Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Science of Design
TheRealityCheck.Org ^ | 4/10/05 | Mark Hartwig

Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 361-375 next last
To: Elsie

I stated it later in the discussion, with quotes from the Bible.


281 posted on 04/11/2005 2:50:05 PM PDT by blakep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
You are reading between the lines some more to make it say what you want it to say.

No it is stated that way for a reason.

This is Genesis.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

282 posted on 04/11/2005 2:50:18 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
 

If a god remains both omnipotent and omniscient (and also actively engaged) then free will is an illusion. In the absence of free will, god is irrelevant to us from a practical standpoint because there is nothing for us to decide. Nothing happens that is not precisely what the god wants to have happen.

If anything happens that is not precisely what the god wants to have happen, then he is a limited god - even If self-limited. Events are taking place that are contrary to his will. And again, creating the option to engage in evil is creating evil.

Free will is not infinite. I do not have the free will to flap my arms and fly away to the moon of my own volition. Teleportation, telepathy, invisibility, immortality, perpetual youth - I can freely will none of those, nor a myriad of more mundane actions.

Once the will is finite, then it has parameters. If a god created free will, god defined the parameters. If he defined the parameters to include the enactment of anything he deems evil, then he is either an evil god or a dualist god. An evil god, to whatever degree, is rationally irrelevant, because he lies.

He could also be an irrational or a capricious god - but those are practically irrelevant as well.

 
 
You're not REALLY sure of yourself; are you?

 
 

If anything happens that is not precisely what the god wants to have happen, then he is a limited god - even If self-limited.
 
What if this god wants, is for you say he cannot possibly exist, and thereby not seek him?

283 posted on 04/11/2005 2:52:37 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
But I am not God, and you cannot prove that God exists by proving that I am not God.

We agree entirely. I wasn't trying to prove God, since I believe(know) that is not possible.

284 posted on 04/11/2005 2:55:06 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
I realize, from your previous posts, that just discussing this requires a time investment.

Thanks for understanding! I have a major deadline on April 22 and am actually quite worried that I won't have enough waking hours between now and then to get the work done (that's definitely my fault). I really shouldn't be posting today at all; I told myself last night I wouldn't (so much for that).

I could ramble on about these topics all day because I find them of intense interest, so that's why I need to get them out of my head and go! See ya! :)

285 posted on 04/11/2005 2:55:22 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
Almost every serious biologist in the world, the Catholic Church, and the best minds of our time accept Evolution as the most likely way that life on Earth developed from simpler to more complex forms.

Which I agree with fully.

My biggest contention, I guess, is the origin of the 'spark' of life. What started it all?

For thousands of years, people across the globe credited the existence of the world to a higher being (or beings).

Barely 150 years ago, Darwin started his theory of evolution and the argument began between the evolution / ID factions.

Scientific theory is supposed to become fact once proven....but 'proven' to who? How much evidence is enough? Who gets to decide?

Why can't it be accepted that something we cannot identify started *life*, then evolution took over from there?

Why can't school teach just the study of organisms without expounding on either theory to the originating *spark*?

286 posted on 04/11/2005 2:55:47 PM PDT by MamaTexan (Minutemen.....the REAL American heroes!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

GOD is dead!

(Somebody famous said this once; didn't he?)

287 posted on 04/11/2005 2:56:11 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz
ID is interesting because it can account for primary forms, which evo cannot.

It is more correct to say that evolution does not address origins. It addresses the variety of life we see today as well as forensic evidence of past life forms. It does not attempt to answer how life began, only that once it had begun how life changes over time.

Why is it not possible that evo IS the intelligent design? Right along with the laws of thermodynamics, or gravity, or mathematical constants?

This is a very interesting speculation, of course, and the subject of many thought experiments. One could make the same sort of conjecture about gravity or any process we observe in nature.

