What should I think about Intelligent Design?

[Al_Moritz]

I believe that Man came through evolution but then God took two homo sapiens and ensouled them and from those two all of mankind came to exist with souls.

Yes, and that is why the metaphysics of man, with theological monogenism, is compatible with genetic polygenism.

 

[Al_Moritz]

God allows natural things to take place but his hand is behind it all.

This happens in our own life very evidently. For example lets say you were running the Boston marathon and you would have been right at the finish line at the time of the explosion, but you tripped 4 miles into the race and was about 500 yards from the 2nd explosion. You claim that God’s hand was behind it all keeping me safe, even though you can give a natural explanation for why you were behind.

Another example you are a women discerning religious life but you can’t decide what order to enter. Then you are watching TV one day and see these sisters on a game show dominating at the bible. You look into the order and you fall in love with it and decide to enter it. Natural process of you seeing these sisters on TV but you again claim that God’s hand is behind it all.

Yes, this makes sense.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I personally think it is still in it’s theory stage, myself.

Yes, evolution is a scientific theory, but that is not what you think. A theory in science is a generalization, based on many observations and experiments, by which scientific facts are explained – like the atomic theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, to name a few examples. Or, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, in science a theory is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” As will be clear from this, a scientific theory is neither a “hunch” nor a speculation or hypothesis, like the term “theory” in everyday use may mean. The dismissive opinion “evolution is just a theory” therefore is based on misunderstanding the concept of scientific theory, apart from not realizing that the historical occurrence of evolution is a fact (while there are still some disagreements in the scientific community with regard to natural mechanism, e.g. the relative predominance of natural selection vs. genetic drift).

There will always be theories in science by way of their very definition, see above. For example, there will always be the atomic theory, even though nobody in their right mind would ever doubt that atoms exist.

 

[edwest2]

no science even laws will ever be proven 100% accurate. It is nearly impossible to do so. Not even laws can be considered 100% accurate. Science does experiments and makes conclusions based of hypothesis and observations. When you have the same conclusion thousands of times in a row without any difference you can have a law. But even a law is open to the possibility of being changed, even though its probably as likely as being struck by lighting.

Evolution yes its a theory but so is almost every single thing in science there are only a few laws but hundreds of theories. Does anyone doubt a theory like gravity? Does anyone doubt this because it is a theory, or is it widely accepted that it is real we just can’t make it a law.

I believe evolution to be the same way. It has been proven pretty convincingly by science that this is the way things work. Yes its a theory but a theory is applied to almost every single thing in science, except things that have been verified thousands if not millions of times.

It is not useful for any science being done right now. That is, if it’s real.

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholictiger]

It is not useful for any science being done right now. That is, if it’s real.

Peace,
Ed

what do you mean?

 

[edwest2]

what do you mean?

There is no formula book based on it that involves new discoveries, including but not limited to, diabetes, the functionality of certain types of cells, and non-coding - “junk DNA.” There is no cookbook. Take drug discovery. Billions of dollars and many, many drugs do not pass the trials stage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[catholictiger]

There is no formula book based on it that involves new discoveries, including but not limited to, diabetes, the functionality of certain types of cells, and non-coding - “junk DNA.” There is no cookbook. Take drug discovery. Billions of dollars and many, many drugs do not pass the trials stage.

Peace,
Ed

and what is your point?

 

[jonathan_hili]

that is fine I like to use the true defintion of the word.

Fundamentalist= someone who believes in their truth no matter what anyone says, or what ever happens in their life.

Umm that’s the point. The true definition of a “fundamentalist” isn’t “someone who believes in their truth no matter what anyone says” but someone who holds to those teachings from The Fundamentals.

 

[jonathan_hili]

There is no guide or list to define what is progressive or conservative. I prefer right or wrong. Who exactly were these conservatives who opposed Aquinas and Galileo (who is a secular saint today)? Or do you mean Copernicus?

That’s fair enough - right and wrong are good descriptive attributions, although they don’t describe the qualitative nuance of a position. Conservatives who opposed Aquinas were those theologians who were afraid or - in principle - disapproved of the use of non-Augustinian (and by extension, Platonic) Greek thought in Christian understanding; while those who opposed Galileo were mostly conservative mathematicians and theologians who believed that it was wrong a priori to disagree with Ptolemy and other ancient authorities. (Note that it wasn’t the Church or even the Pope who held this position.)

You know what is obvious here? A campaign to make certain that all conform science to the Bible, which makes me believe that without a doubt, the goal is not about science - at all. The Church is unsure about the age of the earth and I’ll go with that. This has nothing to do with God - at all. But the monitors will bring this up endlessly to force science onto the work of God. Again, the Church has the final say.

Yes, but the Church does not have the “final say” on the age of the Earth. She has the final say on theological matters, and those that may pertain to the age of the Earth, but not the age of the earth per se. This is a scientific question.