Intelligent Design

[The_DNA_Rose]

I have been in a corporate environment for many years, although many years ago I was in law enforcement. I think this is simply a political move, and nothing more. Here’s how I think it works: the Church is covering the possibility of intelligent life being found on other planets one day, perhaps in the near future, and is covering the liability of being made irrelevant by such a discovery by including the acknowledgement of this possibility up front, and assimilating it into it’s theology before it happens rather than later. Doing it beforehand secures a lot more credibility than doing it afterward. That’s all.

As far as the Vatican knowing some secret about aliens, well, the Vatican is just a big organization. Big organizations can’t keep track of themselves, much less big secrets. If the Vatican knew something, so would we.

Thanks,
Gary

Actually, we as a race, will also be moving off the Earth soon, and the Mars base, will likely succeed at engineering life to live on mars, some photosynthetic organism perhaps. And the first person to do this on Mars, will be bringing life to Mars…Which is what all theology says that God did here. So the reality, is a lot more down to home, and no ET is needed, just the image of God, looking for himself in the cosmos.

Ok, what is at area 51 then.

 

[grannymh]

In general,
real Catholics understand that humankind is a peerless species.
In general,
real Catholics know that the first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
In general,
real Catholics do not need to slam Catholic theology. For example …

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

In general,
real Catholics understand that humankind is a peerless species.
In general,
real Catholics know that the first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
In general,
real Catholics do not need to slam Catholic theology. For example …

Do real Catholics, baptize Martians? and must all real Catholics agree, with your definition of real Catholic.

Now that I think of it, can you please define real Catholic, so that I can find out if I am a real Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

My apology. I made an error in editing.

Here is my general information post.

In general,
real Catholics understand that humankind is a peerless species.
In general,
real Catholics know that the first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
In general,
real Catholics do not need to slam Catholic theology. For example …

In addition,
For general information.

I would find it interesting to know how many real Catholics know the nitty-gritty of natural science since we are discussing Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, in general, there are some, not all, real Catholics who do slam Catholic theology in the media.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

My apology. I made an error in editing.

Here is my general information post.

In general,
real Catholics understand that humankind is a peerless species.
In general,
real Catholics know that the first principle of the scientific (inductive) method is to observe without prejudice.
In general,
real Catholics do not need to slam Catholic theology. For example …

Jesus went into the Temple, and slammed what the saw, do you know what Jesus would slam if he arrived with Martians tomorrow.

Consider the Popes own words now…!

 

[grannymh]

Jesus went into the Temple, and slammed what the saw, do you know what Jesus would slam if he arrived with Martians tomorrow.

Consider the Popes own words now…!

May I gently refer you to the edited post 721.

Maybe there are some general readers who wonder about the same things I do when it comes to expressing one’s opinions on various topics related to the purpose of this thread. For example, science and God in respectful discussions.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

May I gently refer you to the edited post 721. Maybe there are some general readers who wonder about the same things I do when it comes to general knowledge on CAF.

And I wonder what Jesus would slam, if he arrived tomorrow. Rest assured, that it would not be what you think…

 

[grannymh]

And I wonder what Jesus would slam, if he arrived tomorrow. Rest assured, that it would not be what you think…

My dear DNA Rose,

With my older than dirt brain, this cranky granny uses CAF editing time to fix up her posts. Note the Edit option at bottom right of post 723. Thank you.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

My dear DNA Rose,

With my older than dirt brain, this cranky granny uses CAF editing time to fix up her posts. Note the Edit option at bottom right of post 723. Thank you.

This idea is not about your post, though your post may in fact have inspired it. So, what would Jesus slam, in todays world.

Sheesh, he might have to hire help, just to begin.

So give yourself credit for being inspiring.

 

[buffalo]

What if aliens already were saved? Why should we presume they need Baptism?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

What if aliens already were saved? Why should we presume they need Baptism?

The Pope is merely saying, that respect should be offered to all.

No exceptions.

Bye the way, nothing precludes Jesus from emerging from the alien craft…

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Pope is merely saying, that respect should be offered to all.

No exceptions.

Bye the way, nothing precludes Jesus from emerging from the alien craft…

That would be Ezekiel.

Jesus only does the Clouds of Heaven.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I found a kind of contradicting gem in that link to the Kitzmiller v. Area School District – Conclusion
“In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, …”

Yet, there are scientists who properly conduct scientific research who are somehow connected to I.D. Is that a contradiction to I.D. is not science? There are also scientists who do similar research without any known connection, so does that make them automatically contradicting the I.D. god"

Can one judge, whose purview nor competency are in any sense ABOUT science, be more competent than these folk to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science?

Skepticism about Darwinian theory amongst the non-religious is not a new thing. Afterall, it was agnostic biochemist Michael Denton who was primarily responsible for the birth of the ID movement with his book Evolution: a Theory in Crisis (Burnett Books, 1985). Nonetheless, it is interesting to note the increasing number of critics, especially over the past few years. Recently we have had the following non-religious attacks upon Darwinism and support for ID:

-Atheist philosopher Bradley Monton defending ID as a scientific theory in his excellent book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009).
-Agnostic mathematician David Berlinski attacking Darwinism (and constructively critiquing ID), in The Deniable Darwin & other essays (Discovery Institute Press, 2009).
-Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor and atheist cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini attacking Darwinism in What Darwin Got Wrong (Profile, 2010).
-Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel attacking Darwinism and defending ID in his article Public Education and Intelligent Design and in his recent book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
-Philosopher and sociologist Steve Fuller, a secular humanist, defending ID in Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism (Icon, 2008), and Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution (Polity, 2007).
-Agnostic physician James Le Fanu challenging Darwinian materialism in Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Harper, 2009).

