B
buffalo
Guest
Catholics were the only one’s to recognize the intelligibility of nature. The pagans thought it all chaos and not worthy of study.
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
Now I can look at how you’ve rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church and have actually destroyed the foundation of reason itself.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 # 1: DS 3026),
48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”
You have stated that you don’t accept this. You see no evidence of the order established by the Creator at all. You see no evidence of the Creator’s design in nature. When questioned on why you think God has something to do with the laws of the universe, you stated “it’s faith based”. This denies the Catechism which states it is “by his reason”. The reason works on observed evidence. In your world, your faith is tied to some imaginary ideas or as I said, perhaps hallucinations. But again, you see no design at all in nature. Not in the effects of the human soul, not in the precise mathematical constants of the universe, not in the coincidental balances without which life would be impossible, not in the manifestations of grace given in Jesus’ life, the lives of the saints, the approved apparitions of the Church, the power of miracles … none of that. It all just shows the random effects of material processes for you. Again, you’ve destroyed the faith essentially – and this is one of the best examples of the destructive work of evolutionary theory one can find – in your own words themselves. Here you’re on a Catholic forum, and instead of building faith and evangelizing – you’re destroying the entire foundation of it. Your new-found atheistic friends will be quite happy with this, and I won’t be suprised if you join them quite soon, given the very dangerous down-hill path you’re on.
We can look again at the heresy of fideism (as I posted earlier)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.” The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, “Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.”, Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806).
You have denied that Intelligent Design can be observed in nature (through sensory perception and the use of reason). The Constitution on the Catholic Faith, as given here condemns that position clearly. Vatican I, in a dogmatic statement proclaims (and is binding on all the faithful) that “by means of things that are made” God can be known.
You denied this and stated it is “faith based” only, and that there is zero evidence of God’s design in nature.
Your heretical thinking is as clear as can be. You arrogantly come on CAF claiming to be a Catholic, meanwhile undermining the faith. You argue in favor of Darwinian-atheism and laugh at the teachings of the Church.
It’s for this reason that I find liberalized-Catholic secularists the most dangerous of all enemies of the Faith. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Putting on the appearance of the Holy Faith, but destroying it behind the scence with their errors, skepticism and sometimes outright mockery.
Cardinal Schonborn (one of the key authors of the Catholic Catechism) makes the point clear again in his essay* Finding Design in Nature*:
The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
The Cardinal states that there is *overwhelming evidence for design * to be found in nature.
I’ll review your statement again:
continued …
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 # 1: DS 3026),
48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.
1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”
You have stated that you don’t accept this. You see no evidence of the order established by the Creator at all. You see no evidence of the Creator’s design in nature. When questioned on why you think God has something to do with the laws of the universe, you stated “it’s faith based”. This denies the Catechism which states it is “by his reason”. The reason works on observed evidence. In your world, your faith is tied to some imaginary ideas or as I said, perhaps hallucinations. But again, you see no design at all in nature. Not in the effects of the human soul, not in the precise mathematical constants of the universe, not in the coincidental balances without which life would be impossible, not in the manifestations of grace given in Jesus’ life, the lives of the saints, the approved apparitions of the Church, the power of miracles … none of that. It all just shows the random effects of material processes for you. Again, you’ve destroyed the faith essentially – and this is one of the best examples of the destructive work of evolutionary theory one can find – in your own words themselves. Here you’re on a Catholic forum, and instead of building faith and evangelizing – you’re destroying the entire foundation of it. Your new-found atheistic friends will be quite happy with this, and I won’t be suprised if you join them quite soon, given the very dangerous down-hill path you’re on.
We can look again at the heresy of fideism (as I posted earlier)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.” The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, “Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.”, Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806).
You have denied that Intelligent Design can be observed in nature (through sensory perception and the use of reason). The Constitution on the Catholic Faith, as given here condemns that position clearly. Vatican I, in a dogmatic statement proclaims (and is binding on all the faithful) that “by means of things that are made” God can be known.
