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 ...
NIV 1 Peter 1:17-21
17. Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
18. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
19. but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
20. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
21. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
NIV 1 Corinthians 2:7
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
NIV 2 Timothy 1:8-10
8. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God,
9. who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,
10. but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
NIV Titus 1:1-4
1. Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness--
2. a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
3. and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
4. To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
And we are SO much smarter now!
Here's another for you:
"Pride goes before a fall."
It comes from here -
NIV Proverbs 16:18
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Again, you provide no DETAILS as to how God is to be investigated scientifically. YOU HAVE NO IDEA how it could be done, just a wish it could be.
" Faith, like scientific propositions, must be capable of testing, or it is not faith."
Now you are changing the meaning of what I said. I said that faith is faith because you can't test your claim. Faith is BY DEFINITION a belief where evidence is lacking. I was not talking about someone else testing a person's faith, but the person with faith not needing evidence to believe what they believe. The idea that someone needs to test their claims before having faith in them is idiotic, and is what you said.
Now, it is clear you know of no way to scientifically study God. You were asked to put up, and you couldn't. And anybody who thinks that faith starts out with testable assumptions is not capable of having an intelligent debate on the matter.
Good day.
"Point out ONE thing in that reply that is NOT 'scientific'! ;^)"
All of it.
Elsie seems to be a Christian scientist.
Whoops, Dr. Michael Brown (g)
The definition of science is silent about theological beliefs.
Agreed.
Faith, like scientific propositions, must be capable of testing, or it is not faith.
Faith is tested by inferential and deductive illogic. That which cannot be true in light of our intellectual faculties, is accepted as true nevertheless on the basis of faith.
Scientific propositions are tested by the inverse of this test for faith. And the two, proceeding as they must in polar opposite directions, cannot meet in the middle.
No, I didn't get religion when I realized just how well-designed my Bose Lifestyles system was; I can actually understand the technology that made it so, and I can speak to the people who designed it.
People who believe in a non-religious concept of Intelligent Design must then believe in all-powerful extraterrestrials capable of creating not only life, the universe, and everything as we know it today, but themselves.
The vast majority of ID supporters would immediately call these people "kooks."
In your own words (I assume you have some, no cheating) tell me what you have against paul, and why.
And we are SO much smarter now!
Not at all. You appear to be confusing ignorance with stupidity. They were just as smart as we are. But they didn't have the access to knowledge and education that we have. That was their misfortune, not stupidity. They didn't know that there are upwards of 20 million species, many of which have highly particular requirements for diet and environment. This is hardly surprising for people who were essentially nomadic shepherds who wandered a very tiny area of the world. It is instructive that there is little sense of a wider world outside the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean in the Bible.
It can be, but that is not its fundamental meaning. It's primary meaning is "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." As such, faith requires evidence, just like science does. That is what I am talking about when I say faith must be capable of testing, just like science. But there are certain statements and assumptions that cannot be tested for their veracity one of them is as follows: "Science can only observe natural phenomena."
Faith may on occasion be blind, but such faith is rare. Scientific theories may be blind as well. They, too, are rare.
It is not a matter of directly observing, but indirect observation and inference, just like most of science. Most of science, in all its details, may be undertaken with the assumption that God created the heavens and the earth and still sustains them. As such, most of science is inclined to expect an orderly universe to investigate, because an intelligent designer would normally be considered to produce an intelligible object. Science must deal with intelligible data.
But what can be said for the givens with which you believe science ought to operate? If intelligent design is not the given with which you do science, then what is? Unintelligent non-design? Zelda's wrath? Or do you pretend you have no "givens?"
You're right it has been largely a one-sided conversation. You've left the lion's share of my questions unanswered. That's okay. I've grown used to it.
If science leads to theological implications, why must science discard a theological answer? How does it logically follow? Or is it just because you think the constitution to forbid such ideas? As I've said, and continue to maintain, you are no champion of free inquiry, (let alone a free repbulic) but a misguided proponent of an ideology. Take heart. You're not alone. You've got Laurence Tribe on your side. Stalin. Marx. Just to name a few.
I said the conversation was over. You have answered nothing.
GOOD DAY.
If all else fails you've always got those voices in your head to lead you into all truth. :)
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.