I
itinerant1
Guest
“Front loaded” is an ambiguous metaphor used by ID speculators… Once the metaphor is unpacked, there are a host of problems that come to light. I will let you do the honors of unpacking what the metaphor conceals.
- Status
I
itinerant1
Guest
My claim is the Church does not support YEC. YECs’ pretense to having Church dogma to support their ideology is not intellectually honest. That bogus claim has been exposed for what it is several times in these threads.
Theologians like Cardinal Schonborn confidently state that a 6,000 year old Earth is “nonsense” and that “creationism has no place in the Catholic Church.” Perhaps you ought to take your complaint to Schonborn or any other other reputable theologian and tell them how things ought to be according to Buffalo.
It has not gone unnoticed that you failed to address any of my arguments against ID theory. Instead you sidetracked into phony claims about dogma and front-loaded creation. You are not about to let facts get in the way of your opinion.
And it has not gone unnoticed that Edwest2 was unable to carry a logical argument and so he resorted once more to irrelevant sermonizing and then floated up to creationist heaven on his cloud of pious piffle.
And no I didn’t have a bad day. I only consider it a bad day when I get all geared-up to go YEC, I mean varmint hunting but I don’t spot one.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Actually, my browser incorporates a state-of-the-art advanced warning program called “Nonsense Detector”.My computer is loaded with anti-malware software, and I never had a problem. Perhaps your browser has mutated in a bad way
I
itinerant1
Guest
Until I find a copy of the book, you are welcome to present any of the books salient points.
I
itinerant1
Guest
As I previously stated, ID theories errors by conflating (1) design and finality, and (2) proximate causes and ultimate causes. These philosophical errors make ID theory fundamentally incompatible with Thomistic philosophy. (See Fr. Edward Oakes)
In addition, Thomist philosopher Michael W. Tkacz explains these errors in the context of what he calls the “Cosmogonical Fallacy” committed by ID theorists.
Read Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design at This Rock.
In addition, Thomist philosopher Michael W. Tkacz explains these errors in the context of what he calls the “Cosmogonical Fallacy” committed by ID theorists.
Read Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design at This Rock.
I
itinerant1
Guest
“If nature is intelligible in terms of causes discoverable in it, we cannot think that changes in nature require special divine agency.” – W. E. Carroll
For further discussion of the Thomistic understanding (and the incompatibility of ID theory), see **Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas **by William E. Carroll at Catholic Education Resource Center.
For further discussion of the Thomistic understanding (and the incompatibility of ID theory), see **Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas **by William E. Carroll at Catholic Education Resource Center.
I
itinerant1
Guest
The End of Intelligent Design?
by Stephen Barr
It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.
Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.
The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.
(Continue reading this article at First Things)
by Stephen Barr
It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle.
Very few religious skeptics have been made more open to religious belief because of ID arguments. These arguments not only have failed to persuade, they have done positive harm by convincing many people that the concept of an intelligent designer is bound up with a rejection of mainstream science.
The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.
(Continue reading this article at First Things)
I
itinerant1
Guest
How Intelligent is Intelligent Design?
by Kenneth R. Miller
(taken from First Things)
Stephen C. Meyer’s article “DNA and Other Designs” presents, no doubt unintentionally, a compelling case for the intellectual desperation of the “Intelligent Design” movement.
Professor Meyer seems to think that if he can show that evolutionary biologists have not yet solved the many problems associated with the origin of life, then he can claim that intelligent design is a fair alternative. Curiously, however, he then ignores nearly two decades of research on this very subject, failing to tell his readers of experiments showing that very simple RNA sequences can serve as biological catalysts and even self–replicate. He follows with elaborate probability calculations showing that sequence–specific large protein molecules would be unlikely to self–assemble on the primitive earth, overlooking the fact that no scientist has ever proposed that today’s highly evolved proteins were assembled in such fashion.
A reasonable person might well argue, despite strong evidence to the contrary, that the first living forms on planet Earth might have been the product of some act of intelligent design. Prof. Meyer, however, insists on going much further, and here his thesis stumbles from unlikely speculation into demonstrable error. Waving Michael Behe’s banner of “irreducible complexity,” he flatly states that Darwinian processes cannot produce complex biochemical systems. This claim is simply wrong, as even a cursory search of the biochemical literature will establish.