You denied this and stated it is “faith based” only, and that there is zero evidence of God’s design in nature.
Your heretical thinking is as clear as can be. You arrogantly come on CAF claiming to be a Catholic, meanwhile undermining the faith. You argue in favor of Darwinian-atheism and laugh at the teachings of the Church.
It’s for this reason that I find liberalized-Catholic secularists the most dangerous of all enemies of the Faith. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Putting on the appearance of the Holy Faith, but destroying it behind the scence with their errors, skepticism and sometimes outright mockery.
Cardinal Schonborn (one of the key authors of the Catholic Catechism) makes the point clear again in his essay* Finding Design in Nature*:
The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
The Cardinal states that there is *overwhelming evidence for design * to be found in nature.
I’ll review your statement again:
Again, I just wonder what other aspects of the Catholic Faith you’ve rejected.
continued …
R
reggieM
Guest
continued from previous …
Pope John Paul II’s teaching merely affirms the Catechism, Vatican I and St. Paul’s epistle (Rom 1:19-21). In a brilliant document, the Holy Father explained this Catholic teaching
God can be known through creation - the visible world constitutes for the human intellect the basis for affirming the existence of the invisible Creator. The passage from the Book of Wisdom is fuller. The inspired author argues with the paganism of his time, which attributed divine glory to some creatures. At the same time, he offers us some elements for reflection and judgment that can be valid for every era, including our own. He speaks of the enormous effort expended to learn about the visible universe. He speaks also of those who “seek God and wish to find him.” He asks why human wisdom, which enables man to “speculate about the world,” does not come to know its Lord. The author of the Book of Wisdom - as St. Paul did - sees some blame in this.
Again, it’s as clear as can be. The Book of Wisdom (Wis 13:1-9 - a beautiful passage that totally refutes your claims), as did St. Paul, “sees some blame” in those who claim that there is no Intelligent Design to be seen in nature.
I’ve rebuked you for this myself – you come on CAF disguised as a Catholic and make arrogant claims. How many souls do you lead astray like that? You’re supposed to be bringing souls to Christ – instead you’re bringing them to atheistic websites and arguing against the Catholic Truth.
Pope John Paul II again:
“To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
As I said, fideism basically destroys rational thought. The Church teaches that by reason (via what is observed) one can recognize the truth about God’s Intelligent Design.
You reject that and say it is “faith based” – thus, reason is destroyed in favor of your imagination, hallucination, self-deception or wishful thinking.
The 2004 Vatican Document, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God clearly condemns materalistic-evolutionary theories:
Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith … Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message **is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins **and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.
I’ll next look at mainstream evolutionary theory to see what it teaches on this topic. Your views line up quite nicely with what evolutionary theory itself teaches, so in that regard, your view is more consistent than that of Arandur’s. But clearly, your paths have separated with your statement on the non-evidence of intelligent design in nature.
Pope John Paul II’s teaching merely affirms the Catechism, Vatican I and St. Paul’s epistle (Rom 1:19-21). In a brilliant document, the Holy Father explained this Catholic teaching
God can be known through creation - the visible world constitutes for the human intellect the basis for affirming the existence of the invisible Creator. The passage from the Book of Wisdom is fuller. The inspired author argues with the paganism of his time, which attributed divine glory to some creatures. At the same time, he offers us some elements for reflection and judgment that can be valid for every era, including our own. He speaks of the enormous effort expended to learn about the visible universe. He speaks also of those who “seek God and wish to find him.” He asks why human wisdom, which enables man to “speculate about the world,” does not come to know its Lord. The author of the Book of Wisdom - as St. Paul did - sees some blame in this.
Again, it’s as clear as can be. The Book of Wisdom (Wis 13:1-9 - a beautiful passage that totally refutes your claims), as did St. Paul, “sees some blame” in those who claim that there is no Intelligent Design to be seen in nature.
