Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

[rob777]

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

...

[Prime Choice]

No, but you ought to be able to come up with a smidgen of evidence. Faith requires more than an intellectual vaccuum.

Que absurdum est.

[TOWER]

There are principles of design that are currently being applied to man made objects. That they are currently so limited is conceivably the result of our inability to fathom something other than human intelligence, than it is to limits on the principles themselves. The question is whether the same principles apply to nature. This is a valid area of controversy between ID proponents and its critics.

So then you admit that ID does not yet have a "measuring stick" for design. So why should we teach a non-existant theory in science classes?

[rob777]

So then you admit that ID does not yet have a "measuring stick" for design.





For "design" yes, for a "designer" no. I consider the application of the principles of detecting design to nature to be legitimate. What I said was that this is an area where a constructive debate can occur between ID proponents and its critics. My point is that the debate should be over the substance of what is being argued rather than ad homenim attacks, or conjuring up the religious bogeyman. You brought into question whether the principle of design was limited to man made objects. While I do not agree with your objection, I do respect it as a relevant argument. At least you are engaging in the substance of the argument. These threads would be a lot more productive if both sides would do so.

[woodb01]

Once again: true belief in God demands faith, not proof. Anyone who demands proof should examine why they even bother professing a belief in God.

PING > PING > PING

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a blatant misrepresentation. I won't call it a LIE because I believe that it comes from pure ignorance of what the Holy Bible actually says.

Thomas Didymus (commonly referred to as "Doubting Thomas") was given just such an opportunity for PROOF! He was an honest skeptic and said that he wouldn't believe it until he could stick his hands in the nail prints and in Christ's side.

Christ presented himself to Thomas for JUST that purpose...

There was also the man who had trouble with his faith and asked "Help my unbelief"... And there are others.

He did NOT do this out of vain envy or an attempt to "tempt" God, but out of true, heartfelt, sincere, and genuine desire to know the truth. They did not do any of this to prove anything to anyone, but out of their commitment to having to know the greatest truth ever. Their desire was granted. Therefore, God will sometimes PROVE to those who struggle with belief. Period!

So, speak for yourself, I was a "Doubting Thomas" who had to know the truth. And let me tell you, when God decides he's going to prove something to someone, he's pretty persuasive...

As a result, I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE! And they are mutually exclusive.

To accept evolution is to deny that Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, and thereby deny the original sin. Without the original sin, there is no need for a savior to reconcile man back to God.

Evolution is simply repackaged man-centered blasphemy. It is the arrogant religion of man that says man is not accountable to God... It is nothing but a substitute religion to deny the existing God of all creation.

So, when speaking of religion, please speak about religious beliefs that you at least have taken the time to study... I have studied it, and I was a skeptic, and I got PROOF BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER! So it's not ALWAYS based on pure faith...

Sometimes, when God decides to do what God will do (and he is the sovereign creator of the universe) he can help foolish skeptics like even me to know the truth. And you don't "demand" proof of God, lest you be found a bigger fool than me and tempt God.

[r9etb]

Not much time for a thorough response, but let me ask you this: are you saying that science has no way to deal with engineering?

[Prime Choice]

If your faith is so weak that you must demand proof of God's greatness and existence, then I pity you and all others like you.

In the final analysis, your "philosophy" (sic) demands that God answer to you. I hate to break it to you, but it's the other way around.

[JasonSC]

I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE!

You've got it all figured out, huh?

[woodb01]

If your faith is so weak that you must demand proof of God's greatness and existence, then I pity you and all others like you.

In the final analysis, your "philosophy" (sic) demands that God answer to you. I hate to break it to you, but it's the other way around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

It would help if you would actually read the message to the end. As you can see from my quote below at the end of original message 124, I don't consider myself wise, nor do I consider myself anything special. For whatever reason, a SOVEREIGN God (and I am not ignorant of that implication) decided to meet me in the midst of my own doubt. That was God's decision to demonstrate his reality to a foolish man like me, not mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

"Sometimes, when God decides to do what God will do (and he is the sovereign creator of the universe) he can help foolish skeptics like even me to know the truth. And you don't "demand" proof of God, lest you be found a bigger fool than me and tempt God."

[woodb01]

I KNOW BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE IS TRUE!

You've got it all figured out, huh?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think I ever said I had it all figured out. Only that for whatever reason, God decided to prove himself to a foolish skeptic like me.

Beyond that, and as a result of God PROVING himself to me, I decided to read the Holy Bible and have spent a little over 20 years actively and diligently studying the Bible.

The more I learn about God, and the more I gain a FEEBLE understanding of him based on my own silly mortal comprehension, the more I realize that God is so far beyond our understanding that it is quite humbling that he would see fit to prove himself to an arrogant fool like me.