There is nothing wrong with making this supposition. My point is simply that this is not science's purpose. The purpose of science is to describe the physical world in concrete terms, such that we may make predictions based on earlier observations. Take for example Einstein's theory of special relativity. For the longest time there was no known practical application of Einstein's theory. However, today the system of global positioning system satellites makes direct use of Einstein's predictions. Each satellite contains a very accurate atomic clock, and receiver units calculate position based on the time discrepancies in the signals received from several satellites. Einstein's theory of special relativity does not seek to answer why there is this 'time dilation' effect. One could postulate it is because the Creator made it this way. But again, this is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

Obviously the universe operates under a strict system of rules or laws.....where did they come from? At least ID has an answer.

Sure, much the same can be said about cosmology. The study of astronomy and cosmology doesn't answer the really big metaphysical question of where the universe came from, just as evolutionary theory doesn't answer the really big metaphysical question of why did life come about. This is not their purpose.

It is this misunderstanding which causes religion and science to be painted as being in some sort of opposition, when they're really not.

288 posted on 04/11/2005 2:57:48 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Why can't school teach just the study of organisms without expounding on either theory to the originating *spark*?

Evolution has nothing to do with the originating "spark"...it's about the origin of SPECIES, not life.

And the way it's taught in schools has nothing in particular to do with the origin of life; it's simply teaching that over millions of years various species evolved from other species.

The most amazing thing about the whole debate is one entire side (the creationist/ID side) doesn't have the foggiest idea of what the debate is actually about.

289 posted on 04/11/2005 2:59:05 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
It could have spouted creationism, but happened to spout evolution.

But why DON'T they then??

Could there be a hidden agenda here?

Surely they could get a LOT of folks off their backs, for recent polls show MORE than half believe in Creation over Evolution.

290 posted on 04/11/2005 3:00:09 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Did you ever stop to reason maybe "Time" is a property God gave the Universe?

"Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once."

291 posted on 04/11/2005 3:01:08 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Actually the idea of evolution predates Charles Darwin considerably. Darwin's contribution, other than being the father of the modern science of biology, was the idea of natural selection.

Why can't it be accepted that something we cannot identify started *life*, then evolution took over from there?

Ironically, you've just put your finger on the source of much needless contention. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to identify what started life. Only, as you say, that it took over from there.

292 posted on 04/11/2005 3:13:15 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Great article. Thanks for posting it.


293 posted on 04/11/2005 3:22:51 PM PDT by Orca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Evolutionary theory does not attempt to identify what started life. Only, as you say, that it took over from there.

I think you mean natural selection, specifically. There are some good theories of how biochemistry gets started from the presumed brine of planetary chemistry.

294 posted on 04/11/2005 3:27:34 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

yes, some smart feller


295 posted on 04/11/2005 3:29:17 PM PDT by D Edmund Joaquin (Mayor of Jesusland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: D Edmund Joaquin

Wouldn't that be Freud? The same one who stated America was a mistake?

Some smart feller.

His only contribution to the world's wisdom was that he focussed on sex.


296 posted on 04/11/2005 3:42:13 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Such atheistic existentialist philosophers as Nietzche despaired even of the search of God; it was he who coined the phrase "God is dead" almost a century before the death of God theologians.

Freud on the other hand recognized a good racket when he saw it

297 posted on 04/11/2005 3:51:23 PM PDT by D Edmund Joaquin (Mayor of Jesusland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: D Edmund Joaquin

Freud was a fraud. His ideas were childishly incomplete and his theories lacked background. That's how he came to be so well known in the modern psychological world: as a joke.

As for Neitzsche, his predictions have been echoed through time. Yet not only is Christianity the strongest religion on the planet, but the numbers of the faithful of all faiths ahve only increased since his foolsih words were uttered.


298 posted on 04/11/2005 4:16:38 PM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo; All
I'm considering another Greco-Golden Age idea, the worship of Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, et al. Intelligent Design is simply another way for those who lack faith to seek shelter.
299 posted on 04/11/2005 5:15:48 PM PDT by olde north church (Intelligent Design: Golden Calf for a new millennium.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Mac, the word that is translated into English as "evil" in the passage cited, actually means, calamity.
300 posted on 04/11/2005 5:36:42 PM PDT by Fiat volvntas tva (I believe in order that I may understand. (St. Augustine))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 361-375 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson