The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[ricmat]

Holy Coincidence Batman! As Robin would say.

I subscribe via RSS feed to some blogs, and this one just popped up this morning:

Thomism and Intelligent Design

I don’t have a horse in this particular race, so I’m just posting this thinking that those of you who do might enjoy reading the article.

 

[StAnastasia]

IDvolution - God breathed the language of DNA into the “kinds” in the beginning, from this we can explain the diversity of life.

“IDvolution” is a nonsense word made up by buffalo. It has no meaning outside that private context.

 

[buffalo]

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.

Two points

1. I do not claim a 6000 year old earth.

2, Creationism as advanced by a literalistic reading of scripture has no place in the Catholic Church. However, I am quite sure the good Cardinal is not claiming that the constant teaching and understanding of the church is not Catholic.

Simplify your arguments against ID and we an see they have not been addressed. But you need to answer my specific questions too.

Is God’s creation front loaded or not? You are welcome to use any quotes from St Thomas or St Augustine.

 

[buffalo]

“IDvolution” is a nonsense word made up by buffalo. It has no meaning outside that private context.

Did you diss the guy who made up the word dinosaur or evolution? Words and ideas have a start somewhere.

But I don’t worry, you are giving the idea great publicity. Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

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

The statement that it is harmless theologically has no supporting evidence here or in other places on the internet, including the First Things article. Did you not post that some refuse to join the Church because of its stance on certain scientific matters?

No. The clear message I’m reading here states: Stop the YEC nonsense. I don’t like it, the Church doesn’t like it, and people shopping for a belief system will select a different product because it is Intellectually Dishonest to consider Intelliegent Design as real even for a microsecond.

What I’m seeing here is a classic marketing campaign aimed at rank and file Catholics to abandon certain ideas so they can replace those ideas with other ideas, including some that violate clear Church teaching.

That is my only problem with some posts here: Science must get primacy over the Deposit of Faith. Even Cardinal Schoenborn warns against such ideology in Chance or Purpose.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[buffalo]

Holy Coincidence Batman! As Robin would say.

I subscribe via RSS feed to some blogs, and this one just popped up this morning:

Thomism and Intelligent Design

I don’t have a horse in this particular race, so I’m just posting this thinking that those of you who do might enjoy reading the article.

Do you think they are reading our thread? Great timing indeed.

Itinerant - read this. Oh - I forgot - you won’t read ID stuff. My my.

Here is one quote:

“Ideas/Forms are the designs in the divine intellect” (Summa Theologica, I, 15, 3). “In no causal ordering an intelligent cause is tool of an unintelligent cause. Therefore all the causes in the cosmos are, respect the first motor that is God, tools of the first agent. Since in the cosmos there are many intelligent causes, the first motor cannot cause unintelligently.” (Summa contra Gentiles, I, 44).

Sounds like front loading.

and…

ID is perfectly consistent with theism. ID doesn’t claim that “an intelligent agent is only required in the cases where natural laws and chance cannot account for a phenomenon.” ID agrees without difficulty that also laws are designed. What does the ID fine tuning argument say but that laws are tuned, then designed? To say that laws and chance cannot generate organization is not the same thing that to say that laws and chance are not designed. If I say that an hammer cannot generate literature I am not saying that the hammer is not designed, which would be a non sequitur.

important…

The Dembski’s explanatory filter serves to detect what chance and laws cannot generate, i.e. complex specified information (CSI). This doesn’t mean that for ID “design is not immanent in nature”. Simply ID distinguishes from designed laws (and their products and processes) and designs containing CSI. In terms of software engineering we could say that ID thinks there are at least two integrated “software layers” immanent in nature: at the bottom there are the physical laws with all their phenomena; upon it there is the layer of designs, which need additional intelligence respect the former. While ID theorists make this distinction it seems neo-Thomists critical of ID are unable to grasp it. (itinerant1) Doing so they reason as evolutionists, who deny the higher “software layer” and trust only in matter and its laws.
Neither ID says that “design is imposed on nature by someone or something outside it”. ID considers both possibilities: designs internal and external to their designers. ID has nothing to object about the cosmos as internal to its Designer, as a book is in principle inside its writer.

 

[StAnastasia]

Did you diss the guy who made up the word dinosaur or evolution? Words and ideas have a start somewhere.

“IDvolution” has no content, so I doubt it will gain traction. However, will you be suggesting it to the Discovery Institute? Don’t keep it bottled up on CAF – let your light shine!

 

[buffalo]

“IDvolution” has no content, so I doubt it will gain traction. However, will you be suggesting it to the Discovery Institute? Don’t keep it bottled up on CAF – let your light shine!

IDvolution will be the feature of my publication. Hopefully soon.