I’ve rebuked you for this myself – you come on CAF disguised as a Catholic and make arrogant claims. How many souls do you lead astray like that? You’re supposed to be bringing souls to Christ – instead you’re bringing them to atheistic websites and arguing against the Catholic Truth.
Pope John Paul II again:
“To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
As I said, fideism basically destroys rational thought. The Church teaches that by reason (via what is observed) one can recognize the truth about God’s Intelligent Design.
You reject that and say it is “faith based” – thus, reason is destroyed in favor of your imagination, hallucination, self-deception or wishful thinking.
The 2004 Vatican Document, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God clearly condemns materalistic-evolutionary theories:
Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith … Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message **is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins **and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.
I’ll next look at mainstream evolutionary theory to see what it teaches on this topic. Your views line up quite nicely with what evolutionary theory itself teaches, so in that regard, your view is more consistent than that of Arandur’s. But clearly, your paths have separated with your statement on the non-evidence of intelligent design in nature.
B
buffalo
Guest
Then you have not read my posts.
Several times I put this forth.
God thought/created the Language of DNA and set it in the kinds. From this all the diversity of life sprang forth.
You will remember I was attacked for not defining the “kinds”, which I then pointed the poster to the dictionary definition. So basically God’s word/thought contained all the potential needed.
We all agree that adaptation takes place. Speciation can occur when populations undergo isolation and natural selection.
The difference between materialist evolution and the above is that God started it all and it is working top down rather than bottom up. My view is different from theistic evolution in that it explains the origin of life.
It all fits pretty good don’t you think?
E
edwest2
Guest
What reggieM has posted perfectly reflects my thoughts. I can only add the clear linkage that must exist between the knowledge provided to us by God and His Church and with the observations of scientific individuals and clearly demonstrated features of life. Our faith is in the Living God. It does not limit itself to a building and it permeates our lives.
The Church calls reason and faith complementary - each adding something to the other but both flowing from the same source. If truth cannot contradict truth then truth must flow in both directions, not just one. Life does not have just a ‘science only’ explanation. It must include the visible signs of the Creative Intelligence who made all things. Without knowing who created, it reduces creation to a self-starting and self-generating mechanism. This is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Peace,
Ed
The Church calls reason and faith complementary - each adding something to the other but both flowing from the same source. If truth cannot contradict truth then truth must flow in both directions, not just one. Life does not have just a ‘science only’ explanation. It must include the visible signs of the Creative Intelligence who made all things. Without knowing who created, it reduces creation to a self-starting and self-generating mechanism. This is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Peace,
Ed
M
Michaelo
Guest
reggieM
Before your witch hunt continues, I’d like to further expose your duplicitous rhetoric.
You clearly embraced the irreducible complexity and specified complexity concepts in the “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?” thread to defend ID, so I logically gathered that your definition of ID heavily involved these two concepts. I then thoroughly refuted your main arguments for ID (IC and CSI), but you never appeared to reform your notion of ID as a result.
Then you entered this thread and (without clarifying whether you modified your views) asserted that your definition of ID (having already been established in “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?”) is consistent with Church teachings. Then just recently (without clarifying your exact position as Arandur and I rightfully requested) you demanded that I refuse or accept that ID is recognizable in nature. Considering that you never explicitly distanced ID from the flawed concepts of IC and CSI, I responded “no” to your question. Then your duplicitous rhetoric culminated as you performed a bait and switch. By rejecting your flawed notion of ID, you conveniently concluded that I must also have discarded the Church teachings that you claim are strictly aligned with your definition.
In your recent posts, you failed to demonstrate that the Church recognizes IC and CSI, and so I stand by my original response that rejects your notion of ID that relies so heavily upon these ridiculously flawed concepts.
Before your witch hunt continues, I’d like to further expose your duplicitous rhetoric.
