Intelligent Design

[seabird3579]

Catholic Dude:

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

What have the Darwinists said about that one?

 

[seabird3579]

zian:

I think scientists just disagree that ID should be taught in the science classroom. Especially since fundamentalist protestant creationists would like to use this idea to just shoehorn in their discredited literalistic account of creation.
!

One thing seems to be definitely CLEAR about the theory of Intelligent Design – Darwinists are very afraid of it. They don’t even want the theory brought to the classroom to attempt to Disprove it. Apparently there is only room for One Religion in the Science classroom — Evolutionism.

 

[zian]

What have the Darwinists said about that one?
[/quote]

See the thread where you got this quote from. It was extensively discussed there.

 

[zian]

seabird3579:

One thing seems to be definitely CLEAR about the theory of Intelligent Design – Darwinists are very afraid of it. They don’t even want the theory brought to the classroom to attempt to Disprove it. Apparently there is only room for One Religion in the Science classroom — Evolutionism.

How about no religion in the science classroom, secular or otherwise.

 

[rossum]

seabird3579:

Catholic Dude:

If Man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes?

What have the Darwinists said about that one?

Some Americans claim to be descended from Europeans. If that is so then why are there still Europeans?

Some ancient apes evolved into modern Chimpanzees, some ancient apes evolved into modern Gorillas, some ancient apes evolved into modern Humans. Out ancestors moved from a forest habitat into a more open savannah habitat. We have adapted to more open spaces while the African apes are adapted for forests. We can run faster than a Chimp, but a Chimp can climb a tree a lot faster than us.

rossum

 

[seabird3579]

rossum:

The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

The Pope has condemned moral relativism, and since this is the creed you live by – it invalidates your previous statement.

 

[JSmitty2005]

seabird3579:

The Pope has condemned moral relativism, and since this is the creed you live by – it invalidates your previous statement.

Of course it’s the creed that they live by. They’re Buddhist!

PS - The Pope also said that the biggest threat to the Church today is not Islam, but Buddhism because of it’s foundation in relativism. (SOURCE)

In 1997 Ratzinger called Buddhism an “autoerotic spirituality” that offers “transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations.” Hindusim, he said, offers “false hope,” in that it guarantees “purification” based on a “morally cruel” concept of reincarnation resembling “a continuous circle of hell.” At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger predicted that Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic church’s main enemy.

The article has an obviously anti-Catholic slant as the author (a Jew) goes on to say:

"Ratzinger is being falsely described as a conservative, when in fact he, despite his publicly genteel manner, is a raging reactionary. Unlike many American conservatives who oppose gay sexual practices but not their legal rights, Ratzinger in 1992 argued against human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be “legitimately limited.”

 

[rossum]

seabird3579:

The Pope has condemned moral relativism, and since this is the creed you live by – it invalidates your previous statement.

My sig often causes interest. Its original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrectht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For an philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[Orogeny]

seabird3579:

One thing seems to be definitely CLEAR about the theory of Intelligent Design – Darwinists are very afraid of it. They don’t even want the theory brought to the classroom to attempt to Disprove it. Apparently there is only room for One Religion in the Science classroom — Evolutionism.

It is interesting that you use the term theory here exactly as most people use it - in a un-scientific sense. You are right about that. It is a theory, in other words, it is just a guess. Unfortunately for ID supporters, a theory in science is nothing like that. It is backed up by evidence, something ID has a complete lack of.

You are also right in classifying ID as a religion. That is why it doesn’t belong in a science classroom. Thank you for making that point.

Peace

Tim

 

[wagchewy]

JimO:

As the article points out, the intelligent design concept does not identify the Designer. Intelligent design is not the same as Creationism, which applies a literal Biblical interpretation to the beginning of life and typically applies a timeframe to creation that ties the “days” of creation to some other Biblical definitions for “day”. Often cited is the passage that says “A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day…” wherein creation is said to have taken 6,000 years. Creationism argues against evolution from one type of creature to another (diversity of similar species within a type is allowed for by some) and depends upon a single creation event to account for all types of creatures. Some have tried to postulate a series of creation events to explain the fossil record and deal with the geologic concept of superposition, but they have a hard time lining this up with Scripture.

Intelligent design doesn’t try to explain how life began, it 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.” The analogy that is often used is that if you were walking on the beach and discovered a watch, with no other evidence than the design of the watch, one could conclude that it was not the product of random collision of molecules and that a watchmaker must exist. Intelligent design doesn’t rule out multiple creation events, some level of evolutionary change or an ancient earth. It doesn’t hold to any of these concepts either, in other words, it doesn’t go that far.

Intelligent design is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology and, IMO, is just a starting point. Strict Creationism, on the other hand, is not cosistent with the Church’s interpretation of Genesis because it applies a literal interpretation to the creation account, which is problematic, especially in light of the scientific evidence.

what about creationism goes against the Chatholic Church? i realize that their are many diff versions of it and some hocus pocus but there is still alot of scientifically sound evidence for a young earth.

 

[wagchewy]

why does everyone keep bashing the protistants, do you feel threatend? Creationism is not contradictory to the teaching of the church. as long as they donn’t try to use it in some bizzar way to say that they are the true church.

 

[wagchewy]

cheddarsox:

Thank you, thank you for your thoughtful post. I hesitated to jump in because so few people are willing to understand the nature of all this, they are just interested in taking sides and drawing lines in the sand.

I am a science educator, scientist and theist. I don’t disbelieve ID, I just recognize that it is not science. Natural evidence points to evolution, and natural evidence is what science deals with. Science deals with the what, and sometimes the how, but it doesn’t answer the who and why, the philisophical part of occurances.

Clearly, from studying the world around me, everything is amazingly complex and interconnected. I recognize the divine in everything, nothing I ever learn or study about the natural world takes one thing away from the divine. The more I learn, the more in awe I am. But that is no reason to stop looking and learning how it all works together.

The overwhelming thing to me, is that the divine did not choose to use magic to create and to make things work together, but rather chose a much more complex, ingenious, elegant system of cooperation. It is MIND BLOWING. I was about to cash in on the idea of God, but studying science made me realize that the divine was real, amazing and worthy of awe and worship. Much more so than if the divine had used “magic” to make it happen. The lavish amount of care and delicacy that went into the design humbles me as a part of creation.

cheddar

science must answer the WHY! why does this protien do this? because of the shape. without the “why” then you do not have the full answer. the question scientist seem to be affraid to ask is the “who”

 

[wagchewy]

Ahimsa:

ID is a nice philosophical hypothesis. It’s a nice idea about how complexity arose.

Science is not simply about hypotheses and ideas. Science is about observable, intersubjective evidence for such ideas.

ID states “the human is too complex to have evolved via natural causes”. OK, that’s an idea that might be true or not true, but rejecting the possibility of natural causes for the appearance of the eye automatically takes ID out of science (since a “supernatural” cause is not observable by all), and thus out of science classes.

The only way ID could become “science” is if it proposes that some sort of empirically observable intelligence created the eye, or other complex systems. So either God is in fact a physical being (as the Mormons say), or aliens were involved. Either possibility does not bode well for Protestant creationism.

scientist are very stuck on their “scientific method” even though diff cultures though diff centuries all had their idea about the “perfect scientific method.”

So if the facts point to a parameter that they previously didn’t consider then maybe they should revise their method. But this wont help because the problem is “willing ignorance”(not to offend anyone,) but the “method” is realy just a way of saying that they do not want a god because then they know they would have to change.

 

[Ianjo99]

wagchewy:

science must answer the WHY! why does this protien do this? because of the shape. without the “why” then you do not have the full answer. the question scientist seem to be affraid to ask is the “who”

Actually science, almost by its definition, talks of the how, not the why. Philosophy and theology deal with why.

Part of becoming a hypothesis or a theory in science is the ability to be proven wrong. If an experiment has no way in which it can be proven wrong, then it is not a scientific experiment. Exactly how would I prove “why” something happened, or “who” did it? That’s all speculative.

