Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter arieh0310
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Matt16_18:
If a Catholic were to accept the atheistic Darwinist’s claim that chemical reactions create human beings, he must also accept that chemical reactions create immortal souls.
Click to expand...
Well, why?? Are you saying that the soul is a material organ like the heart, liver or pancreas? These are all made of chemical compounds, and mediate chemical and physical reactions, things that can be measured by scientific methods.
 
40.png
Evan:
In evolution, one often will predict how often viable mutations occur in certain settings. That is one of the factors used to determine when different species went their own way. A statistic is formed given the average time between mutations, the number of mutations are counted and localized, and a little magic, voila: The guinea pig (pimms-pages.co.uk/ ) separated from the goeduck (See timwing.com/geoduck-1.htm ) 17.376 trillion years ago! (Hypothetically)
Click to expand...
The universe is only considered to be 14-15 billion years old, so you’re off by a few years there. :rolleyes:
 
A theory of my Apologetics teacher is that the soul came about 15(?) thousand years ago. Not sure about the date. For all I know it was 50-70 years ago, but definitely more than the Biblical 6,000.

Anyways, a fundamental change came about in the human population at a particular point in time. A leading scientist (sorry, don’t remember the name, but he is secular) attributes this to the formation of grammar. My apologetics teacher in turn attributes the formation of grammar to being a by-product of the soul. Basically a physically response to a spiritual reality. Therein you have the special creation of the soul.
 
40.png
Donald45:
While dwelling in your “one reality,” are you nevertheless capable of recognizing that different disciplines define terms in different ways?
Click to expand...
Sure. It is a convention in the mathematics of complex numbers to speak about the real and imaginary parts of a complex number. I understand that mathematicians are using the words “real” and “imaginary” in ways that don’t correspond to our usual understanding of these words. Nor do I think that mathematicians are making metaphysical claims about the unreality of imaginary numbers.

But I don’t know why you persist in arguing with me when I say that no event in nature is random in reality. You agree with me that there is no event in nature that is random for God. If no event in nature is random for God, then there is no event in nature that is random in reality – there can only be events in nature that appear to be random to the human beings observing those events. The appearance belies the reality, as it often does.

It is irrelevant whether the human being is a scientist or a theologian observing the same event in nature, since both the scientist and the theologian see the “random” event from a human perspective.

The atheistic Darwinst won’t concede that there is no event in nature that is random in reality. Which is why the atheistic Darwinsts are wont to make bizarre claims such as chemical reactions involving the DNA of bipedal animals can bring forth human beings, or that there is nothing wrong in doing chemical research with human embryo stem cells, or that splicing a pig gene into human DNA and then using cloning technolgy to bring the chimera to complete gestation might be an interesting experiment to perform …
 
40.png
zian:
The universe is only considered to be 14-15 billion years old, so you’re off by a few years there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I know…I did that so noone would think I was proposing this as an actual computed value. My other choice was 16 years to evolve from clam to pig. 😉
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
But I don’t know why you persist in arguing with me when I say that no event in nature is random in reality.
Click to expand...
So for you quantum mechanics is not valid?
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
Evan:
That is a poor example of a scientific definition of randomness.%between%
Click to expand...
As previous posts attest, I am speaking of how randomness is used within evolution theory (the subject of this thread), and as applied to genetic mutations in particular. My definition simply reflects the scientific literature (for example, see Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd edition, p. 76).
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
…I don’t know why you persist in arguing with me when I say that no event in nature is random in reality. You agree with me that there is no event in nature that is random for God. If no event in nature is random for God, then there is no event in nature that is random in reality – there can only be events in nature that appear to be random to the human beings observing those events. The appearance belies the reality, as it often does.

…The atheistic Darwinst won’t concede that there is no event in nature that is random in reality.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that, within evolution theory, a “random” mutation is considered so because it is unpredicted, unexpected, and does not occur due to any survival benefit it might have for the organism? If you do, then you acknowledge that, within science, an occurrence may be genuinely “random” in this sense. Granted, it is not “really random" in a metaphysical sense, but such supernatural considerations have no legitimate place in science anyway. Of course the Darwinist (theist or non-theist) “won’t concede that there is no event in nature that is random in reality”—that is, “random” in a metaphysical sense—since religio-philosophical ideas are definitionally beyond science. He cannot consider such things as "science.”

