One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic92 said:
It is a sad day when people peddle the Evangelical Intelligent Design argument, over the Philosophical and traditional Teleological Argument. Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak creationism through the back door, not to reintrepret the scientific data within a theistic metaphysical framework.

Protip: the Evolutionary Scientists are right, IDers are wrong. The metaphysics of many modern naturalist scientists however is simply deficient for making an argument for the Existence of God, why are we abandoning the Aristotelian Metaphysics in favour of the Cartesian metaphysics that have shown themselves to be flawed?
Click to expand...
It is a sad day when people ignore what the Church teaches. There is clearly a Designer and that Designer is God. Since no one can link science to what it cannot study, then completely separating the two means Theistic Evolution as mentioned, has no scientific backing.

And then there is the “fear” that this idea of Intelligent Design will creep into schools and young people will come to realize that God and the Bible are not just a bunch of symbols.

After all, we behave on what we believe. If we came from nothing and die to nothing then Jesus and His Church are ignored. If we realize that the Living God has taught us, along with the Church, what many of His powers and attributes are, such as being born in human flesh and dying for us and rising from the dead, then our view of how to live will change. Our life is not our own.

Peace,
Ed
 
Skeptic92 said:
It is a sad day when people peddle the Evangelical Intelligent Design argument, over the Philosophical and traditional Teleological Argument. Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak creationism through the back door, not to reintrepret the scientific data within a theistic metaphysical framework.

Protip: the Evolutionary Scientists are right, IDers are wrong. The metaphysics of many modern naturalist scientists however is simply deficient for making an argument for the Existence of God, why are we abandoning the Aristotelian Metaphysics in favour of the Cartesian metaphysics that have shown themselves to be flawed?
Click to expand...
Why are IDers wrong? BECAUSE scientists are right? But scientists don’t necessarily agree that they are. Nor do some mathematicians and philosophers.

The question you need to ask yourself is: How do you know that IDers are wrong? Have you actually looked into what people like Meyer actually says in support of ID? Are you certain it conflicts with Aristotelian metaphysics? How does it?

I have seen these claims before but none of the claimants actually can pin down exactly where the conflict is, either because they aren’t familiar with Meyer’s claims or they don’t really get Aristotelian or Thomistic metaphysics.

Feser, for example, does show that ID is susceptible to a kind of theistic personalism, but doesn’t, as far as I have read, claim that it MUST do so.
 
edwest2 said:
It is a sad day when people ignore what the Church teaches. There is clearly a Designer and that Designer is God. Since no one can link science to what it cannot study, then completely separating the two means Theistic Evolution as mentioned, has no scientific backing.
Click to expand...
Well that’s right, Theistic Evolution has no scientific backing in its THEISTIC part,
which is just great, because the God I worship cannot be understood by science.
Not sure what your point is though.
edwest2 said:
And then there is the “fear” that this idea of Intelligent Design will creep into schools and young people will come to realize that God and the Bible are not just a bunch of symbols.
Click to expand...
That is entirely a misrepresentation of the situation, and you know it. The fear is in having
lies taught, and have our knowledge of science diminish. The situation is completely differ-
ent form what you described. But since you said that the way you did, let me point out al-
so that the way you spoke fully represents what Intelligent Design is about, not science,
just religious doctrine deceptively clothed as science.
edwest2 said:
After all, we behave on what we believe. If we came from nothing and die to nothing then Jesus and His Church are ignored. If we realize that the Living God has taught us, along with the Church, what many of His powers and attributes are, such as being born in human flesh and dying for us and rising from the dead, then our view of how to live will change. Our life is not our own.
Click to expand...
So the road to salvation, you are proposing, is lying. Taking a metaphysical study and
holding it on par with physics, biology, chemistry, etc, as a science, is the path which
leads to eternal life, dishonesty, deception, and false science.

Also, under your paradigm, I should be ignoring Jesus and his Church, which is not
at all true. I believe in Evolution, that science can tell us a lot about what happened
and how, but never will it say why. My God is an infinite being who, though came in
the flesh at one point, is not as to his eternal nature a physical being, something of
which can be examined by means of science.

I can look at Creation and know that God did it, but if one tries to
look for proof of God’s hand in Creation, that one is missing God.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well that’s right, Theistic Evolution has no scientific backing in its THEISTIC part,
which is just great, because the God I worship cannot be understood by science.
Not sure what your point is though.

That is entirely a misrepresentation of the situation, and you know it. The fear is in having
lies taught, and have our knowledge of science diminish. The situation is completely differ-
ent form what you described. But since you said that the way you did, let me point out al-
so that the way you spoke fully represents what Intelligent Design is about, not science,
just religious doctrine deceptively clothed as science.

So the road to salvation, you are proposing, is lying. Taking a metaphysical study and
holding it on par with physics, biology, chemistry, etc, as a science, is the path which
leads to eternal life, dishonesty, deception, and false science.

Also, under your paradigm, I should be ignoring Jesus and his Church, which is not
at all true. I believe in Evolution, that science can tell us a lot about what happened
and how, but never will it say why. My God is an infinite being who, though came in
the flesh at one point, is not as to his eternal nature a physical being, something of
which can be examined by means of science.

I can look at Creation and know that God did it, but if one tries to
look for proof of God’s hand in Creation, that one is missing God.
Click to expand...
If I thought ID’ers were lying I would disown them.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Why are IDers wrong? BECAUSE scientists are right? But scientists don’t necessarily agree that they are. Nor do some mathematicians and philosophers.

The question you need to ask yourself is: How do you know that IDers are wrong? Have you actually looked into what people like Meyer actually says in support of ID? Are you certain it conflicts with Aristotelian metaphysics? How does it?