You clearly embraced the irreducible complexity and specified complexity concepts in the “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?” thread to defend ID, so I logically gathered that your definition of ID heavily involved these two concepts. I then thoroughly refuted your main arguments for ID (IC and CSI), but you never appeared to reform your notion of ID as a result.
Then you entered this thread and (without clarifying whether you modified your views) asserted that your definition of ID (having already been established in “Is intelligent design a plausible theory?”) is consistent with Church teachings. Then just recently (without clarifying your exact position as Arandur and I rightfully requested) you demanded that I refuse or accept that ID is recognizable in nature. Considering that you never explicitly distanced ID from the flawed concepts of IC and CSI, I responded “no” to your question. Then your duplicitous rhetoric culminated as you performed a bait and switch. By rejecting your flawed notion of ID, you conveniently concluded that I must also have discarded the Church teachings that you claim are strictly aligned with your definition.
In your recent posts, you failed to demonstrate that the Church recognizes IC and CSI, and so I stand by my original response that rejects your notion of ID that relies so heavily upon these ridiculously flawed concepts.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Fair enough, I’ll humbly acknowledge the inadequacy of my answer.
So by reason I accept that God designed the diversity of life through evolution–still no need to include IC and CSI.
Now it is your turn to own up to your duplicity.
R
reggieM
Guest
Your answer was false and in serious error.
Reason evaluates data and draws conclusions. You have now radically changed your position. You may well be lying at this point since you said one thing and now you’re giving a radically different answer. Why should I trust that? Pseudo-Catholics do that all the time, playing with language.
I have asked you once, on what basis you claim that God designed the diversity of life through evolution and you stated that it was “faith based”. Now you claim it is by reason.
What data have you evaluated to arrive at this conclusion of reason? Again, reason must evaluate data and develop arguments. What are you arguments (how could you have any since you just adopted this view today?)?
Again, the intelligent design of God is observed in the things He has made.
What have you observed that shows intelligent design?
As for my “duplicity”, you’re mistaken here. I never defined ID theory as being merely Irreducible Complexity or Complex Specified Information. Those are means of defining design which can be observed in nature. There are many other means beyond those two.
Your response was the deny, flatly, that design can be observed.
Now you seem to be claiming that intelligent design is observed. So again, what is your evidence? You probably now claim that God guided evolution to the goal of producing humanity and all the plant and animal life.
I will show you in my next post (when I get to it), that your view is false in terms of evolutionary biology.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Give me a break, I’m 17 and still developing my faith. Geesh
After reading the relevant portions of CCC, I realize that reason is a much stronger explanation for my conclusions.
Well unfortunately you’ve never really explicitly conveyed your notion of ID. So I have had to assume that IC and CSI are heavily involved, thus preventing me from offering an honest assessment of how I feel about design as I wanted to avoid agreeing with something that also entailed accepting these flawed concepts.
R
reggieM
Guest
If you call what you did “thoroughly refuting” (by pointing me to an atheistic website) then I think you’re very much mistaken.
You probably missed where I posted clearly to your tag-team partner that Dr. Peter Kreeft supports the logic and Catholicity of the idea that Intelligent Design is found in nature and the universe. There are several methods that one can use to provide evidence for this idea.
My position has nothing to do with it. You were confused by the term “intelligent design” and thought it meant what a narrow-minded group of atheists claim. Intelligent Design is essentially the teleological argument tha has been defended by the Catholic Church since its beginning (found in St. Paul’s epistle). You asked for some evidence that proves ID theory is correct and I pointed you to Dembski and Behe. They provide evidence supporting ID. There is much more evidence than that. It’s for that reason, I pointed you to read books on Intelligent Design theory. Instead, you’re only interested in reading Darwinist literature.
This is a nice try, but totally false and I made that clear. I asked you explicitly if you could recognize intelligent design in nature. You flatly denied it. This has nothing to do with Dembski or Behe or even my own ideas. I put the challenge to you – and your answer was clear.