Lastly, Prof. Meyer allies himself with the curious informational arguments of William A. Dembski, who asserts that the informational complexity of DNA can be explained only by the direct, intelligent design of DNA sequences. Dembski’s theories may be attractive, but only to those who are unfamiliar with the wealth of direct, experimental evidence on the mechanisms of molecular evolution. When one can watch new genes, with novel biochemical capabilities, evolve under controlled laboratory conditions, the claim that DNA sequence complexity requires intelligent design vanishes into thin air.
Why does Prof. Meyer find it necessary, despite overwhelming evidence for evolution, to take arms against Darwin? Quite clearly, as he puts it, what is at stake is nothing less than “free will, meaning, purpose, and God.” Stirring words, to be sure, but absolute logical nonsense. Free will has never been threatened by evolution, and issues of meaning, purpose, and Divinity clearly lie beyond the reach of science, even the Darwinian science he fears so much. If Stephen Meyer wishes to argue for the importance of these values he will have many allies, including John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Ian Barbour, and me. However, when he and his small group of friends claim scientific status for their attacks on evolution, the readers of First Things would be well advised to inquire exactly how many papers have appeared in the scientific literature to document “intelligent design.” The answer will surprise no one who has followed the development of Prof. Meyer’s ideas. None.
Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
by Kenneth R. Miller
(taken from First Things)
Stephen C. Meyer’s article “DNA and Other Designs” presents, no doubt unintentionally, a compelling case for the intellectual desperation of the “Intelligent Design” movement.
Professor Meyer seems to think that if he can show that evolutionary biologists have not yet solved the many problems associated with the origin of life, then he can claim that intelligent design is a fair alternative. Curiously, however, he then ignores nearly two decades of research on this very subject, failing to tell his readers of experiments showing that very simple RNA sequences can serve as biological catalysts and even self–replicate. He follows with elaborate probability calculations showing that sequence–specific large protein molecules would be unlikely to self–assemble on the primitive earth, overlooking the fact that no scientist has ever proposed that today’s highly evolved proteins were assembled in such fashion.
A reasonable person might well argue, despite strong evidence to the contrary, that the first living forms on planet Earth might have been the product of some act of intelligent design. Prof. Meyer, however, insists on going much further, and here his thesis stumbles from unlikely speculation into demonstrable error. Waving Michael Behe’s banner of “irreducible complexity,” he flatly states that Darwinian processes cannot produce complex biochemical systems. This claim is simply wrong, as even a cursory search of the biochemical literature will establish.
Lastly, Prof. Meyer allies himself with the curious informational arguments of William A. Dembski, who asserts that the informational complexity of DNA can be explained only by the direct, intelligent design of DNA sequences. Dembski’s theories may be attractive, but only to those who are unfamiliar with the wealth of direct, experimental evidence on the mechanisms of molecular evolution. When one can watch new genes, with novel biochemical capabilities, evolve under controlled laboratory conditions, the claim that DNA sequence complexity requires intelligent design vanishes into thin air.
Why does Prof. Meyer find it necessary, despite overwhelming evidence for evolution, to take arms against Darwin? Quite clearly, as he puts it, what is at stake is nothing less than “free will, meaning, purpose, and God.” Stirring words, to be sure, but absolute logical nonsense. Free will has never been threatened by evolution, and issues of meaning, purpose, and Divinity clearly lie beyond the reach of science, even the Darwinian science he fears so much. If Stephen Meyer wishes to argue for the importance of these values he will have many allies, including John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Ian Barbour, and me. However, when he and his small group of friends claim scientific status for their attacks on evolution, the readers of First Things would be well advised to inquire exactly how many papers have appeared in the scientific literature to document “intelligent design.” The answer will surprise no one who has followed the development of Prof. Meyer’s ideas. None.
Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
G
grannymh
Guest
In the interest of fairness, one should go to the following issues of This Rock and read the Letters to the Editor.
G
grannymh
Guest
Dang!
I was looking forward to a straight up answer. Now I’m going to be cranky the rest of the day.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for knowledge is worth the difficulties.
B
buffalo
Guest
You never replied to what the good Cardinal said about design in biology.
Front loading -
St Thomas and St Augustine understand that the cosmos is top down, not bottom up.
Sounds like front loading to me.
Is the Language of DNA an example of front loading?