I have seen these claims before but none of the claimants actually can pin down exactly where the conflict is, either because they aren’t familiar with Meyer’s claims or they don’t really get Aristotelian or Thomistic metaphysics.

Feser, for example, does show that ID is susceptible to a kind of theistic personalism, but doesn’t, as far as I have read, claim that it MUST do so.
Click to expand...
You know, there are a lot of priests and bishops who agree that women can be priests,
that gay marriage ought to be allowed, there may even be an odd few who support the
practice of abortion. Does that make them right, NO!

Is the fact that the majority of scientists disagree with Intelligent Design proof alone
that it is not science? Of course not! But why do they think it? Maybe it has some-
thing to do with all the checking and rechecking and peer reviews, maybe even the
lack thereof because Creationists don’t want to be scrutinized.

Maybe it WHY the majority of scientists
disagree with Intelligent Design that mat-
ters, not the disagreement itself.
 
buffalo said:
If I thought ID’ers were lying I would disown them.
Click to expand...
Well obviously, I have no doubts there, but whether you believe them or
not does not determine whether or not that they are correct, does it?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well obviously, I have no doubts there, but whether you believe them or
not does not determine whether or not that they are correct, does it?
Click to expand...
As I posted before, human reasoning is the weak link.

Let me ask another way - If there were no Revelation, so humans have the ability to figure this stuff out alone?
 
buffalo said:
As I posted before, human reasoning is the weak link.

Let me ask another way - If there were no Revelation, so humans have the ability to figure this stuff out alone?
Click to expand...
Figure what stuff out alone? What is “this”?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Well Evolution does not only depend on natural selection but
also random mutation, environmental circumstances, etc.

Now let’s see something from the true history of Creation-Science, I mean “Intelligent Design”:“**Creation **means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency
of an **intelligent creator **with their distinctive features already intact. 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 distinctive
features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings,
animals with fur and mammary glands.”
– Design of Life 2007
Click to expand...
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1372

Banned Book Of The Year.

evolutionnews.org/2006/09/banned_book_of_the_year_of_pan002648.html
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Still their own literature apparently, hypocrites! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If there were 4 bookstores right in a row, one named Creationist, another ID Science, one Evolution, and the another IDvolution 🙂 what would you expect to find in each one?

If I found books on evo in the ID store should I cry foul like you do? You would go ballistic finding creationist books in the evo store.😉

The argument is what is important no matter the store name.
 
Skeptic92 said:
It is a sad day when people peddle the Evangelical Intelligent Design argument, over the Philosophical and traditional Teleological Argument. Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak creationism through the back door, not to reintrepret the scientific data within a theistic metaphysical framework.

Protip: the Evolutionary Scientists are right, IDers are wrong. The metaphysics of many modern naturalist scientists however is simply deficient for making an argument for the Existence of God, why are we abandoning the Aristotelian Metaphysics in favour of the Cartesian metaphysics that have shown themselves to be flawed?
Click to expand...
ID is not sneaky creationism but both ID and Creationism are forms of the Teleological Argument. The obvious advantage of the ID form of the argument is that it rests on greater precision than the vague form that the philosophers offered. How exactly does it make more sense to look grandly at the universe and infer a Creator than to look at detailed evidence for the same?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
ID is not sneaky creationism but both ID and Creationism are forms of the Teleological Argument. The obvious advantage of the ID form of the argument is that it rests on greater precision than the vague form that the philosophers offered. How exactly does it make more sense to look grandly at the universe and infer a Creator than to look at detailed evidence for the same?
Click to expand...
The Teleological Argument inherently requires inductive reasoning to justify its premise. That has always been known and it is why it has always been seen as one of the ‘weaker’ arguments as deductive arguments give certainty, and inductive arguments give probability. There are numerous forms of the argument (the classical Teleological & ID being the ones you have mentioned) however don’t believe that ID is actually the same as the classical argument. The classical argument rested on an entirely different metaphysical framework (Aristotelian vs. Cartesian) which obviously give a greatly different understanding of the data we are seeing.

The classical argument looks to the evidence and sees ‘purpose’ which entails design, the modern ID see a mechanism that needs outside interference every now and then, which will run into obvious problems with the principle of parsimony. The formers metaphysical framework actually works well for the argument it is making, the latter is on much shakier ground.

First in the assumption of Cartesian Dualism and the metaphysical assumptions that makes puts it on dodgy ground rationally, his substance dualism is more written as a rejection of scholastic philosophy than any thorough refutation. We have no reason to concede a metaphysical framework that entails absurdity, when the classical metaphysics the Church has embraced in Aquinas have not been refuted.
Second: it is going to run into problems with the Divine Immutability, as it implies change in the Divine Will in creation.
 
buffalo said:
If there were 4 bookstores right in a row, one named Creationist, another ID Science, one Evolution, and the another IDvolution 🙂 what would you expect to find in each one?
Click to expand...
One on scientific matters, (Evolution)
One discussing religion only, (Creationism)
The other two talking religion cloaked in science jargon. (Intelligent Design & IDvolution)
buffalo said:
If I found books on evo in the ID store should I cry foul like you do? You would go ballistic finding creationist books in the evo store.😉

The argument is what is important no matter the store name.
Click to expand...
Maybe, unless it was in the fiction area of the store. 😃

Neither point seems to address my accusation of hypocrisy.
 
Skeptic92 said:
The Teleological Argument inherently requires inductive reasoning to justify its premise.
Click to expand...
Basically all of science requires inductive reasoning to justify theories. You do understand what Hume was on about, correct?

If you want to claim ID or the teleological argument are problematic BECAUSE they use inductive reasoning, you had better be prepared to justify science on some other ground then.

Which would be what? Deductive reasoning? Don’t think so. Conclusions from empirical evidence are ENTIRELY inductive.

I’m not clear what your critique amounts to, sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top