Even now, I haven’t seen any evidence for your new-found belief that there is, after all, intelligent design to be observed in nature. Where is it?
I gave further proof that you were not talking about Dembski when I asked how you knew that God created the natural laws, and you said “it’s faith based”.
So, please take a minute and look at that. The answer that it is “faith based” is a clear statement about how you view nature and how you rejected Catholic teaching on this point.
For some reason, you think you’ve “refuted” Michael Behe, a noted microbiologist, when I don’t believe you’ve studied microbiology or even read Dr. Behe’s books at all.
Now you’re trying to claim that you didn’t understand the concept of intelligent design so your post was a “mistake”.
That’s what all pseudo-Catholic try to do – and they’re very successful. They spread errors to the faithful in a subtle way. Then, when caught, they claim it was a “mistake”.
This is very far from the mark. You’re very wrong to think that the Church is going to evaluate scientific theories which do not jeopardize the faith and pronounce on them. IC and CSI are evidences and are used with a scientific method. They are both perfectly compatible with Catholicism. If you think otherwise, then you’re badly mislead.
At this point, I don’t know if you’re trying to deceive or if you’re confused.
Ok, again – what is your evidence to show that God intelligently designed anything at all? You claim it is from reason. If so, I should be able to observe and evaluate the same data.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, I’ll say this. You came across as arrogant and prideful. Just recently claiming that you’ve refuted the work of Michael Behe, for example, when you don’t even know what he said. You’ve taken your information from atheistic sites and posted it here.
I can understand that to an extent. But at the same time, I do not believe you even understand the concepts that you think are “flawed”. For some reason, you’re frightened by the term “ID” and you went so far as to destroy your Catholic Faith in order to not have anything to do with it.
Actually, I have a bit more understanding now and I appreciate your explanation. For some reason, you think that ID is tainted or the target of ridicule (it is) so you just wanted to be distanced from it.
I think that’s understandable to a large extent.
Also, if my words were too harsh or forceful in the prior several posts, I apologize.
M
Michaelo
Guest
All you can criticize is the site’s atheist perspective because their refutations of IC and CSI are scientifically valid.
But you never distanced ID from IC and CSI, so I answered “no” to avoid accepting these flawed concepts.
TalkOrigins offers a more technical, scientific refutation of their ideas, and I revealed their logically fallacious nature.
Again, reading CCC enlightened me with regards to the significance of reason.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Apology accepted
Also, my intention was not to undermine the Church’s teachings as I simply could not accept a concept that relies on IC and CSI for evidence.
R
reggieM
Guest
Thank you.Apology accepted
That’s an important clarification. I’ve seen too many Catholics here on CAF who do want to destroy the Church’s teaching – for their own purposes (gay marriage, abortion, etc). I appreciate knowing that you’re not heading in that direction.
ID does not rely on IC and CSI alone. It’s essential for you to come to grips with your own views on this because you’re positing that ID is observable in nature via human reason. This will require that you have to come up with some explanation for that idea. You’ll need some way to give evidence – otherwise, you can’t claim “reason” but rather some fantasy that you believe.
I find IC very convincing. I already posted at least a couple of peer-reviewed papers supporting it. CSI is still developing, but the science is based on information theory and it uses the mathematics of probability studies.
But as I said, there are many other evidences of Intelligent Design in nature. You don’t have to accept CSI or IC to recognize design or purpose in nature.
A
Arandur
Guest
I have read your posts. I recall trying to pin down just what you thought about the “language of DNA.” The way you use that term doesn’t clear up the other important questions I was getting at:
I see that you mean that God intended, purposed, and authored DNA as the code by which organisms reproduce and change. I would qualify: just like He created all other natural laws and processes. We’re in perfect agreement here.
What this does NOT say is: did God create the rock, water, and air of the earth, plus light/energy, and then bring ex nihilo into existence the first DNA molecules and place them into brand new, ex nihilo forms?
What were these original carriers of DNA?