 

[David_Zampino]

wagchewy:

what about creationism goes against the Chatholic Church? i realize that their are many diff versions of it and some hocus pocus but there is still alot of scientifically sound evidence for a young earth.

Frankly, I’ve yet to see any.

Blessings,

 

[wagchewy]

arieh0310:

Exactly, that is why I am excited that an intelligent scientist like Behe is using science to try to prove that random, unguided, naturalistic evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Behe goes to great lengths to admit that at least evolution within species is a provable fact, but that the theory of evolution cannot explain how even the most simple life-forms are irreducibly complex. Behe is not saying “cuz the Bible sez so”.

I think the fossil record has been an embarrasment to both extremes of the evolution debate. It is embarrasing to creation fundamentalists because it seems evident that the earth is clearly older than 6000 years. However, it is also embarrasing to those who say that all geologic formations MUST take millions of years to create when you look at vertical fossils that cross “millions” of years of sediment, or when you look at the emense canyon systems created by Mt St Helens in less than 20 years, or when you look at how the current theory for how the Scab Lands in Eastern Washington were created with one massive flood (a very cool NOVA program a few months back).

The truth has to be somewhere in the middle. I just hope that real scientists will give ID a chance even though it goes against current evolution dogma.

the fossil record is not such an embarassing event to creationists if you take into account the flood of genesis. For example: it has been shown that the animail on the of the fossil records like trilobytes(spelling?) should be on the bottom if the great flood occured because they were bottom feeders on the ocean floor. (look up “water pennies” for a “possible living reletive” of the trilobytes) also things like birds and manmal would have survived the longest because of there ability to get to the high ground and a higher inteligence, so therefore they would be on the top of the sediment!

 

[steveandersen]

wagchewy:

science must answer the WHY! why does this protien do this? because of the shape. without the “why” then you do not have the full answer. the question scientist seem to be affraid to ask is the “who”

Why must science answer the “why” or the “who”?

That is not its place really
kinda like using a yard stick to measure temperature

Science is hare to provide mechanistic, naturalistic explanations for how the world works…which it does quite well.

the post above by JSmitty2005 concerning Catholicism and Buddhism illustrates a point. Each faith has millions of adherents who each fervently believe the opposite of what the other does. By leaving the why and how for others however, Buddhist and Catholic Scientists can agree on the principles of science.

 

[rossum]

wagchewy:

the fossil record is not such an embarassing event to creationists if you take into account the flood of genesis.

There is no geological evidence for a worldwide flood. This was known well before Darwin to people like Hutton and Lyell. Even Leonardo DaVinci noticed that the way fossil deposits were laid down spoke against a global flood.

wagchewy:

For example: it has been shown that the animail on the of the fossil records like trilobytes(spelling?) should be on the bottom if the great flood occured because they were bottom feeders on the ocean floor. (look up “water pennies” for a “possible living reletive” of the trilobytes) also things like birds and manmal would have survived the longest because of there ability to get to the high ground and a higher inteligence, so therefore they would be on the top of the sediment!

The spelling is “Trilobites”. Please do a little studying of the fossil record before posting stuff like this. Acanthostega was an amphibian so it could breathe underwater. Tyrannosaurus was an air breather so it could not breath underwater. Every Acanthostega fossil is found below every Tyrannosaurus fossil. How can an air breather survive for longer in a flood than a water breather? Look at plants, almost every Cycad is found below every Oak Tree. Can Oak Trees swim better than Cycads? Can Oak Trees climb hills better than Cycads? What about those animals which died before the flood? As the human population fled to the high ground did they stop to dig up the bones of all their dead cows and sheep to carry to the hilltops? I hardly think so. The fossil record is sorted into layers because different organisms lived at different times and were buried in rocks laid down at different times.

There are even more problems in the fossil record for YEC-style creationism. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

So in order to provide good evidence for Young Earth Creationism you should provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or lower in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable. It is also worth pointing out that evidence like this would be a strong indication that the theory of evolution was incorrect; it would not be easy for evolution to explain a Devonian sheep.

