Posted on 10/12/2005 10:43:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Good points.
Thank you for actually trying to inform without making me out to be a closed-minded idiot.
ID probably should be mentioned in science classes, but only if the teacher gives examples of why it's un-scientific and why it doesn't fit the facts.
Nothing more is necessary. A couple minutes will be enough to demolish it as science.
You are unwilling to look at the link I gave you. I spent a few minutes looking that up, and writing the HTML response. You ignored my small effort.
Relevant?? Ok ignore my posts.
I need to do some studying obvioulsy. I just want to find something that jives with science but also my basic christian beliefs. Not that Darwinian theory can't do that, I just need to figure it out.
I don't want to look at your link because you did it in order to insult me and were a smart @ss all the while.
If you didn't mean it that way, then sorry, but it sure sounded like it to me.
Thanks for your effort.
Gotcha. Makes sense. So then, how does one reconcile this with creationism? Or can we?
The argument (if it looks designed, it must have had a designer) was the basis of Raimond Sebond's treatise on Natural Theology, which was published in the 1420's.
Intelligent design as a science (in the sense of having testable predictions subjected to experimentation) has never existed.
Deism does the trick as well as anything I know - the belief that God created the Universe, gave it physical laws, then let it unfol according to those laws.
Alternately, one might believe that God is falsifying the evidence, letting us discover things that aren't really true. Some people like to believe this; personally, I find this representation of God to be abhorrent at best.
If Americans descended from Englishmen, why are there still Englishmen? That sounds flippant, but think hard about it: it is really the same question on a much smaller timescale.
That should be: "the belief that God created the Universe, gave it physical laws, then let it unfold according to those laws."
Dr. Behe is trying to prove a negative (that some things could not evolve naturally). That, in and of itself, should give one pause, as proving a negative is logically impossible.
interesting, thank you.
(Exerpt from Evolutionary Creation):
Evolutionary creation claims the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an evolutionary process. This position fully embraces both the religious beliefs of conservative Christianity and the scientific theories of cosmological, geological and biological evolution. It contends that God ordains and sustains the laws of nature, including the mechanisms of evolution. More specifically, evolution is 'teleological,' and features plan, purpose and promise. In particular, this view of origins asserts that humanity evolved from primate ancestors, and during this natural process the Image of God arose and sin entered the world. Evolutionary creationists experience God's presence and action in their lives. They contend that the Lord meets men and women in a personal relationship, which at times involves both dramatic and subtle miraculous signs and wonders.
The term 'evolutionary creation' to most individuals seems like a contradiction in terms. This would be the case if the words 'evolution' and 'creation' were restricted to their popular meanings. That is, if the former is bound to an atheistic world view, and if the latter refers exclusively to literal 6 day creation. However, evolutionary creation moves beyond the common use of these terms and the simple 'evolution vs. creation' debate. The most important word in this category is the noun 'creation.' Evolutionary creationists are first and foremost thoroughly committed and unapologetic creationists. They believe that the universe is a created reality that is absolutely dependent for its every moment of existence on the will and grace of the Creator. The qualifying word in this term is the adjective 'evolutionary,' indicating the method through which God created the world. This view of origins is often referred to as 'theistic evolution.' However, that categorization places the process of evolution as primary term and makes the Creator secondary as only a qualifying adjective. Such an inversion in the order of priority is unacceptable to evolutionary creationists.
More at link.
That's a good point.
Unfortunately for ID advocates, since there is no positive scientific evidence to back up their claims, trying to prove a negative is all they're left with. That in and of itself tells us something about the relative merits of their argument.
But, that completely obliterates the belief that God created man in his image, Adam.
I know that sounds probably silly to most, but that is how I was raised.
Is there any way to account for or explain that? Or is that just strict religious belief?
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.