J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I don’t deny that this computer I’m using is an artificial product of man’s design.
If you want to find a Divine Designer, science ain’t going to find him.
- Status
If you want to find a Divine Designer, science ain’t going to find him.
A
adawgj
Guest
I was a little curious as to which scientists agree with ID, because I seen several creationists use lists of scientists to back up there claims. Now I can see the list.
B
buffalo
Guest
So? It is a list. Call each one then to satisfy yourself.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
It’s called pareidolia!
You’re mind sees a natural formation in nature, recognizes the shape, and sees a hand.
Divinely Intended? I don’t know.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Actually, it does matter because it shows that dissent from Darwinism is not limited to “creationists,” which was your contention.
Look at the list, these are not amateur scientists, but accredited PhDs in a wide variety of fields.
Note that the list of Physicians and Surgeons who dissent includes a disclaimer that no alternative “theory” is implied, merely that natural selection acting on random mutation is seen as insufficient by the endorsers.
So NOT a creationist source.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Which of course is the result of a mutation. And, of course, it could certainly mutate again.
E
edwest2
Guest
Intelligent Design is the more reasonable alternative. It fits well with Catholic teaching.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Except it is a dishonest practice.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Interesting…what is the Catholic teaching on the matter?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Good try! It is a work of art fashioned by a human designer. It’s called Panorámica de la Mano del Desierto, a sculpture by Mario Irarrázabal from Chile.
The problem, you see, is such things are not always so easy to figure out.
B
buffalo
Guest
Can you use the scientific method to repeat your test? Will your test be observable, repeatable and predictable? Sure it will. Intuitively you recognize design when you see it becuase is has been cognized. If you find a computer with this amount of fsci produced by natural causes then ID is falsified.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Oh I never said it was limited to Creationists, those are your words.
It really doesn’t matter also how good these scientists are, and how do I know they are not Creationists?
And did you miss the Logical Fallacy portion of my response?
B
buffalo
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
File not found error.
E
edwest2
Guest
From Communion and Stewardship:
“69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”
Approved for publication by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Peace,
Ed
F
FRLBJ
Guest
Evoultion makes no sense in higher animals. You don’t see cats or dogs becoming more alike over time. Also, I believe our faith over any purported scalled scientific evidence. God created man out of nothing. Man is a body-soul being and you can’t separate man into 2 parts or else the man is dead. So what if the genetic material is similar? It does not mean that God did not create us out of nothing.
I studied geology and you can’t find these inbetween species!
I studied geology and you can’t find these inbetween species!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Yes, but what is the chance of a cancer cell mutating in such a way as to regain all the functionality it had as a bone, blood or stem cell that would allow it to replicate and differentiate into the full complement of cells required to make up a viable living “animal?”
If my computer crashes because of a coding error, making random changes to the remaining working code will not repair the error, but rather will make things exponentially more difficult to fix.
However, if some form of self-reparation coding (code checking akin to sum checking or the like used to verify disk image copying) is “built into” the replication of genetic code or perhaps even “open coding” that is susceptible to alteration and novelty, then the continual improvement and complexity of life forms over time does make sense. And mutations could explain why things go awry from time to time and turn otherwise functional cells into cancer cells.
The “random” explanation is that the constant “going awry” IS what explains successful new life forms. I find that much more difficult to accept than a built-in potential in genetic code unpacking itself through time.
A designer required? Certainly. But a designer does explain what, otherwise, is difficult, if not impossible, to explain by random change.
A
adawgj
Guest
Just curious how much studying of geology did you do?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Key idea.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The “in-between” species need not entail random mutation and natural selection, but, rather, a kind of built-in potential for variation in genetic code itself. Adaptive change, speciation and even common descent are not precluded by intelligent design.
If the initial code was designed from the beginning to be flexible and changeable to meet and adjust to environmental pressures, then the ‘tree of life’ model need not be inaccurate. Just that the mechanism for change does not have to be a random process. The various species could have been “built into” the code and “unlocked” by environmental processes. This is the model being proposed by people like Meyer.
So, ID need not entail a literalist interpretation of Genesis, nor a 10,000 year old Earth, nor theistic evolution that ultimately relies on random events.
- Status