What a waste of two minutes. Next time don't bother.
Wow you're a fast reader!..oh wait I get it
"What a waste of two minutes. Next time don't bother."
"That's your best shot?"
Neither of these are arguments in any sense of the word, nothing to respond to. If you have a point to make, I missed it.
"We accept all kinds of unexplained things. Physics, the hardest of the sciences, accepts quantum entanglement and quantum uncertainty. Quantum events include suceh things as radioactive decay which has no local cause at all. Uncaused events are commonplace; the are the rule in particle physics."
We may not know the cause, but all effects have a cause, that is an a priori principle of reason. All of these are theories or hypotheses. "Evolution" is a whole collection of theories and hypotheses
For some there is 0 evidence, can't be replicated, can't be falsified. These are not scientific, they are idealogical.
"Then it would be call a FACT.
" No, that was the point of my primer on inductive reasoning, the scientific method, outside of a controlled situation in a labortory is incapable of stating something absolutely. Even in a labortory there is always the possibility of an unaccountable for variable that has contaminated your experiments. Happens all the time. If you are not aware that a variable exists, how can you control for it?
"Trust me, if there were COMPELLING EVIDENCE to dislodge Darwin, a whole generation of biologists would be on it like white on rice."
Your faith in academics is touching, but misplaced. There are a growing number that are publically recognizing the gaping holes in darwinism, but they face ostracism by peers who aren't interested in truth only in their idealogy on which their whole world view depends. That is precisely the problem.
"what does the Catholic Church say about the Theory of Evolution or about the Theory of Intelligent Design"
The Church teaches the same thing I've been saying .
In 1950 in the encyclical letter Humani Generis Pope Pius XII condemned the theory of polygenism (which no one holds anymore anways) and athiestic evolution, which is precisely what I've condemned here. The central dogma of darwinism is that life is a result of random chance, that is what must be refuted because it is solely idealogical, has nothing to do with science.
Other than those two condemned opinions, the Church, and I for that matter, remain open to authentic understanding through sound reasoning and methodology but not dogmatic pronouncements from men who think the scientific method has replaced theology and revelation.
"A theory is established if, based on its premises, its predictions can be observed. The problem with ID is that it makes no predictions that can later be observed."
A theory is the best explanation that fits the available evidence, but if your methods are flawed and you dogmatically ignore causes because they don't fit your world view, you commit a scientific error that prejudices your results. The error of most modern scientists is holding to principles of the flawed philosophies of naturalism and scientism.
What I find interesting about ID is it is unafraid to point out the philosophical flaws in darwinsim.
The main arguments go along the line of "... oh, things are so complicated, we can't IMAGINE how they came about from a few basic principles..."
I deny life resulted from random chance, if that's your "basic principle" then I would agree with your statement.
"As a Baptist, I prefer to think for myself."
33000+ denominations and counting, most are just variations on 1000 year old heresies, western society on a fast slide into complete apostasy and a dark, dark paganism - that seems to be working real well...
We all "think for ourselves". Dogma is the guideposts established so that thinking will proceed along productive lines of inquiry not repeat the same old errors over and over
" The fundamental idea behind Stan Tenen's work is that God hide the truth about his creation in the Bible,"
Then my first impression was accurate, this would be a form of gnosticism then. A very common heresy. I hope your find your way out of it.
" That's not true...just tell a scientist that evolution is not scientifically provable and they go supernova every time."
Now that's funny
" The Catholic church acknowledges evolution as a valid, supported theory. But you know that."
Actually John Paul II acknowledged it, in one speech, there has been no dogmatic pronouncement of the magesterium on the matter beyond what Humani Generis said in 1950. Various schools of thought exist, from special creationism (6 day, literal Genesis reading) to complete acceptance of Darwinism and everything in between.
All are permissible for Catholics to hold, as long as the limits of Humani Generis are respected (seems reasonable that athiestic evolution might be a out of bounds opinion for a Christian to hold heh? and no one believes in polygenism anymore that hypothesis is dead.)
I refute the ideas that
a) there is no other possible explanation.
b) life orginated in random chance
c) the universe is not governed by God's providence
The first is a basic principe of reason which I already demonstrated, inductive reasoning cannot draw distributed conclusions,because it has undistributed premises. That's Logic 101. The others are simply basic positions of Christian orthodoxy, held everywhere and always until the last 200 years or so when many Christians became so secularized and ignorant of the teachings of their faith. Most theologically educated protestants wouldn't even have a problem with these two for that matter.
" And does anyone see the irony in an ID advocate complaining about lack of experimental results?"
Strawman or false dichotomy argument, I never said I supported ID. Refuting one does not imply acceptance of the other.
I merely agreed with their criticism of darwinist idealogy