews: the super-naturalist or theistic assumption and the naturalist or atheistic assumption. A super-naturalist will hold that some outside (divine) power brought the universe and all living things into existence, while the naturalist assumes that all can be explained by random chance. Neither assumption can be proven scientifically and so must be accepted by faith alone; the mechanism of the origin of life is not experimentally repeatable and cannot really be proven scientifically. Inferences can be made based on things such as similarities among animals or patterns in the fossil record, for instance, but the conclusions reached will ultimately depend upon a person’s worldview. Super-naturalism and naturalism are both, therefore, faith commitments or, if you will, religions. Often the debate over evolution is framed in terms of a conflict between science and religion, whereas it is actually a conflict between two different worldviews or religions.
**. . . **
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
That^ is exactly why IT should be taught in school alongside Darwin and that^ is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. They are both theories with evidence to back them. They should be given equal exposure.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Shows clear signs of artiface.
Never heard one say that. I’m a biologist myself, and I was never taught that.
Someone’s been playing games with you.
Incidentally, irreducible complexity has been directly observed to evolve, so although it’s not an accident, it’s not a sign of magical intervention, either. It’s just the way God’s creation works.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
How about this one?
God created the world in 6 days. (see Bible)
When Adam and Eve sinned, not only did they themselves fall from the grace (close union with the Infinite) that made preternatural gifts such as physical immortality possible for them, but the entire world over which they had dominion also fell from grace.
In the blink of an eye, the world which God had created for Adam and Eve in the preternaturally short span of just 6 days, was now a world that had had to evolve merely naturally, over millions of years, to finally arrive at a state of being that was inferior to the one it had started in. Instantly, the world’s history was changed. This change was caused by Adam and Eve. It did not occur before Adam and Eve.
Whoa! In my little flight of fancy death does not precede “the rise of homo sapiens”! But it is still consistent with the physical record that was left behind, isn’t it ?
“God’s ways are as far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth.”
Anybody, any scientist, who doesn’t believe that is going to be hobbled in his quest for truth.
E
Evan
Guest
Or how about this one?
pre - Homo Sapiens evolved as all animals appear to have evolved BUT lacked God’s preternatural gifts and some what some would call natural gifts (free will, etc).
When the first two Homo Sapiens appeared (not yet man and not yet wise), God breathed a spirit into them: life with the possibility of no death, along with all the other preternatural gifts. After the fall, some gifts were removed until the reconcilation via Christ and his saving actions. Others until the resurrection on the last day.
The church teaches we are dead (spiritually) until we a baptised. So there was no life until the HS entered the first man, and therefore no death (mortal sin).
The two sacraments of the dead are Baptism and Confession. For only those two that can be recieved by the spiritually dead.
D
Donald45
Guest
No doubt. But, sadly, it is repeatedly offered as a “serious” response to human evolution by folks who simply don’t know any better. A clarification seemed prudent.
My favorite Steven Wright quote:
“I put a cup of instant coffee in the microwave… I almost went back in time.”
D
Donald45
Guest
While it’s true that both biological evolution and ID contain their own respective philosophical undercurrents, this does not make both of them “science.” The author of the above statement offers a false “either/or”, a false dilemma: Either supernatural (=“theistic”), or natural (=“atheistic”). If we view the scientific enterprise as being limited to natural entities and phenomena, then we are supposedly taking an “atheistic” position. This is clearly false. What science is interested in is describing and explaining material entities and phenomena in material terms and concepts. This does not necessarily mean that the immaterial is not real, only that science is not equipped to address such questions.
There are two levels of explanation: 1) Natural ~ “My parents’ DNA gave me blue eyes”; 2) Supernatural ~ “A divine Creator gave me blue eyes.” Science operates at, and restricts itself to, the first level. This is not to say (though Dawkins inappropriately does) that this eliminates level 2, merely that science is limited to the forms and functions of nature. Now, I may have something theological to say about the natural world—for example, that it is the product of divine creative activity—but this is not a “scientific” conclusion. It is a theological conviction.
Scientists are not claiming that the natural world is all there is (at least, if they do, it won’t be a scientific idea). They are simply pointing out the obvious, that science limits itself to nature, and leaves supernature to other modes of thought such as philosophy and theology, which are equipped to deal in such metaphysical matters.
Truly,
Don
D
Donald45
Guest
However, they are not both scientific theories with scientific evidence to back them.
A “theory,” in our everyday colloquial language, is a “guess” or a “hunch.” Yet, this is not how the term is used within science itself; this is not how scientists use the term.
