Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Allyson said:
I am all for testing the actual hypotheses of ID; however, we know so far is against the hypothesis. The science does not bear it out. If you want to accept science as it is, and believe that God put the process in place. That is a completely valid theological and philosophical position to take. You can believe that God set it up and let it play out independently. That is not what ID-creationsim does. It blurs the line between science and theology/philosophy.
Click to expand...
We are discussing ID the science, and you are still conflating the two.

I showed you a picture. Is it designed and how do we know?
 
LayApologist said:
I was a premed major prior to going to law school and earned dual degrees in Life Science and Physical, which are both interdisciplinary science degrees. The interrelationship between science and the faith has always fascinated me and is something I’ve spent considerable time studying. I’ll dive into the specifics later and I apologize if this has already been discussed as I have not read the entire thread, but there is one point that I believe needs to be emphasized.
Click to expand...
I can very much relate to this sentiment. 🙂 That interrelationship is why I went on to study theology and too an interest in things like ID in the first place. (I also enjoy legally stuff. lol 😉 ) I also look forward to your further thoughts. Thank you for joining in!
 
buffalo said:
We are discussing ID the science, and you are still conflating the two.
Click to expand...
I am not conflating them. I am telling you that it is the practitioners who promote ID who do that.
buffalo said:
I showed you a picture. Is it designed and how do we know?
Click to expand...
buffalo said:
Let us assume for a moment the complete universe is designed.

We are looking for very strong signals that we can detect against the backgound design signals.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (is this evidence of design and how do we know)
Click to expand...
SOS in the sand is easy. We know human cultural symbols, and we can further conclude that waves tend to remove divots in the beach. Nothing in this picture suggest design in the universe.
 
buffalo said:
We agree this is evidence of design?
Click to expand...
Yes, so long as we also agree that it is a human artifact. It is something that did not come about through natural processes. Therefore, it is design in the literal sense; not by analogy or appearance.
 
Allyson said:
Yes, so long as we also agree that it is a human artifact. It is something that did not come about through natural processes. Therefore, it is design in the literal sense; not by analogy or appearance.
Click to expand...
We do not know who the designer is. Should we end our study of this design?.
 
Last edited:
Perfect! Yes, if this were a real SOS, rather than a stock photo, we know that it would be a who behind the plea for help. We already know that this is a universal signal that a person or persons is in need of help, so yes, we should go and find the person. We would not know who that person was until we look for them.

So, this takes us right back to what I have already said about how ID is bad science and bad theology. ID is proposing that a who can be found in the natural design - specifically, that design in nature is not by chance, it is by artifice. There you go. That is where they blur that line. You want to get to the idea science should inquire about the who:
buffalo said:
We do not know who the designer is. Should we end our study of this design?.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
We do not know who the designer is. Should we end our study of this design?.
Click to expand...
We know that the designer is human, and we have ample evidence of the existence of humans.

Science is prepared to allow for unknown designers, as with the LGM hypothesis to explain the first pulsar. However, Occam’s Razor does tend to put such explanations behind simpler, naturalistic explanations, as was the case with pulsars.
 
Allyson said:
Perfect! Yes, if this were a real SOS, rather than a stock photo, we know that it would be a who behind the plea for help. We already know that this is a universal signal that a person or persons is in need of help, so yes, we should go and find the person. We would not know who that person was until we look for them.

So, this takes us right back to what I have already said about how ID is bad science and bad theology. ID is proposing that a who can be found in the natural design - specifically, that design in nature is not by chance, it is by artifice. There you go. That is where they blur that line. You want to get to the idea science should inquire about the who:
Click to expand...
You got this backwards.

How do we know this was designed?
 
buffalo said:
We do not know this for certain.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been to China? I haven’t. Can I be certain that China exists?

If you require 100% certainty then you will not even be able to believe your own memory: human memory is fallible.

I am happy to accept things that are shown true beyond reasonable doubt.

It is always possible to have unreasonable doubt, as with Flat Earthers, but I prefer not to go down that road.
 
buffalo said:
So you rule these others out? It could have been kids on the beach goofing around.
Click to expand...
See my prior answer.
Allyson said:
Yes, if this were a real SOS, rather than a stock photo, we know that it would be a who behind the plea for help. We already know that this is a universal signal that a person or persons is in need of help, so yes, we should go and find the person. We would not know who that person was until we look for them.
Click to expand...
In the hypothetical, you have to operate on the assumption that it is a real SOS. Of course, context clues matter. Context clues tell me that this is a stock photo, so no further investigation is required. However, for the sake of discussion, I abstracted the image to what is normally intended.

At the end of the day, this example really is not doing anything for you because it is an example of artificial design.
 
Last edited:
Allyson said:
Of course, context clues matter.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do. Context and prior experience will help one sort the odds that this was the intent. But it is not 100%. Finding the person who wrote the SOS in the sand would help clarify and lead you to more certainty. However, the SOS could have come about by natural means, no? Or are we in agreement the odds are infinitesimally small.

Artificial design? vs ???
 
gg995 said:
And now you think there’s conflict. Why didn’t you respond to the rest of his comment instead of bothering with an easy prey like Buffalo?
Click to expand...
I did not have an additional response for a few reasons. First, I did not disagree with him/her. Second, the post was well organized and tight. So I had no questions about what was meant. Third, he/she explicitly said that they had not had a chance to read the thread yet.

I do not think of Buffalo as easy prey. I see he or she as someone who is where I once was - at least in part. Because Buffalo is a stranger to me, I do not know all of their views, so it helps to ask explanatory questions. It also helps if those questions are answered. Some have been; other have not. I do not read ill intent into that, because sometimes “I do not know is the best answer.”

Why do you assume ill intent on my part? Also, why do you think I think there is some fundamental opposition between faith and science? I have not been arguing that. Hence, why I did not disagree with LayApologist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top