But let me assure you of this, with absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER, not even in the slightest... The God of the Holy Bible IS GOD, and he IS VERY REAL! Of that I have no doubt. Can I answer every question? No, only a fool would say otherwise. Do I diligently seek the answers by studying the Bible? Yes, because in my own feeble and limited human ability to comprehend that which is infinite, and that which can not be fully understood, that is the guidebook I have been given.

And over the years there is one thing that I have learned, God is God. He does not need our belief to exist, and he exists because he is. As a silly brushstroke on the canvas of life, I am but one small stroke in the painting of human history and I have learned that I am little more than a fool, and would be far more foolish to challenge the artist of that painting of life. If you're interested in a dialog, about God, great! If not, that's your decision, but be assured, God IS VERY REAL and you have just been testified to that he is real from someone who has NO DOUBT AT ALL about that. No wavering, and it's not based on blind faith.

[LiteKeeper]

Might I remind whomever the author was that Romans 1:20 says that we can know about the invisible things of God fromt he things that are MADE...it would seem to me that would involve some form of investigation.

Also Acts 1:3 "To whom also He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God

[Tribune7]

If your faith is so weak that you must demand proof of God's greatness and existence,

God has proved Himself to me. It's wrong to put God to the test but one should not believe blindly or one could justify a belief in anything. Consider the proofs Moses showed to the Pharoh (who still would not believe). Nobody has an excuse for not believing.

The Gospels and Acts are reports grounded in reason meant to describe events that the authors recognized were out of the common experience and difficult to explain.

[Prime Choice]

God has proved Himself to me.

Then you should have no need for Intelligent Design to be taught either.

[Tribune7]

Then you should have no need for Intelligent Design to be taught either.

I don't need it taught to me. I do think it should be taught to innocent school children, however. :-)

How could you disagree?

[Prime Choice]

How could you disagree?

After having seen what public school teachers have done to math, English and the sciences, do you really want them teaching the Divine to impressionable youngsters?

C'mon now...think it through... ;o)

[Das Outsider]

To accept evolution is to deny that Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, and thereby deny the original sin. Without the original sin, there is no need for a savior to reconcile man back to God.

Out of curiosity I'd like to find an author, writer, theologian, etc., that both accepts ToE and orthodox Christianity without ultimately watering down one for the sake of the other. Predictable, many of them. Polkinghorne is technical enough to at least prove an interesting--sometimes maddening in detail!--read. Many IDers accept some evolution but reject any change from one species to another.

There are some issues with soul, sin, soteriology, and the authority of the Bible.

[Das Outsider]

After having seen what public school teachers have done to math, English and the sciences, do you really want them teaching the Divine to impressionable youngsters?

I couldn't agree more. Called teachers and pastors are the ones who ought to be doing it. The government or school district should not presume to do the selecting in God's stead--not to mention the competency issue.

There's also the leftward tilt: Can you imagine public school kids learning the superiority of liberation theology from a dreadlocked, sandal-wearing lib? We already have that--it's called college! The difference is that students aren't required by law to attend college; not so for grades K-12 (or until the legal dropout age).

[Tribune7]

After having seen what public school teachers have done to math, English and the sciences, do you really want them teaching the Divine to impressionable youngsters?

But that is the point -- they are teaching the Divine only what they are teaching about it is that those who believe in the Divine, or think the Divine should be taken seriously, are either naive or bigoted.

What I'd like to see taught is that our institutions presuppose a Creator who endows us with inalienable rights including the right to life. You would think there were be now controversy concerning this but there is and one wonders why.

Now, I'm not wild about putting ID in science class -- my preference would be to restrict science to the measurable and observable which would throw out accidentalism which would throw out a good bit, but not all, of the Theory of Evolution.

But if we are going to teach Absolute Evolution in science class then it is proper to teach that it is more rational to think life came about by design rather than by accident.

[Prime Choice]

But that is the point -- they are teaching the Divine only what they are teaching about it is that those who believe in the Divine, or think the Divine should be taken seriously, are either naive or bigoted.

And you really think compelling those same people to teach Intelligent Design is going to make them straighten up and fly right? Got news for ya.

As for kids learning about the Divine and countering the nonsense of public schools, that is the parent's and the church's domain, not the government's.

[Tribune7]

And you really think compelling those same people to teach Intelligent Design is going to make them straighten up and fly right?

Can't hurt

As for kids learning about the Divine and countering the nonsense of public schools, that is the parent's and the church's domain, not the government's.

Firstly, public schools are the government so the government has chosen to involve itself in this debate. Now, what should government schools teach children about the source of our unalienable rights?

[edsheppa]

are you saying that science has no way to deal with engineering?

What do you mean "deal with?" I think your other post gave a pretty good synopsis of the relationship, engineers use scientific principles but engineering isn't science because it doesn't have the right form.