Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
niceatheist:
I suppose that’s an improvement, but it’s still anti-science, just less virulently so.
Click to expand...
Catholicism and our understanding of the natural law informs us faith and reason cannot be opposed. Materialistic science has eliminated the final and formal causes from its investigation and limits itself to efficient and material causes. We Catholics want a more complete understanding. Catholicism is fully in support of science, properly conducted and reasoned of course.
Click to expand...
But this still seems to invoke a conflict between faith and science. It still makes rather specific claims that do not seem born out by the evidence.
 
Science, by definition, is incomplete. Only the Catholic Church can combine science and theology to give the full, complete answer.
 
niceatheist said:
But this still seems to invoke a conflict between faith and science.
Click to expand...
Only when they are at odds where they intersect. When they are at odds we must investigate further for resolution. That is a good thing.

Pope John Paul II - “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
 
This is the case. Yes, we Catholics want/have answers that are beyond the purview of science. That I agree with Buffalo. But to do so, we have no need to invent new scientific claims. God creates and sustains the universe. How exactly He does this we cannot tell. We can learn from science and speculate, within reason.
 
tafan2 said:
we have no need to invent new scientific claims.
Click to expand...
Intelligent design has been around for a long long time. It is not new. We should follow the evidence where it leads.

What Is Intelligent Design?​

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory?​

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 
Last edited:
Science has blinders on. Divine Revelation is actual knowledge. Living things are designed, they don’t just look designed. Just knowing that changes the equation immensely.
 
buffalo said:
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Click to expand...
But everything is “designed”, so to speak, insofar as it is intended by God and cannot exist without him. This talk of complexity in this sense is arbitrary. And you can not demonstrate irreducibility in mechanical complexity.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
But everything is “designed”, so to speak, insofar as it is intended by God. This talk of complexity in this sense is arbitrary. And you can not demonstrate irreducibility in mechanical complexity.
Click to expand...
Yes. Functional Complex Specifies Information gives off a much stronger signal than the background. The higher the level, the higher the signal.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Wesrock:
But everything is “designed”, so to speak, insofar as it is intended by God. This talk of complexity in this sense is arbitrary. And you can not demonstrate irreducibility in mechanical complexity.
Click to expand...
Yes. Functional Complex Specifies Information gives off a much stronger signal.
Click to expand...
It’s no stronger a signal than a lone electron.
 
And it doesn’t work. Every example that Behe and company brought up during the Dover Trial was shot down. It’s an empty claim that basically amounts to “if it looks designed, it’s designed”, and thus gives off so many false positives, that it is in fact utterly worthless. It’s an empty claim.
 

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality​

www.sciencedaily.com

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
www.sciencedaily.com
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
And it doesn’t work. Every example that Behe and company brought up during the Dover Trial was shot down. It’s an empty claim that basically amounts to “if it looks designed, it’s designed”, and thus gives off so many false positives, that it is in fact utterly worthless. It’s an empty claim.
Click to expand...
Dover was a farce and we know so much more now. A judge ruled on this and this is not how science is done. I cannot believe you actually brought it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top