A certain original set of species?
A single or few types of singled-celled organisms?
How much did they change and develop from there into other species (since you agree with speciation and adaptation by evolutionary forces)?
A
Arandur
Guest
Reggie, I think your problems with Michaelo come again because you do not read carefully or take things in context.
You latched onto Michaelo’s comment that:
I believe Michaelo used a poor choice of words, not completely qualifying his statement to show that he was referring to his rejection of your notion of Intelligent Design (the movement). Perhaps he didn’t qualify much because you like concise replies.
I have bolded what you seem to have missed. Now take this in context with Michaelo’s previous words, and his affirmations of mine. Michaelo sees God as responsible for all the physical laws and processes of nature. This statement inherently and necessarily asserts that God DESIGNED all the physical laws and processes of nature.
I don’t see, then, how you get that he doesn’t see any design in nature–for he surely didn’t use all the absolutes that you did when you claimed he had “flatly” denied “all” design in nature. You went to more of an extreme here in your assumption than I did when I tried to draw you out on rejecting “totally” all science and all evolutionary forces on the basis of one missing variable. That’s hypocrisy.
I also don’t see how you can call someone a materialist and a fideist at the same time. One doesn’t believe in God, the other does. So at worst, Michaelo is a fideist for not seeing how God could be recognized without faith.
However, I don’t think Michaelo even said that. Michaelo, IIRC, kept his statements to saying that God and supernatural things cannot be studied by empirical natural science. There are other forms of reason than science, Reggie! So saying that science can’t say much about these things is NOT saying that you cannot know them by reason! Again, that distinction has been discussed previously. Philosophy is a form of reason and explores knowledge in areas where science cannot.
You latched onto Michaelo’s comment that:
You took that first sentence and disregarded the second, in what I believe has been shown by your rather rabid response to be a pre-judgment and desire to attack.
I believe Michaelo used a poor choice of words, not completely qualifying his statement to show that he was referring to his rejection of your notion of Intelligent Design (the movement). Perhaps he didn’t qualify much because you like concise replies.
I have bolded what you seem to have missed. Now take this in context with Michaelo’s previous words, and his affirmations of mine. Michaelo sees God as responsible for all the physical laws and processes of nature. This statement inherently and necessarily asserts that God DESIGNED all the physical laws and processes of nature.
I don’t see, then, how you get that he doesn’t see any design in nature–for he surely didn’t use all the absolutes that you did when you claimed he had “flatly” denied “all” design in nature. You went to more of an extreme here in your assumption than I did when I tried to draw you out on rejecting “totally” all science and all evolutionary forces on the basis of one missing variable. That’s hypocrisy.
I also don’t see how you can call someone a materialist and a fideist at the same time. One doesn’t believe in God, the other does. So at worst, Michaelo is a fideist for not seeing how God could be recognized without faith.
However, I don’t think Michaelo even said that. Michaelo, IIRC, kept his statements to saying that God and supernatural things cannot be studied by empirical natural science. There are other forms of reason than science, Reggie! So saying that science can’t say much about these things is NOT saying that you cannot know them by reason! Again, that distinction has been discussed previously. Philosophy is a form of reason and explores knowledge in areas where science cannot.
A
Arandur
Guest
Okay, get off the “tag-team” thing. Apparently you’re so blinded by your desire to attack and ignore us that you do not see your own “tag team.” What do you call you and Ed West together? Or the fact that it’s pretty much me and Michaelo vs. you, Ed West, RACJ, Buffalo, and M0nkey? Which is the bigger “tag-team?”
And I would quit bringing up Peter Kreeft if I were you. I think you’ve missed some things from him, as well. He has spoken about how he thinks the evolution debate is a non-issue because the science of it is compatible with the faith–which is what the Church teaches, as well. It is the various PHILOSOPHIES that some advocate derived from the science of evolution that is the problem Kreeft recognizes.