Yet, you insist that scientists incorporate a metaphysical definition of randomness into their discipline and call it “science.” If you have a problem with the scientific definition I’ve given here and elsewhere, please let me know what it is. But if you indeed allow scientists to have their own particular and limited definition of randomness, why do you persist in attempting to force the theological concept of divine providence upon the scientific enterprise?
 
40.png
Donald45:
Of course the Darwinist (theist or non-theist) “won’t concede that there is no event in nature that is random in reality”—that is, “random” in a metaphysical sense …
Click to expand...
The atheistic Darwinist will not concede that there are no things in nature that are random in reality, because the atheist does not believe that there is a God for whom nothing is random.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
The atheistic Darwinist will not concede that there are no things in nature that are random in reality, because the atheist does not believe that there is a God for whom nothing is random.
Click to expand...
No scientist, atheist or theist, may offer such a view (i.e., divine providence) as science, since this type of metaphysical concept is beyond the self-limitations of scientific methodology.
 
There are 3 issues that I cannot seem to reconcile with regard to evolution and Catholicism. First, God created man in his image and likeness. If we randomly evolved, then we could have ended up looking like just about anything, so how can this be? Second, if there were no first parents (Adam & Eve) because an entire population of monkeys evolved into humans, then where’s the Original Sin? If there was no Original Sin, then there is no reason for a Redeemer and therefore Christianity is null. Plus, isn’t it Church doctrine that there were definitely 2 first parents? Lastly, and most insignificantly is the issue of incorruptible saints. The Church teaches that bodily decay is the result of sin and that is why many saints’ bodies never decay and remain incorrupt. If this is true, how can it be reconciled with evolution which teaches that these bacterium were here long before humans rather than the sin of humans causing their existence? And finally, with regards to the theory of evolution, correct me if I’m wrong, but evolution didn’t necessarily occur (in the Darwinian macro-evolution sense), but rather it is the scientific theory that explains how life would have come to be if it were merely by natural means?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
There are 3 issues that I cannot seem to reconcile with regard to evolution and Catholicism. First, God created man in his image and likeness. If we randomly evolved, then we could have ended up looking like just about anything, so how can this be?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that verse means God has a body like ours? (he’s actually much better looking) 😉

I always took that to mean that that God created our souls in His image

Besides, God can appear as anything He wishes so if we turned out different that really shouldn’t be a problem for Him.
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Second, if there were no first parents (Adam & Eve) because an entire population of monkeys evolved into humans, then where’s the Original Sin? If there was no Original Sin, then there is no reason for a Redeemer and therefore Christianity is null. Plus, isn’t it Church doctrine that there were definitely 2 first parents?
Click to expand...
We’re actually grappling with that in another thread
My latest attempt was taken apart but I think they misunderstood me.
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Lastly, and most insignificantly is the issue of incorruptible saints. The Church teaches that bodily decay is the result of sin and that is why many saints’ bodies never decay and remain incorrupt. If this is true, how can it be reconciled with evolution which teaches that these bacterium were here long before humans rather than the sin of humans causing their existence?
Click to expand...
(1) Supernatural occurrences are … supernatural. Why does it surprise you that the natural sciences do not deal with it? Would you expect someone to place a Host under a microscope?

(2) Please provide examples of non-mummified, incorruptible bodies
40.png
JSmitty2005:
And finally,
Click to expand...
hey! You said 3 issues. 😉
40.png
JSmitty2005:
with regards to the theory of evolution, correct me if I’m wrong, but evolution didn’t necessarily occur (in the Darwinian macro-evolution sense), but rather it is the scientific theory that explains how life would have come to be if it were merely by natural means?
Click to expand...
I suppose you could put it that way. Sorta maybe. Since science can only deal with natural means it would be a redundant definition.

Basically there are two parts to evolution
(1) The fact of evolution: which is the observable data and
(2) The theory of evolution: which proposes natural selection as the mechanism for what we observe. This is generally regarded as settled science.

so I’m not sure what you mean when you say “didn’t necessarily occur” :confused:
 
Okay, evolution cannot have taken place randomly. I assert this both because Catholics can’t believe and random evolution and because it logically doesn’t make sense.