I am awaiting your evidence.

rossum

 

[wagchewy]

rossum:

Please do a little studying of the fossil record before posting stuff like this. Acanthostega was an amphibian so it could breathe underwater. Tyrannosaurus was an air breather so it could not breath underwater. Acanthostega fossil is found below every Tyrannosaurus fossil. How can an air breather survive for longer in a flood than a water breather? Look at plants, almost every Cycad is found below every Oak Tree. Can Oak Trees swim better than Cycads? Can Oak Trees climb hills better than Cycads? What about those animals which died before the flood? As the human population fled to the high ground did they stop to dig up the bones of all their dead cows and sheep to carry to the hilltops? I hardly think so. The fossil record is sorted into layers because different organisms lived at different times and were buried in rocks laid down at different times.
There are even more problems in the fossil record for YEC-style creationism. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Young Earth Creationism and against the theory of evolution.
So in order to provide good evidence for Young Earth Creationism you should provide references for any fossil of a human, cow or sheep from, say, the Cretaceous or lower in the geological column. Alternatively evidence of human habitation, such as a city, from the Cretaceous or lower would be acceptable. It is also worth pointing out that evidence like this would be a strong indication that the theory of evolution was incorrect; it would not be easy for evolution to explain a Devonian sheep.
I am awaiting your evidence.
rossum

first-as for you amphibian, amphibians don’t usually move to far from water however many reptiles acquire water from their food, this would allow Mr. Rex to move farther away from any dangerously fast moving water. quoting from the article you listed “Most Acanthostega specimens came from one site representing a point bar in an active river channel, where a series of burial events took place, resulting in deposition of several well-articulated specimens. These are interpreted as having been deposited in a FLASH-FLOOD. The good preservation of these specimens suggests that they had not been carried far…” sounds like they got buried pretty fast(suffocation from silt?) also i was not able to locate the supposed era of your fish(as it was primarily aquatic) or that they were found below any T-Rex bones in your article. plus most reptiles i know of float quite well even if they can’t swim. if you could list a source to speed my research?

To the Cycad-who floats better, a cycad or an oak tree? i bet the woodier oak tree does(denser things sink not heavier ones. but more importantly how can EVERY cycad(as you claim above) be below EVERY oak tree when both plants still exist today? I would love to see your source on that one!

as for farm animals… that is an interesting idea… i don’t know but it could be that since nothing had been dead long enough for sediment to turn to rock then maybe they got washed away with the top layer of soil and are too scattered to find?

gen 4-2 refers to the birth of able and his becoming a Shepard not the creation of sheep(unless maybe your translation is corrupt-I’m using the duey ryhms,) but i don’t see why you had to throw that in. I definitely admit that not all of creationist theory/ideas are not correct though, but i strongly lean toward a literal translation myself. but that is too long to discuss.

as to the evidence of early cities- we still can’t find the remains of stuff that existed after the flood, and huge wall of water that destroyed everything would make it hard to find anything “man made” from before the flood. so speculating that since you can’t find it(or lost it) is not enough reason to say that it didn’t exist. there is still a debate about homo errectus-many scientist have complained that it classified as non-human simply because it was “too old” and that the fossil is plainly human. bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm lists fossil footprints of humans and dino’s together, got allot of media until the authenticity came through. oops.

as for your sheep, a farmer could have buried his sheep in a ditch easier than an eyeball could have formed in one evolutionary step, but i wasn’t arguing the age of the earth, just the fossil record, though i do lean toward a “new earth” myself.

before you politly call me stupid for my idea again, try filling in the holes in evolution first then explain it to me SLOWLY.

 

[Brian_C]

wagchewy, I know you mean well but it’s best not to get your science from biased sources from folks who don’t really know much about geology or the fossil record. Not all scientists are out on a mission to debunk the existance of God. We can still see that the evidence tends to support an older earth with a dynamic fossil past. Nothing is absolute and tomorrow someone may come up w/ a logical way to explain everything we know is wrong. But, until that point, we are left with the way the evidence presents itself.