I also have spent quite a lot of time explaining that “mainstream evolutionary theory,” when referring to the science and not the philosophies, is compatible with the faith as I have described–so I am consistent with the evolutionary work in the scientific discipline. What I have said about science’s limitations and the differences with philosophies is the mainstream view. If you ever bother to read my links or the excerpts from them, you might see that, or come up some attempt to refute it.
No, ID is not what you seem to think it is. Read it from the words of the very people who propose and advocate it:
intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
I still would like to know what you and the rest think about life, its degree of development and change, the age of the earth, etc. as mentioned earlier. It seems like you keep wanting to evade any attempt to find out what you really believe about the subject. And you call “evolutionists” slippery?
A
Arandur
Guest
I wanted to add some links and excerpts to what Peter Kreeft says on the subject of evolution, because I respect him and he conveys concepts very well, better than I can. Everything I have said and believe is totally consistent with what he says in these sources that I have read; in fact, he says many things almost exactly the same ways I have.
Hopefully he will get through to you better than I have, and will at least show you that my beliefs on the subject are far from merely my own take, but are something quite a bit more common and advocated by greater intellects than mine.
First we have Kreeft’s Argument from Design: peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
Key excerpts, p.104 onward:
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Keith Tacelli: books.google.com/books?id=1DH1ZPyyTkIC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=kreeft+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=Vtv9oxUJQD&sig=iNmA-CjDGYe_h_zXN-FjUmJTFv8&hl=en&ei=fgg8Sqn5CYTGMvHK4aQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
(Also accessible through this Google search: google.com/search?hl=en&q=kreeft+natural+selection&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
excerpts:
Catholic Christianity, by Peter Kreeft: books.google.com/books?id=VZ-xgfJkNNgC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=kreeft+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=rGOu6P6cx2&sig=aKxQRxUq57f5AgumirtixErMEWA&hl=en&ei=rg08SqjTO47IMobbzLMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Hopefully he will get through to you better than I have, and will at least show you that my beliefs on the subject are far from merely my own take, but are something quite a bit more common and advocated by greater intellects than mine.
First we have Kreeft’s Argument from Design: peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm
Key excerpts, p.104 onward:
And
He does speak negatively of “natural selection” AS “survival of the fittest,” but he better explains that in the next source I’ll provide.
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Keith Tacelli: books.google.com/books?id=1DH1ZPyyTkIC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=kreeft+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=Vtv9oxUJQD&sig=iNmA-CjDGYe_h_zXN-FjUmJTFv8&hl=en&ei=fgg8Sqn5CYTGMvHK4aQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
(Also accessible through this Google search: google.com/search?hl=en&q=kreeft+natural+selection&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)
excerpts:
Read it for yourself. It’s good. I excerpted for brevity and left out nothing that contradicts the meaning of what I did include. I bolded for you those phrases that are almost exactly the same as what I’ve been writing all along. You’ll notice that’s just about everything
Catholic Christianity, by Peter Kreeft: books.google.com/books?id=VZ-xgfJkNNgC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=kreeft+natural+selection&source=bl&ots=rGOu6P6cx2&sig=aKxQRxUq57f5AgumirtixErMEWA&hl=en&ei=rg08SqjTO47IMobbzLMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
Sound familiar?
M
Michaelo
Guest
reggieM
Arandur accurately described my thoughts in his recent posts. As he indicated, I should have clarified exactly what I was rejecting, but I think you understand now. Also, Arandur explained “reason” quite nicely:
Isn’t “theistic evolution” a better description of our position?
Arandur accurately described my thoughts in his recent posts. As he indicated, I should have clarified exactly what I was rejecting, but I think you understand now. Also, Arandur explained “reason” quite nicely:
Arandur
Isn’t “theistic evolution” a better description of our position?
B
buffalo
Guest
All of these questions deserve exploration. My position and the Church’s is that faith and reason cannot be opposed.
In the above scenario, how could you see it playing out?
- Status