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

To: mlc9852
Creationism, ID, whatever... It will be dreged up again with a new name over and over until the scientifically illiterate can legislate religion into science.

Please show me one piece of non-biblical evidence supporting ID.

Notice, I said, "supporting ID". An attack on evolution does not by default support ID. Make a note of it.

222 posted on 09/28/2005 5:33:40 PM PDT by GreenOgre (mohammed is the false prophet of a false god.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]


To: GreenOgre
An Atheist Defends the Design Argument
225 posted on 09/28/2005 5:45:19 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

To: GreenOgre

Doesn't matter. ID will get in the schools, at least in some areas. I just don't see it as a constitutional issue. Local school boards should be self-governing.


239 posted on 09/28/2005 7:06:35 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

To: GreenOgre; Aquinasfan; annalex; Frank Sheed
You wrote: "Please show me one piece of non-biblical evidence supporting ID.

This question implies that there is Biblical evidence supporting ID (ID as a specific hypothesis advanced by such scientists as Michael Behe and William Dembski.) That's dubious.

A far as I can see, ID isn't Biblical.

It seems (somebody correct me if I'm wrong!) that ID postulates that whenever you run into apparent irreducible complexity in organelles (like cilia) or new complex specified information (CSI) in a genome, it could not have arisen from pure mutation-selection processes. That would mean that the Designer must have nudged the process along, which produces a picture of God continuously intervening to get the results He wants from a system which was not set up well enough to guarantee them from the git-go.

By way of contrast, the Genesis account says that after the 6th Day, God was finished with the creation project. Finished! He pronounced it all "Very Good," and He rested. From then on, all innovations flowed from the "secondary causes" He set in place.

One needn't embrace a literal 6-day-creation account --- as the Catholic Church doesn't --- to see the significance of this. The spiritual truth here seems to be that creation "from nothing" isn't going on anymore.

I remember the late (Catholic) Bishop Austin Vaughn, a keenly intelligent as well as an honest and uprght man, saying thaat God hadn't intervened and created anything in the Universe ex nihilo since Genesis--- and even there, He employed secondary causes ("Let the waters bring forth.." "Let the earth bring forth...")--the single exception being human souls, which are spirits and do not evolve from matter.

IIRC, he stated that, not as his opinion, but as Catholic doctrine.

I am sure my view of this is incomplete. Anybody want to fill me in?

268 posted on 09/29/2005 8:55:09 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In the image and likeness of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

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