Theory: A general principle describing processes or conditions in nature that is supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence and has been repeatedly tested via the scientific method and found applicable in a wide variety of circumstances.
We would hardly speak of “the gravitational guess” or “the heliocentric hunch.” A “theory” in science is very different from the way the term is used in common speech.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Yes.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?
God is not the author of death. Show me a Father of the Church that taught that death ran rampant in the terrestrial paradise before the Fall!
Your conception of the terrestrial paradise seems to me to be a place where blood sucking insects, the Ebola virus and tape worms existed. What kind of paradise is that?
**Catechism of the Catholic Church
1046** For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
D
David_Zampino
Guest
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!
I’ve been WAITING for more people to say this!
“Intelligent Design” is perfectly compatible with modern science – except for those modern scientists who are terrified at the mere hint of a mention of a Designer!
“Intelligent Design” is NOT and SHOULD NOT be compared with “Young-Earth Creationism”, although much of the mainstream press and those members of the scientific community who cater to the mainstream press would like to make folk believe they are the same.
When I think of “Intelligent Design”, I am reminded of St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Proofs” for a Natural Law understanding of the existence of God, namely, the proof of design.
W
wanerious
Guest
David Zampino:
…which is? This is really the point. And, in complement to this, one ought also to identify those systems that are devoid of design. One must distinguish the hypothesis from the null. The standard examples offered by Behe and Dembski fail under scientific scrutiny. As an example, look at the link above for a transcription of an exchange between Behe, Dembski, Miller, and P(? — don’t remember his name quickly).
W
wanerious
Guest
Ah yes, back in post #139.
D
Donald45
Guest
David Zampino:
You write that ID reminds you of St. Thomas’ “Five Proofs,” and so it should. ID’s conclusions are simply a re-packaged, postmodern version of the Teleological Argument for God’s Existence, which can be found in any textbook on the philosophy of religion*—“religion*,” not “science*.”* It is a philosophical concept, and should not be confused with the natural sciences, which restrict themselves to natural forms and functions.
Truly,
Don
ID may, in some loose sense, be “compatible with modern science,” but it is not itself a “scientific” theory. Rather, it is a religio-philosophical concept. Scientists are not “terrified at the mere mention of a Designer,” only concerned that the idea of such a Designer not be confused with “science.”
You write that ID reminds you of St. Thomas’ “Five Proofs,” and so it should. ID’s conclusions are simply a re-packaged, postmodern version of the Teleological Argument for God’s Existence, which can be found in any textbook on the philosophy of religion*—“religion*,” not “science*.”* It is a philosophical concept, and should not be confused with the natural sciences, which restrict themselves to natural forms and functions.
Truly,
Don
D
David_Zampino
Guest
You’re right, of course. “Compatible with science” and “Scientific theory” are not synonyms and should not be confused. And many scientists are not terrified by the concept of a Designer. I should have been more precise in my correspondence. (Although I will submit that there are times when the legitimate lines between philosophy and natural science are more blurred than others.)
This being said, there are scientists who ARE terrified by such a concept, and those who allow their philosophical atheism to color their science, just like some of their counterparts on the other side. (And, of course, these seem to be the ones getting the press.)
My greatest objection is when Intelligent Design is equalled with Young Earth Creationism, again by those who, in many cases, have allowed their philosophical atheism to cloud their scientific judgement. To my mind, this is not intellectually honest.
Thanks for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate them.
Sincerely
A
Anonymous_1
Guest
My brother, the evidence is there…actually it is here
This is a list of articles from ID proponenets at the Discovery Institute that have been peer reviewed and edited. The media fails to awknowledge the HUGE amount of evidence that points to a designer…but it is there if you search yourself…hope that helps…
donald i will read Finding Darwins God…always open to learn new things but i have heard bad things about it, i hoep that dosent jade my reception of it!
P
PhilVaz
Guest
OK to repeat my views again which have been repeated in 500 threads, and 500,000 posts on this interesting topic that won’t go away.
