Is Evolution really Intelligent Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
freesoulhope:
why is creationist science represed by the church?
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of what you are referring to?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
so, does that mean your open to creationist science! :confused:
Click to expand...
Currently the work of some very qualified scientists is automatically discarded as flawed (and much of it may be) simply because they call themselves creationists.

However, there could be one piece of evidence that is not flawed that has to be addressed in a serious scientific way.

I believe the proper way to go forward is to dump all the evidence into a big pot and see what comes out.
 
maybe repressed was a harsh word. the catholic church does not seem to support creationist science ideas, nither do they want inteligent design tuaght in class rooms.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
maybe repressed was a harsh word. the catholic church does not seem to support creationist science ideas, nither do they want inteligent design tuaght in class rooms.
Click to expand...
They don’t want non-science taught in the classroom. At this point in time ID is not emperical. My view is only emperical science should be taught in science class. Anything else not emperical should be taught in a mandatory metaphysics class.
 
Originally Posted by Della
… I don’t think that options “a” and “b” are proofs of ID, but I do think they are suggestive and shouldn’t ipso facto be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Well…….strictly from a science point of view, ID is not falsifiable and thus not valid theory.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think an experiment could be set up to do that. I think that no one is interested in doing so, which is why it hasn’t been and probably won’t be done. After all, if experiments can be set up to show that various means of animal motion are a basic part of genetic make up of animal life, surely an experiment showing that genetics are the result of deliberate contruction and not merely a random coming together of various elements could be done on the computer. So, why hasn’t anyone taken it on? Because no one wants to take the chance of being laughed at or worse, losing their position at universities and other institutions in this country. People have already been ostrasized and even fired for attempting to introduce ID as a viable theory. And that’s just as a theory, mind you. I thought science was supposed to be open to all possibilities and not married to any one idea lest it hamper proper investigation of the facts?
From a theological point of view (a) is problematic since it implicitly limits God to things we can’t explain …yet. Which raises the question of what do we do once we have an explanation. While (b) bases one’s “proof” for God on one’s personal comfort level/understanding of probabilities. Like I said IMHO those are weaker positions.
Click to expand...
How does it “implicitly limit God to things we can’t explain”? I didn’t say that–I stated just the opposite. Why didn’t you comment on what I wrote instead of reiterating your position without regard to my arguments?

I quote: “I believe, based on the evidence, that God not only programmed all of life, but that he continues to do so. Like any other programmer he has the right to correct, change, reorganize his own creation as he sees fit.” The evidence for God being a programmer lies in the fact that intelligent beings are capable of such actions, and God, being an intelligent being certainly can do what anyone of us can do. Besides, I only said such things are suggestive not proofs, thus agreeing they are the “weaker position”.

Scientific method is all very well, but it cannot explain everything by the methods it employees. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot see evidence of ID within nature. In fact, the evidence is so clear only those who do not want to see it can’t see it. God doesn’t just exist in some supernatural ether “somewhere”, he’s the God of the physical world just as much as the supernatural world and evidence exists for those with eyes to see everywhere we look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
After all, there are such examples in the evolution theory too–an attempt to fill in the gaps–that are less than satisfying, not really based on science but on suppositions that cannot be supported by evidence or experimentation.
Click to expand...
I doubt that anything that is published in a scientific paper or textbook is not backed up with data and/or experimentation
Click to expand...
There are theories about mutations influencing evolution that have not been proven nor even falsified but are assumed by the scientific community. Assumptions and theories are not evidence of anything, that’s my point.
 
is it ignorant for a catholic to be a creationist and promote creationist veiws. what i mean is, would such a person be causing damage to the church.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
is it ignorant for a catholic to be a creationist and promote creationist veiws. what i mean is, would such a person be causing damage to the church.
Click to expand...
The Church has not declared a literal reading of Genesis to be ruled out. It does recognize there is some figurative language used in the accounts of creation.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed. This is Church teaching. Revelation is true. Science is contained in the overall truth - a part of truth but nowhere near the full truth if you will.

Science by its own definition is limited in what it can say about the universe. I believe it is a mistake to put all your eggs in the basket of science.

I don’t see anyone who is in pursuit of the truth being a threat or problem to the Church. In fact historically the Catholic Church has championed scientific discovery.
 
if the catholic church chapioned scientific discovery. why is it, that when they show science history and how it happened, its allways shown in oposition to the church. they try to say things like, the church coverd up scientific discoverys. people try to use that urgument agaist me. and to be honests it worrys me. what do you think about that?
 
im trying to get over the idea that macro evolution is a treat, but its dificult.
some creationists say that you cant be christian if you dont believe in the literal account on genesis, what can i say to people that say this?
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
if the catholic church chapioned scientific discovery. why is it, that when they show science history and how it happened, its allways shown in oposition to the church. they try to say things like, the church coverd up scientific discoverys. people try to use that urgument agaist me. and to be honests it worrys me. what do you think about that?
Click to expand...
That really flies in the face of the reality. If they point to Galileo have them study up on the actual case to see what it was about.

That is a common tactic used by anti-Catholics to try and destroy the Church.

Show them the list of Catholic scientists
and note the Christian one’s have their roots in the Catholic Church

**Georges-Henri Lemaître Roman Catholic Priest - big bang theory in the 1930’s

The Vatican Observatory
**
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
im trying to get over the idea that macro evolution is a treat, but its dificult.
some creationists say that you cant be christian if you dont believe in the literal account on genesis, what can i say to people that say this?
Click to expand...
They might be fundamental Protestants - their weakness being Sola Scriptura and private interpretation.

The Catholic Church does not teach this. From the earliest it was known the Bible is not the complete works of Christ. Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
do you believe that god used evolution
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t put it that way. 🙂 Rather, I’d say that what can be known of evolution–that species rise and go extinct–is a part of God’s plan for the natural processes of earth. It does not at all mean that he can’t/hasn’t “reprogrammed” (for lack of a better word) nature from time to time to suit his will. The creation of human beings was such a time, although he had always intended us to be who and what we are–creatures made in his image and blessed with the divine spark of eternal life.
 
I don’t see this as an either or situation. God could have simply inserted a fully developed Adam into the timeline wherever He wished no matter what may have been happening evolutionary wise at the time. I’ll call this the third option.
 
40.png
buffalo:
I don’t see this as an either or situation. God could have simply inserted a fully developed Adam into the timeline wherever He wished no matter what may have been happening evolutionary wise at the time. I’ll call this the third option.
Click to expand...
I agree. After all, He inserted Himself wherever He wished in the history of humanity.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
I agree. After all, He inserted Himself wherever He wished in the history of humanity.
Click to expand...
Gee! I never connected that. Perhaps Adam is a prefigurement in another sense also.
 
are bodys cant also be in gods image( god doesn’t have a body) if not, is it posible that we could have had any kind of body? do you think god might of liked to experiment with animals? it might explain why their are different kinds of creatures at different times in are earths history. There used to be giant dinosours, that where likley wiped out by a meteorite. and then suddenly( or over a period of time) a different variety appear that are alot smaller then the dinosour breeds. what do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top