Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoganBice
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems I caused quite a ruckus with my initial question. I just wanted to know the difference haha. Some of you all came ready for battle. :slapfight:
 
LoganBice said:
It seems I caused quite a ruckus with my initial question. I just wanted to know the difference haha. Some of you all came ready for battle. :slapfight:
Click to expand...
I suspect that is why evolution/ID threads are restricted here.

rossum
 
Peter_Plato said:
Now THAT would be a statement of faith, or, perhaps, even faithlessness.

Why would we choose to think it true?
Click to expand...
Anything that is due to chance has no “why” behind, just chance. I do not need faith to know that chance events happen in the universe, beta decay for example.

rossum
 
LoganBice said:
All that shows me is no matter how much one attempts to say God isn’t real and that they don’t need God, still thirst for answers but in their arrogance or ignorance they reject those truths that God gave us. Those who look for answers of the origins of our creation through science alone are like thirsty wanders that are offered water but refuse to drink because they don’t believe it’s water. (Thirsty wanders being the lost seeking truth, with truth being the water.)

I think science is awesome but to use it as truth alone is like holding a picture and denying that something existed to take this picture.

Iv been up awhile so these metaphors my be quite silly 🤷

Basically I’m saying that looking to science alone for answers will always leave one begging for more. An empty was that only God alone can fill.
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas used the comparison of an archer aiming at a target. The bow and arrow have no intelligence. The archer does. He directs the arrow to the desired target, which includes us.

I think science is awesome too, but is only part of the story.

Peace,
Ed
 
rossum said:
I suspect that is why evolution/ID threads are restricted here.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hence why I asked in my OP to only give me the differences and not a debate on which position is correct to hold.
 
rossum said:
Anything that is due to chance has no “why” behind, just chance. I do not need faith to know that chance events happen in the universe, beta decay for example.

rossum
Click to expand...
Granted, those events “appear” to be due to chance, but only because our inability to get the entire account hinders us from seeing them as anything but chance. That does not mean such events truly are “chance” events in the full sense of the word.
 
Theistic evolution may preclude the possibility of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is based on the premise that life first appeared not by accident, but by a special act reflecting intelligent design of the first living life form.

The theist is free to imagine that intelligent designer to be God, in which case biology and religion come together. The atheist who might recognize the appearance of design is free to suggest, as atheist biologist Richard Dawkins does, that possibly an alien force visited earth seeded it with life.

“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” Richard Dawkins

The pitfall of Dawkins’l logic is that it only pushes the logic farther back. Now it has to be explained how the aliens were intelligently designed.
 
rossum said:
Anything that is due to chance has no “why” behind, just chance. I do not need faith to know that chance events happen in the universe, beta decay for example.

rossum
Click to expand...
But you do need faith to believe that you will win the lottery. 😃
 
LoganBice said:
All that shows me is no matter how much one attempts to say God isn’t real and that they don’t need God, still thirst for answers but in their arrogance or ignorance they reject those truths that God gave us. Those who look for answers of the origins of our creation through science alone are like thirsty wanders that are offered water but refuse to drink because they don’t believe it’s water. (Thirsty wanders being the lost seeking truth, with truth being the water.)

I think science is awesome but to use it as truth alone is like holding a picture and denying that something existed to take this picture.

Iv been up awhile so these metaphors my be quite silly 🤷

Basically I’m saying that looking to science alone for answers will always leave one begging for more. An empty was that only God alone can fill.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Science tells us precisely nothing about the things that really matter: the value, purpose and meaning of life.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Theistic evolution may preclude the possibility of intelligent design.

Intelligent design is based on the premise that life first appeared not by accident, but by a special act reflecting intelligent design of the first living life form.

The theist is free to imagine that intelligent designer to be God, in which case biology and religion come together. The atheist who might recognize the appearance of design is free to suggest, as atheist biologist Richard Dawkins does, that possibly an alien force visited earth seeded it with life.

“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.” Richard Dawkins

The pitfall of Dawkins’l logic is that it only pushes the logic farther back. Now it has to be explained how the aliens were intelligently designed.
Click to expand...
It’s a pitiful pitfall! Even a child would ask where the aliens came from in the first place…
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yes, that was indeed an excellent explanation by Rossum.

I’d only add that from a Catholic perspective there was indeed no biological Intelligent Design required at the rise of Homo Sapiens (even though anyone is free to believe otherwise), however the Catholic Faith of course holds that God infuses an immaterial rational soul into each human being.
Click to expand...
If that were the case there would be gross disparity between the origin of the soul and the origin of the body. Direct intervention on the one hand and total absence of intervention on the other. No wonder sceptics are sceptical!
 
Al_Moritz said:
The fact that you gave a 👍 to only the first question without quoting the second one in the post you responded to, a question that posed an alternative, says something.
Click to expand...
Only in your imagination…
But then, quote mining is something that you ID proponents are famously good at.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem.
In contrast to your approach, i gave a proper answer in my previous post.
Click to expand...
According to…? 😉
 
rossum said:
Anything that is due to chance has no “why” behind, just chance. I do not need faith to know that chance events happen in the universe, beta decay for example.

rossum
Click to expand...
One has to ask why chance is even available?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Granted, those events “appear” to be due to chance, but only because our inability to get the entire account hinders us from seeing them as anything but chance. That does not mean such events truly are “chance” events in the full sense of the word.
Click to expand...
But you have no evidence for that. All the scientific evidence available shows that beta decays are a chance events.

rossum
 
tonyrey said:
It’s a pitiful pitfall! Even a child would ask where the aliens came from in the first place…
Click to expand...
Which is why creationism has no explanation for the origin (the real origin) of life.

Ask yourself, “Is God alive or dead?” Psalm 42:2 applies.

rossum
 
rossum said:
But you have no evidence for that. All the scientific evidence available shows that beta decays are a chance events.

rossum
Click to expand...
Chance is the attribute of decay, but still why chance? Why not other than chance?
 
buffalo said:
Chance is the attribute of decay, but still why chance? Why not other than chance?
Click to expand...
There is evidence for chance. There is no evidence for other than chance. As and when evidence for other than chance I will reconsider. Until then I will follow the evidence.

rossum
 
rossum said:
There is evidence for chance. There is no evidence for other than chance. As and when evidence for other than chance I will reconsider. Until then I will follow the evidence.

rossum
Click to expand...
“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top