As far as the incorruptible saints, they exist and are not mummified. Try to look it up and I’m sure you’ll easily find it.

Finally, yes there were only 2 first parents.
 
Aaron I.:
A theory of my Apologetics teacher is that the soul came about 15(?) thousand years ago. Not sure about the date. For all I know it was 50-70 years ago, but definitely more than the Biblical 6,000.

Anyways, a fundamental change came about in the human population at a particular point in time. A leading scientist (sorry, don’t remember the name, but he is secular) attributes this to the formation of grammar. My apologetics teacher in turn attributes the formation of grammar to being a by-product of the soul. Basically a physically response to a spiritual reality. Therein you have the special creation of the soul.
Click to expand...

The oldest written language known is apparently Sumerian - but the earlest texts identifiable as Sumerian are no older than the later 3000s BC. What is known is pretty elaborate - we’re not talk about inarticulate grunting, at all 🙂​

For some details, go to the Sumerian Language Page%between%

Since man is older than that date, the soul would have to predate the formation of grammar. ##
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Are you suggesting that verse means God has a body like ours? (he’s actually much better looking) 😉
Click to expand...
God does actually have a body like ours. Think about it.
40.png
steveandersen:
I always took that to mean that that God created our souls in His image

Besides, God can appear as anything He wishes so if we turned out different that really shouldn’t be a problem for Him.
Click to expand...
True. God can appear as anything He wishes. And He wished to appear as the Man, Jesus Christ. Jesus is still in full possession of His human body. We are created in His image. God did not choose to take the form of an ape, a dog, a marine creature, or a space alien (at least not that we know of).
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Second, if there were no first parents (Adam & Eve) because an entire population of monkeys evolved into humans, then where’s the Original Sin? If there was no Original Sin, then there is no reason for a Redeemer and therefore Christianity is null. Plus, isn’t it Church doctrine that there were definitely 2 first parents?
Click to expand...
40.png
steveandersen:
We’re actually grappling with that in another thread
My latest attempt was taken apart but I think they misunderstood me.
Click to expand...
Well, grapple away, but it does seem that Adam and Eve were our first parents, for the simple reason that original sin is passed on by physical generation of the human nature we get from our ancestors, and since there was only one original sin, we are all descended from the original sinners. Probably you have already read it but if not check out Adam, Eve, and Evolution and note especially the section under the heading “Adam and Eve: Real People”.

If you are one of those people that will not believe anything “the scientists” can’t prove, look around - i seem to remember some scientific evidence that all humans are descended from the same female because of some genetic evidence. (sorry i don’t have more info there)
 
quote=steveandersen Supernatural occurrences are … supernatural. Why does it surprise you that the natural sciences do not deal with it? Would you expect someone to place a Host under a microscope?
[/quote]

Actually, I believe this or something like it has been done. The Church employs scientists to verify miracles, such as the Eucharistic miracle of Lanzano. There are many many other miracles that have been examined scientifically to ascertain that there is no scientific explanation for them before they are acclaimed as miracles. The Church has an interest in finding scientists that will be thorough, since She does not want somebody to come behind and disprove Her miracles. For example, every healing at Lourdes goes through a scientific examination. Lourdes recently celebrated their 67th scientifically verified miracle (er, i guess i mean scientifically unexplained miracle). Also, the tilma which belonged to St Juan Diego and contains the Blessed Virgin Mary’s image (Our Lady of Guadalupe) has been scientifically examined and they cannot explain it. The tilma remains intact even though it is made of simple plant fibers and should have disintegrated in a matter of decades - yet it has remained intact for about 5 centuries and even remained unaffected when a bomb was detonated in front of it in 1921 by some nut who wanted to destroy one of the more famous pieces of physical evidence that there is a God.

So when people say “science doesn’t deal with anything supernatural”, what they mean is that science cannot explain supernatural phenomena, since science, as marvelous as it is, is after all only a finite and imperfect tool of finite and imperfect human creatures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top