E
edwest2
Guest
And here is a post that exemplifies what’s really going on: Crush the so-called YEC at all costs. And what is to follow? A monitor at the Church door asking each person if they believe the correct age of the earth? And if the answer is wrong, denying them admission? An internet forum is for discussion, not for political action taking in support of a cause.My claim is the Church does not support YEC. YECs’ pretense to having Church dogma to support their ideology is not intellectually honest. That bogus claim has been exposed for what it is several times in these threads.
Theologians like Cardinal Schonborn confidently state that a 6,000 year old Earth is “nonsense” and that “creationism has no place in the Catholic Church.” Perhaps you ought to take your complaint to Schonborn or any other other reputable theologian and tell them how things ought to be according to Buffalo.
It has not gone unnoticed that you failed to address any of my arguments against ID theory. Instead you sidetracked into phony claims about dogma and front-loaded creation. You are not about to let facts get in the way of your opinion.
And it has not gone unnoticed that Edwest2 was unable to carry a logical argument and so he resorted once more to irrelevant sermonizing and then floated up to creationist heaven on his cloud of pious piffle.
And no I didn’t have a bad day. I only consider it a bad day when I get all geared-up to go YEC, I mean varmint hunting but I don’t spot one.
After reading Chance or Purpose, I see what the Cardinal is driving at, but here, only one goal is being pursued: to convince YECs and others that they are simply wrong. This isn’t about the intellect but about promtiong an ideolgy, which is something Cardinal Schoenborn warns about in his book.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
L
larkin31
Guest
What’s this mean? I have never heard this term except for a weapon.
E
edwest2
Guest
I will have to send Mr. Miller an email. The claims in the post are simply false. No one has created genetic material from scratch in the lab. This is personally disturbing since I had given Mr. Miller some benefit of the doubt on the technical side, but that is gone as well.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
B
buffalo
Guest
What part of ID the science conflicts? Please explain yourself.
Have I committed the Cosmogonical Fallacy? I don’t think so.
IDvolution - God breathed the language of DNA into the “kinds” in the beginning, from this we can explain the diversity of life.
B
buffalo
Guest
Biomimicry - this is a contribution to science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Front loaded means complex specified information is present at the beginning.
B
buffalo
Guest
I don’t.
E
edwest2
Guest
The First Things article is flawed since it does not address what science does not know and instead, turns science into a ‘victim’ or an ‘incompetent.’ In the book, Signature in the Cell, it is made very clear that scientists cannot create genetic material in the lab from scratch. They may want to believe they can but so far, cannot demonstrate what they want to believe. It’s one thing to want to do something, but if you can’t do it then you can’t do it. And I’m not suggesting scientists should stop trying, I’m saying that there is no experiment, no evidence, anywhere that shows they can create genetic material from scratch.
And the other problem, a very fundamental problem, with the First Things article is a very distorted view of why people accept or enter into a relationship with God. We are asked to picture people with a long list of belief system choices in front of them. As they scan the list looking for a belief system that appeals to them, they stop and realize that one belief system is accepting, or at least discussing, Intelligent Design, and that belief system gets crossed out because of it. God is rejected because a handful of people appear to believe in something, or at least are willing to discuss something, that obviously trashes science as they know it. This is not how God comes into your life.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
And the other problem, a very fundamental problem, with the First Things article is a very distorted view of why people accept or enter into a relationship with God. We are asked to picture people with a long list of belief system choices in front of them. As they scan the list looking for a belief system that appeals to them, they stop and realize that one belief system is accepting, or at least discussing, Intelligent Design, and that belief system gets crossed out because of it. God is rejected because a handful of people appear to believe in something, or at least are willing to discuss something, that obviously trashes science as they know it. This is not how God comes into your life.
God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ed, I don’t follow your logic. If there were a forum on belief in the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, I’m sure you would find vigorous debate about that. But your claim that what would logically follow is “a monitor at the Church door asking each person if they believe in the non-existence of the Easter Bunny” and denying admission to those who do so blieeve, is absurd.
No one is going to be denied communion because she or he believes in the East Bunny or Santa Claus or a 6,000 year old earth. But people who claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old will probably not get a hearing from the scientific community, any more than people who propose scholarly papers on the existence of the Easter Bunny. Neither claim is scientifically defensible, however harmless it may be theologically!
StAnastasia
- Status