Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph
PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...
A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The same way one might investigate the designer and builder of an automobile when he does not know who the designer or builder is. HINT: The last thing he rules out is intelligent design, or the possibility that the designer can ever be directly observed and known.
Nah. Most people know intuitively that the universe is not the product of random particles assembling into patterns and organization beyond the capacity of human intellect to conceptualize or quantify. Most people also know intuitively there is a God. If anything, they need to be taught to ignore or discard that intuitive knowledge, which is why evolutionists have to work so hard at their teaching and have it enforced by law to the exclusion of anything else.
"The same way one might investigate the designer and builder of an automobile when he does not know who the designer or builder is. HINT: The last thing he rules out is intelligent design, or the possibility that the designer can ever be directly observed and known."
Sorry, not an answer. For one thing, I said how does one investigate God using science. I didn't say how does one figure out where an automobile comes from. You have shown yourself utterly incapable of providing even ONE means to investigate God scientifically. Your argument is an empty shell.
Again, tell is, IN DETAIL, how one investigates God using science. Hint: analogies to humans is not evidence.
The same can be said of faith. What's your point?
"Most people know intuitively that the universe is not the product of random particles assembling into patterns and organization beyond the capacity of human intellect to conceptualize or quantify."
That is not weighted evidence for God. It's the gay jeans argument writ large.
"Most people also know intuitively there is a God."
Intuition is quote often wrong, and is not evidence.
"If anything, they need to be taught to ignore or discard that intuitive knowledge, which is why evolutionists have to work so hard at their teaching and have it enforced by law to the exclusion of anything else."
Now you're back to evolutionists are atheists. The lies never end.
"The same can be said of faith. What's your point?"
Faith doesn't require testable assumptions at all. Science does.
I was talking about scientific investigations. :)
Faith would not be faith if it could not be tested. Faith is confidence in a positive proposition. So is science.
What is the difference between evidence and "weighted" evidence? The egg? And how come you've been hung up on "gay jeans" ever since I brought up the hickey on your maple neck?
No, analogies are not evidence.
I am still waiting for your proposed means to investigate God scientifically. So far, nothing.
" The simplest and easiest test is to determine whether the matter is organized and functional."
Gay jeans argument.
"Faith would not be faith if it could not be tested."
One of the stupidest things you have ever said. Faith is faith BECAUSE it doesn't have to be tested. To require a test for faith is to slap God in the face. Ask Jesus when he was tempted by Satan.
"Faith is confidence in a positive proposition. So is science."
Faith allows (requires really) confidence without testing. Science allows confidence only with testing.
"A man, Adam, with a sinful nature, saved by the grace of another man Jesus, man without sin."
Yes, the sinless Last Adam dying as the only acceptable sacrifice, as the Substitute in judgment, for the sins of the sinning first Adam. This would mean that God didn't just create a potential life substance, get it spinning, and then let it evolve. A large part of the evolution deception has the purpose of denying the sin nature, and that man offends a Holy God, and needs a Savior Who existed in the bosom of the Father BEFORE there was a star, or a planet, or a gas, or a vapor or a cell. (Proverbs 8).
"What is the difference between evidence and "weighted" evidence?"
We have been through this before, and you accepted weighted evidence. Try to remember what you have already stated in the past.
You were taught wrong. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origins of life.....just how it got from simple single-celled organisims up to the larger multi-cellular creatures such as - me (and I seem to keep adding more cells every day...mostly in the stomach region ;-(
Oh dear. You are insisting to me that your religion is false again.
These fools musta missed it, too!
They weren't fools. They were people who only knew of a very small part of the total world, and had no idea of the extent of Terran bio-diversity. To men who believed (if they thought about the matter at all) that there are a couple of hundred species in total and that the world is about the size of Asia Minor Noah's ark was a lot more credible.
The only way it is not useful is if one strains the definition of science to mean only "scientific method" or data and theories without any shaping principles.
You are the one who is straining to try to change the definition of science to fit your theological beliefs.
The definition of science is silent about theological beliefs. It neither includes nor excludes theistic considerations. Actually, it is you who are trying to constrain the definition of science to your own, untested assertions and shaping principles.
As I've said many times, good science may take place when it adaopts and maintains the inductive given that God created the heavens and the earth in an orderly way. So science carries on expecting to find order as opposed to chaos. It may reasonably consider itself to be about the study of God's handiwork, as it were. That is how western science carried on until the "Enlightenment." That is how science may still be carried on today. Casting aside or disavowing this given does not make someone inherently more scientific or objective, because to cast away this given is a subjective decision made by the observer, not by the matter he observes.
In a less certain manner, one may note deductively, after seeing so many cases where organized matter behaves according to laws, that intelligent design is a viable possibility. For such a person, it is simply organized matter that serves as evidence for intelligent design, because intelligent design by its very nature entails taking a substance an forming it in such a way that it perfroms a purpose.
Maybe you are expecting me to produce more direct evidence that science is studying God's handiwork. If the presence of organized matter does not suit you as evidence, then what does? Is it necessary for God to write His name on each particle of matter before the evidence is "weighted" to your satisfaction? Is that what you would expect from someone who builds an artifact, that he would at all times be present and ready to directly announce his involvement in designing and organizing the implement?
Your expectations of ID are unreasonable even for science, and they go beyond what you expect of evolutionist theories. Your bias is plain to see.
Jesus has perfect faith. Satan tested it by quoting biblical texts and attempting to apply them as they were not intended, not unlike certain scientists who think their learning somehow undermines biblical texts and truths. Faith, like scientific propositions, must be capable of testing, or it is not faith.
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.