(1) evolution (including human evolution) is a fact, (2) the modern Popes have no problem with this science rightly understood, (3) we’ve known the earth is old well before Darwin and we’ve known it is precisely 4.5 billion years old since the 1950s, (4) Intelligent Design needs to make its case to the scientific community, it hasn’t done that, therefore it shouldn’t be taught as science in schools, nor even mentioned except in philosophy/religion classes, it is not an “alternative” to evolutionary science, (5) I have no problems with a death-less Terrestrial Paradise that is other-worldly and something akin to heaven, and not connected with the evolutionary natural history of earth (fish before amphibs before reptiles before mammals before man, etc), (6) Michael Behe’s book was not peer-reviewed, it was “reviewed” and went ahead with publishing based on a 10-minute phone conversation with someone who never even saw the manuscript, (7) therefore The Discovery Institute has no credibility in my opinion, since they state on Michael Behe’s book:
“Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.” (from link by Anon1 above)
Incorrect, and this was revealed in the current Dover ID Trial (see PDFs of Behe’s direct and cross-exam which are now available). However, Darwin’s Black Box is interesting and I still recommend it.
Also brought out in the Trial is the word “creation” was simply replaced with the words “intelligent design” or “design” in many passages in the Of Pandas and People book. We now know this from previous editions of the book that have come to light. The main “Intelligent Design” textbook was therefore originally a creationist book (the same creationism that was rejected by the courts in the 1980s).
And there are at least three books that Christian or Catholic anti-evolutionists must read: Finding Darwin’s God (1999) by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003) by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science (2004) by Darrel Falk. There are many more. Go to a university library and look in the science sections.
Phil P
(1) evolution (including human evolution) is a fact, (2) the modern Popes have no problem with this science rightly understood, (3) we’ve known the earth is old well before Darwin and we’ve known it is precisely 4.5 billion years old since the 1950s, (4) Intelligent Design needs to make its case to the scientific community, it hasn’t done that, therefore it shouldn’t be taught as science in schools, nor even mentioned except in philosophy/religion classes, it is not an “alternative” to evolutionary science, (5) I have no problems with a death-less Terrestrial Paradise that is other-worldly and something akin to heaven, and not connected with the evolutionary natural history of earth (fish before amphibs before reptiles before mammals before man, etc), (6) Michael Behe’s book was not peer-reviewed, it was “reviewed” and went ahead with publishing based on a 10-minute phone conversation with someone who never even saw the manuscript, (7) therefore The Discovery Institute has no credibility in my opinion, since they state on Michael Behe’s book:
“Though this book was published by The Free Press, a trade press, the publisher subjected the book to standard scientific peer-review by several prominent biochemists and biological scientists.” (from link by Anon1 above)
Incorrect, and this was revealed in the current Dover ID Trial (see PDFs of Behe’s direct and cross-exam which are now available). However, Darwin’s Black Box is interesting and I still recommend it.
Also brought out in the Trial is the word “creation” was simply replaced with the words “intelligent design” or “design” in many passages in the Of Pandas and People book. We now know this from previous editions of the book that have come to light. The main “Intelligent Design” textbook was therefore originally a creationist book (the same creationism that was rejected by the courts in the 1980s).
And there are at least three books that Christian or Catholic anti-evolutionists must read: Finding Darwin’s God (1999) by Ken Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003) by Keith Miller, and Coming to Peace with Science (2004) by Darrel Falk. There are many more. Go to a university library and look in the science sections.
Phil P
Z
zian
Guest
I do hope that folk are taking a serious look at the links that are in Phil’s posts. Nice job, Phil. There are lots of links on associated pages that ought to be helpful to your understanding of the matters at issue.
As for the discussions related to trying to place Adam or Moses or whoever within the generally scientifically accepted chronology of human origins, I honestly don’t find that too interesting or helpful. Speculative in the extreme. When I get asked about this I just say I don’t know. I’ve been doing scientific research in an industrial setting for nearly 30 years, and when we start out in a given area, we often say “I don’t know” a lot. This is not a sign of insecurity or incompetence - it’s just bein’ honest. That’s when we go into the lab and start trying to answer those questions.
Who was it that said something to the effect that acknowledging your ignorance was the beginning of understanding? Something like that, anyway.
There are lots of links on associated pages that ought to be helpful to your understanding of the matters at issue.As for the discussions related to trying to place Adam or Moses or whoever within the generally scientifically accepted chronology of human origins, I honestly don’t find that too interesting or helpful. Speculative in the extreme. When I get asked about this I just say I don’t know. I’ve been doing scientific research in an industrial setting for nearly 30 years, and when we start out in a given area, we often say “I don’t know” a lot. This is not a sign of insecurity or incompetence - it’s just bein’ honest. That’s when we go into the lab and start trying to answer those questions.
Who was it that said something to the effect that acknowledging your ignorance was the beginning of understanding? Something like that, anyway.
- Status