Apart from the above publications, there are various Darwin-doubters and ID proponents who are prominent in the blogosphere. These include:
-Atheist philosopher James Barham who openly rejects Darwinism and accepts the reality of teleology in nature.
-Dennis Jones, an agnostic ID proponent who runs his own blog devoted to ID and also runs a vibrant facebook discussion group.
From:
philosopherjosh.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/are-these-atheists-and-agnostics-really-covert-creationists/#more-1001

Thanks for the by the way!

 

[rossum]

If ID is the mechanism for creating life, why did it take 1.5 billion years after Earth cooled for God to at last create a microbe that creates atmospheric oxygen for the rest of us to breathe?

“For a thousand years is like a day.” God’s time is not man’s time.

You might as well ask why 99.99999999% of the universe is unsuitable for human life. Most of the universe is empty intergalactic space, where humans cannot live.

Without gaseous oxygen, carbon-based life was not ready to emerge on Earth.

Anaerobic carbon based life emerged first, before the appearance of free oxygen. After the evolution of photosynthesis and the resulting Oxygen Catastrophe most, but not all, life switched from anaerobic to aerobic respiration. All of that life, both anaerobic and aerobic, was carbon based.

rossum

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

“For a thousand years is like a day.” God’s time is not man’s time.

You might as well ask why 99.99999999% of the universe is unsuitable for human life. Most of the universe is empty intergalactic space, where humans cannot live.

Anaerobic carbon based life emerged first, before the appearance of free oxygen. After the evolution of photosynthesis and the resulting Oxygen Catastrophe most, but not all, life switched from anaerobic to aerobic respiration. All of that life, both anaerobic and aerobic, was carbon based.

rossum

Cool, but since you know what life emerged first, what emerged second, third and home?

And is there an instant replay, where I can see if the microbe was safe, on my own.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Actually, we as a race, will also be moving off the Earth soon, and the Mars base, will likely succeed at engineering life to live on mars, some photosynthetic organism perhaps. And the first person to do this on Mars, will be bringing life to Mars…Which is what all theology says that God did here. So the reality, is a lot more down to home, and no ET is needed, just the image of God, looking for himself in the cosmos.

I understand what you’re saying, and it’s certainly possible.

Ok, what is at area 51 then

Either a government testing facility or a place where the government is hiding secrets about aliens. I have no idea which is the case, although I rather think the former.

All the best,
Gary

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I understand what you’re saying, and it’s certainly possible.

Either a government testing facility or a place where the government is hiding secrets about aliens. I have no idea which is the case, although I rather think the former.

All the best,
Gary

Caught ya. What area 51 actually is, would be an ultra high security military base. The thing is that Area 51, is not only not top secret, but is in fact, by way of TV, movies, books, internet sites and popular folklore, the most famous military base in the world. Thus it is the first place that an enemy would look for US secrets, of any type and it would be targeted first. So area 51 is just a cover for Area 52, an undisclosed location, where those things would be found.

Logic demands this.

However TV is not based on logic, but ratings.

 

[tonyrey]

Can one judge, whose purview nor competency are in any sense ABOUT science, be more competent than these folk to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science?

Can one judge, whose purview nor competency are in any sense ABOUT science, be more competent than these folk to make definitive determinations about what constitutes science?

Quote:
Skepticism about Darwinian theory amongst the non-religious is not a new thing. Afterall, it was agnostic biochemist Michael Denton who was primarily responsible for the birth of the ID movement with his book Evolution: a Theory in Crisis (Burnett Books, 1985). Nonetheless, it is interesting to note the increasing number of critics, especially over the past few years. Recently we have had the following non-religious attacks upon Darwinism and support for ID:

-Atheist philosopher Bradley Monton defending ID as a scientific theory in his excellent book Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009).
-Agnostic mathematician David Berlinski attacking Darwinism (and constructively critiquing ID), in The Deniable Darwin & other essays (Discovery Institute Press, 2009).
-Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor and atheist cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini attacking Darwinism in What Darwin Got Wrong (Profile, 2010).
-Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel attacking Darwinism and defending ID in his article Public Education and Intelligent Design and in his recent book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
-Philosopher and sociologist Steve Fuller, a secular humanist, defending ID in Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism (Icon, 2008), and Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution (Polity, 2007).
-Agnostic physician James Le Fanu challenging Darwinian materialism in Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves (Harper, 2009).

Apart from the above publications, there are various Darwin-doubters and ID proponents who are prominent in the blogosphere. These include:
-Atheist philosopher James Barham who openly rejects Darwinism and accepts the reality of teleology in nature.
-Dennis Jones, an agnostic ID proponent who runs his own blog devoted to ID and also runs a vibrant facebook discussion group.

There is a list of nearly a thousand scientists who dissent from Darwinism amongst whom I have the honour to be included as a specialist in the Philosophy of Science!

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

There is a list of nearly a thousand scientists who dissent from Darwinism amongst whom I have the honour to be included as a specialist in the Philosophy of Science!

That is interesting, but all that Darwin did, was put in ink that there is an evolutionary process, of which the Pope now agrees is real…

 

[rossum]

Cool, but since you know what life emerged first, what emerged second, third and home?

The first life to emerge was an anaerobic proto-cell called Archibald. It did not have a navel.

Archibald split into Brian and Chris. After that the numbers get large very quickly.

And is there an instant replay, where I can see if the microbe was safe, on my own.

You can follow it on the web, here. Start at the root of the tree.

rossum