B
buffalo
Guest
Agreed, properly reasoned science that is. Properly reasoned science and Revelation will be both true where they intersect.
- Status
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
The word “supernaturally” applies to both options, which
means both are under the position of Intelligent Design,
therefore it is not a science.
B
buffalo
Guest
- There is ID, the philosophy - if design is found by ID the science, who it was. Could be humans, aliens, or God, or some other intelligent agent.
- There is ID the science, reasoning design as the best explanation using the scientific method. If design is found, go to 1.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
What revelation?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
How far back?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Which might lead to the finding that human beings are NOT potentially in control of the universe, after all.
God forbid we should find THAT out.
B
buffalo
Guest
One has to wonder why an evolved brain would even be interested in truth? How does it help fitness or survival?Very well said. Repetition is a key part of Propaganda 101.
And your last sentence sums up, based on the posts here, that people rejecting evolution “must be stopped at all costs” because Creationists are allegedly always wrong. So they must ALL be lying? That’s the part I can’t understand. The fear appears to be that religious people will NOT be convinced that God, who apparently did literally nothing as recorded in Genesis, just decided to let “chance” take over. More fun, as you wrote.
Also, based on certain things I’ve read elsewhere, “science,” not Divine Revelation, will be the only thing people will need in their lives, and any protests that “No! NO! Parents can teach their kids about God at home. We’re not trying to leave out God.” are not convincing at all. It reminds me about a non-review of a book on amazon: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” So people take the word of God over science on this topic? And the consequences will be… absolutely nothing.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Is that what happened when Catholics started modern science? Do I have to list all the Catholic scientists contributions?
I submit evolution has corrupted science and medicine. Imagine all the so called vestigial organs removed because evolution said they were useless leftovers. Now we know different.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
But Intelligent Design is not a science.
Why do you think the scientific community rejects ID as a science?
Because its not a science, it’s a non-falsifiable theological position.
B
buffalo
Guest
They are both philosophical conclusions. #2 is based on the scientific method.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is where the philosophical aspect comes into play. I’ve seen it worded like this: “What might be good for you might be bad for me. What may be right for you might be wrong for me.”
As it refers to the topic, there is Evolution, the Ideology, which can affect our decisions and behaviors, especially if the starting premise is convincing yourself, or accepting, that only blind, unguided chance turned you into the being you are.
Peace,
Ed
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is a scare tactic. An appeal to fear – “a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.” (From Wiki)
My cat just voiced agreement with me after we consulted.
She says we have nothing to fear and she refuses to get into a cat fight over this.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Catholics started modern science, yes, but that doesn’t make Intelligent Design true.
In fact, do we know that Catholics created ID? Even if they did, how does it make it true?
Through careful research, not ID, we will always know differently, evolution will always be
tweaked in the light of new data, so you’re point is invalid. Also, wasn’t it Behe who said
that if one were to break down the bacteria flagellum that no parts would be useful at all?
I believe Miller proved that to the contrary.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
There we find a miracle from God, which cannot be elaborated upon by science.
If Intelligent Design attempts to take a position on that, which it has, it can’t be a science.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
You started it by accusing what our fears are.This is a scare tactic. An appeal to fear – “a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.” (From Wiki)
My cat just voiced agreement with me after we consulted.
She says we have nothing to fear and she refuses to get into a cat fight over this.
I then took the step to correct you on that.
So you can’t just appeal to the “just a scare tactic” excuse.
B
buffalo
Guest
Catechism -
WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD
31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.
32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.7 And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: “See, we are beautiful.” Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?8
Would you have an objection to teaching ID in a philosophy class?
Why do evolutionists contort themselves to disprove irreducible complexity? To falsify ID.
B
buffalo
Guest
We can start here:
In the begining (time)
God created the heavens - (space)
and the earth (matter)
Science has only confirmed these recently what was Revealed thousands of years ago.
F
Farsight001
Guest
In no way is it assumption. it is a simple mathematical construct.
No. If mutations are negative, life does not “degenerate”. Those individuals with the negative mutations do not live to pass on those traits to their offspring to cause degeneration in the first place. Yes, I recall the computer code example, but again, computers do not reproduce, so it is not a valid comparison.
Again, it is a simple mathematical fact. Increased survivability means increased chances of passing that trait on to offspring, who also have increased survivability and continue to pass on the trait. Negative mutations decreases survivability and decreases the chances that these negative mutations are passed on.
Think about it. lets say the chance of developing a positive mutation is 1/2. So survivability is increased by this positive mutation, increasing the chances of passing that trait on to offspring. Another member of your species develops a negative mutation. This was also a 1/2 chance. Their chances of survival to pass on the trait are decreased by it. lets say this increase/decrease is 100%. So do the math and for the positive mutation, its 50% chance of increasing your offspring’s chance of survival by 100%. Lets just call this 50. Likewise for the negative mutation, but since its a negative mutation, then it is -50. Now tweak the chance of developing the mutations to whatever astronomically small number you want, and tweak the increased/decreased survivability to whatever astronomically small number you want, the increase is STILL an increase and the decrease is still a decrease.
The only question is can the mutations happen rapidly enough to adapt to environment changes, which depends more on the rate of change of the environment than anything.
B
buffalo
Guest
If we took a position that the organs were designed and had purpose we would not have been removing them so carelessly in the first place.
F
Farsight001
Guest
No. I’m competent enough to know you’re playing a game and not actually interested in an honest reply.I see.
So you are NOT competent to give a second opinion, but you ARE competent to determine that Miller’s proof is correct?
Hmmm.
I remain, shall we say, confused.
- Status