You and others here have been instrumental in refining the idea and making sure it holds up to scrutiny. Thanks again.

I may even decide to feature some of the CAF characters with permission of course. Do I have yours?

 

[buffalo]

Ricmat - I really really like that link.

 

[StAnastasia]

The statement that it is harmless theologically has no supporting evidence here or in other places on the internet, including the First Things article. Did you not post that some refuse to join the Church because of its stance on certain scientific matters?God bless,Ed

Ed, I don’t follow. How are believing in egg distribution by the Easter Bunny or in a 6,000 year-old earth theologically harmful? They may not be theologically useful, but how are they harmful?

 

[grannymh]

“IDvolution” has no content, so I doubt it will gain traction. However, will you be suggesting it to the Discovery Institute? Don’t keep it bottled up on CAF – let your light shine!

This is a great idea. Rather than the “Discovery Institute” per se, I would suggest that energetic biologists, who are born curious, discover where that light could possibly lead.

 

[buffalo]

This is a great idea. Rather than the “Discovery Institute” per se, I would suggest that energetic biologists, who are born curious, discover where that light could possibly lead.

StA could really hep me by sending IDvolution to the 200,000 working biologists and her clergy friends.

StA - will you help?

 

[StAnastasia]

This is a great idea. Rather than the “Discovery Institute” per se, I would suggest that energetic biologists, who are born curious, discover where that light could possibly lead.

Granny, will you be sending the idea to the biologists (crediting buffalo, of course)? Or will you propose a paper on it at the ASA or the AAAS next year? The ASA might well be receptive, as they are Christians (see asa3.org/)

Since “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity” have gone nowhere, perhaps the ID movement is in need of a fresh new catch phrase. “Front-loaded IDvolution” might just take off like a firestorm among professional biologists. If it too fails, you will at least have given it a good try.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

StA could really hep me by sending IDvolution to the 200,000 working biologists and her clergy friends.

StA - will you help?

I don’t have the email addresses for all 200,000. But I could propose the idea to Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala and see what they say (you’d need to flesh it out for me). Why don’t you help by proposing it to Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer?

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I don’t follow. How are believing in egg distribution by the Easter Bunny or in a 6,000 year-old earth theologically harmful? They may not be theologically useful, but how are they harmful?

In other posts here, it is argued that while making a belief system product selection, certain belief systems will be rejected if they include belief in YEC or the “incorrect” age of the earth. Just read a few posts by itinerant1. Go ahead.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

In other posts here, it is argued that while making a belief system product selection, certain belief systems will be rejected if they include belief in YEC or the “incorrect” age of the earth. Just read a few posts by itinerant1. Go ahead.God bless,Ed

I haven’t seen Itinerant1 arguing that.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t have the email addresses for all 200,000. But I could propose the idea to Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala and see what they say (you’d need to flesh it out for me). Why don’t you help by proposing it to Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer?

Summary:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

We have two areas to play here. Metaphysical and biological. I have the luxury of crossing the boundaries to convey a complete understanding. I have no doubt that Miller and Ayala with such vested interests in evolution will resist, but all I can do is ask that they consider this possibility.

Send it for me and they can dialogue PM here if they wish.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, will you be sending the idea to the biologists (crediting buffalo, of course)?

Only at the direction of buffalo. Actually, I started contacting published researchers, biologists and others, sometime ago. Note to self: time to return to this endeavor.

Or will you propose a paper on it at the ASA or the AAAS next year?

No.

The ASA might well be receptive, as they are Christians (see asa3.org/)

I have a different audience in mind; but, thank you for the suggestion.

Since “complex specified information” and “irreducible complexity” have gone nowhere, perhaps the ID movement is in need of a fresh new catch phrase.

No comment, since I am not a member of the ID movement or whatever it is you are referring to.

“Front-loaded IDvolution” might just take off like a firestorm among professional biologists. If it too fails, you will at least have given it a good try.

In my humble opinion, “Front-loaded IDvolution” is a wake-up call to both scientists and philosophers. This is far different than a successful firestorm among a limited group of professionals. I have a larger and way more diverse audience than the one you mentioned.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t have the email addresses for all 200,000. But I could propose the idea to Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala and see what they say (you’d need to flesh it out for me). Why don’t you help by proposing it to Bill Dembski and Steve Meyer?

As I am grasping the limitations of non-rational living organisms, my hunch is that Francisco Ayala would be very interested in this concept. I am not as familiar with Ken Miller.

 

[ricmat]

Summary:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act. This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Are you envisioning that God created a single type of DNA at the beginning, which contained all forms of life within the design, or that there were different “kinds” of DNA right from the beginning?

I’m not trying to pin you down if you are just getting started on your concept. But I am curious.