E
edwest2
Guest
So science and faith can’t be reconciled? I guess we’re done here. Meanwhile, I’ll follow the design concept the Catholic Church teaches.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
No, it would be philosophy. The scientific method itself is philosophy.
you - “And have we reached the point in this thread of now calling evolutionary theory philosophy and IDvolution science? This is all topsy turvy.”
Exactly. :clapping: It only took 1400 posts.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Intelligent Design is a religious view invented by Creationists. You’ll find often
that proponents of Intelligent Design are very religious, say that things could
not have occurred by chance, thus there had to have been a Designer, which
is just ID talk for GOD…!
You’ll notice earlier in this thread I expanded the list of scientific organizations
that share similar view that the National Academy of Sciences has. Can you
then explain that?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I believe these three books can answer that:“**Creation **mean that the various forms of life began abruptly through the
agency of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already in–
tact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 1st Edition 1987
“**Intelligent design **means that various forms of life began abruptly through
an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with
fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.”
– Of Pandas and People 2nd Edition 1987
“**Sudden emergence **holds that various forms of life began **?] **with their dis-
tinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers
and wings, animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007
Creationists keep trying to distance themselves from religious–soundingwords
and hope that the next generation is ignorant enough to fall for their Intelligent
Design False Science.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
From this point on, you have lost.
Theology is not a science, and
even you know that.
It seems also that you are alluding to
the confession that Intelligent Design
is based on religion, not science.
I agree it is a religious view, but what difference does it make who came up with it?
So proponents of ID are very religious.
Oh the horror
. Would it make the belief more palatable to you if every proponent was anti-religion?That still has no bearing on one being the same as the other.
It would make it a popular argument. Or rather, an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It can be explained as the result of a random genetic mutation that changed the brain chemistry of any humans with sufficient intelligence and aptitude for science such that these individuals are incapable of distinguishing intelligence and design from perceptual experience.
Now, since evolution is absolutely and factually true and explains all current states of living things, the occurrence of such a “random” genetic change some 200 years ago was undetectable but still necessarily true (as a fact that cannot be denied) because evolution is factually and absolutely true.
Oh, yeah…
… and it’s logical, too.
meltzerboy
New member
If the scientific method itself is philosophy and, as you have claimed, IDvolution follows the scientific method, then IDvolution is also philosophy just as, according to you, evolution is. So we have two competing philosophical theories. Would you agree to that provided IDvolution is considered at least at the same philosophical level as evolution?No, it would be philosophy. The scientific method itself is philosophy.
you - “And have we reached the point in this thread of now calling evolutionary theory philosophy and IDvolution science? This is all topsy turvy.”
Exactly. :clapping: It only took 1400 posts.
Do you differentiate at all between philosophy and science?
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
No, for if you had any clue of how science works, you would know that honest scientists,
whenever introducing a novel hypothesis into the scientific community, it is tested, tested
again, discussed, reviewed, peer reviewed, and that is how scientists can tell whether an
idea ought to be accepted as valid science or not.
It is not the mere effort of an individual person or organization, as you seem to be implying,
but rather it is a combined effort, everyone is looking into Intelligent Design, and the major-
ity iws coming up (not making up) with the same answers.
There’s no “jumping on the bandwagon” in science.
E
edwest2
Guest
Gah Gah GOD. You said the forbidden word. It is very clear why some Americans are rightly skeptical of those who make claims regarding the topic. I think the best thing people here should do is add God to the picture. And realize that there is a great swell of anti-religious sentiment that needs to increase - so that is what we have here. Science, in this area, has just dropped another notch in my book.
The National Academy of Sciences is prejudging, so their statements about ID or Creation, carry no weight.
nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
They are an affront to the truth and use double-speak. Why a strictly, Ultra-Orthodox group could care, at all, about what religious people think leads me to one conclusion. Religion is wrong. Science is the only god you need. But “science” is supposedly silent about the supernatural. That is obviously not true as evidenced by the NAS statement.
Conflict is occurring, but the effect mirrors the following:
William F. Buckley — ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’
Creationism and ID are both the secular devil, and must never be discussed or analyzed. They must be destroyed and forgotten by all. Which makes me all the more interested in both.
Peace,
Ed
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Alright then, first define what it means in science for something to be falsifiable.
Once you have, explain how irreducible complexity is falsifiable.
You keep treating the two as the same, but I have yet to see the two shown to be the same.
Other then a court case, but I believe we can all agree that the courts do not decide truth.
B
buffalo
Guest
Summa
Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: “For all men have not faith” (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) “to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened.” But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.
Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.
Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.
B
buffalo
Guest
Article 3. Whether sacred doctrine is one science?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) “that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects.” But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
Objection 2. Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science.
On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: “Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things” (Wisdom 10:10).
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ***, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science.
Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired.
Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the “common sense” is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the “common sense”, although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything.
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not one science; for according to the Philosopher (Poster. i) “that science is one which treats only of one class of subjects.” But the creator and the creature, both of whom are treated of in sacred doctrine, cannot be grouped together under one class of subjects. Therefore sacred doctrine is not one science.
Objection 2. Further, in sacred doctrine we treat of angels, corporeal creatures and human morality. But these belong to separate philosophical sciences. Therefore sacred doctrine cannot be one science.
On the contrary, Holy Scripture speaks of it as one science: “Wisdom gave him the knowledge [scientiam] of holy things” (Wisdom 10:10).
I answer that, Sacred doctrine is one science. The unity of a faculty or habit is to be gauged by its object, not indeed, in its material aspect, but as regards the precise formality under which it is an object. For example, man, ***, stone agree in the one precise formality of being colored; and color is the formal object of sight. Therefore, because Sacred Scripture considers things precisely under the formality of being divinely revealed, whatever has been divinely revealed possesses the one precise formality of the object of this science; and therefore is included under sacred doctrine as under one science.
Reply to Objection 1. Sacred doctrine does not treat of God and creatures equally, but of God primarily, and of creatures only so far as they are referable to God as their beginning or end. Hence the unity of this science is not impaired.
Reply to Objection 2. Nothing prevents inferior faculties or habits from being differentiated by something which falls under a higher faculty or habit as well; because the higher faculty or habit regards the object in its more universal formality, as the object of the “common sense” is whatever affects the senses, including, therefore, whatever is visible or audible. Hence the “common sense”, although one faculty, extends to all the objects of the five senses. Similarly, objects which are the subject-matter of different philosophical sciences can yet be treated of by this one single sacred science under one aspect precisely so far as they can be included in revelation. So that in this way, sacred doctrine bears, as it were, the stamp of the divine science which is one and simple, yet extends to everything.
B
buffalo
Guest
Article 4. Whether sacred doctrine is a practical science?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
Objection 2. Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a speculative science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is a practical science; for a practical science is that which ends in action according to the Philosopher (Metaph. ii). But sacred doctrine is ordained to action: “Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
Objection 2. Further, sacred doctrine is divided into the Old and the New Law. But law implies a moral science which is a practical science. Therefore sacred doctrine is a practical science.
On the contrary, Every practical science is concerned with human operations; as moral science is concerned with human acts, and architecture with buildings. But sacred doctrine is chiefly concerned with God, whose handiwork is especially man. Therefore it is not a practical but a speculative science.
I answer that, Sacred doctrine, being one, extends to things which belong to different philosophical sciences because it considers in each the same formal aspect, namely, so far as they can be known through divine revelation. Hence, although among the philosophical sciences one is speculative and another practical, nevertheless sacred doctrine includes both; as God, by one and the same science, knows both Himself and His works. Still, it is speculative rather than practical because it is more concerned with divine things than with human acts; though it does treat even of these latter, inasmuch as man is ordained by them to the perfect knowledge of God in which consists eternal bliss. This is a sufficient answer to the Objections.
B
buffalo
Guest
Article 5. Whether sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; for its principles — namely, articles of faith — can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler.
Objection 2. Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that “the ancient doctors so enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or their scriptural learning.” Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences.
On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: “Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower” (Proverbs 9:3).
I answer that, Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain than sacred doctrine; for its principles — namely, articles of faith — can be doubted. Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler.
Objection 2. Further, it is the sign of a lower science to depend upon a higher; as music depends on arithmetic. But sacred doctrine does in a sense depend upon philosophical sciences; for Jerome observes, in his Epistle to Magnus, that “the ancient doctors so enriched their books with the ideas and phrases of the philosophers, that thou knowest not what more to admire in them, their profane erudition or their scriptural learning.” Therefore sacred doctrine is inferior to other sciences.
On the contrary, Other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: “Wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower” (Proverbs 9:3).
I answer that, Since this science is partly speculative and partly practical, it transcends all others speculative and practical. Now one speculative science is said to be nobler than another, either by reason of its greater certitude, or by reason of the higher worth of its subject-matter. In both these respects this science surpasses other speculative sciences; in point of greater certitude, because other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas this derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled: in point of the higher worth of its subject-matter because this science treats chiefly of those things which by their sublimity transcend human reason; while other sciences consider only those things which are within reason’s grasp. Of the practical sciences, that one is nobler which is ordained to a further purpose, as political science is nobler than military science; for the good of the army is directed to the good of the State. But the purpose of this science, in so far as it is practical, is eternal bliss; to which as to an ultimate end the purposes of every practical science are directed. Hence it is clear that from every standpoint, it is nobler than other sciences.
B
buffalo
Guest
Reply to Objection 1. It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, “which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun” (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence; yet the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things, as is said in de Animalibus xi.
Reply to Objection 2. This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science.
Reply to Objection 2. This science can in a sense depend upon the philosophical sciences, not as though it stood in need of them, but only in order to make its teaching clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation. Therefore it does not depend upon other sciences as upon the higher, but makes use of them as of the lesser, and as handmaidens: even so the master sciences make use of the sciences that supply their materials, as political of military science. That it thus uses them is not due to its own defect or insufficiency, but to the defect of our intelligence, which is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from which proceed the other sciences) to that which is above reason, such as are the teachings of this science.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
So if people on their own decided that the Earth was flat, you’d be okay? That is why you are wrong.
Well when Creationists prove their false science to be true, we may take the time to listen.
E
estesbob
Guest
The politicalization of science has created a huge credibility problem.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I do believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches of God creating all things, but she does
not think it wise to conclusively denounce evolution, nor does the Church stoop so low so as
to suggest that Intelligent Design is a science. In light of all that, I’ll support you there.
- Status