Posted on 08/23/2009 11:49:00 AM PDT by neverdem
THE “war” between science and religion is notable for the amount of civil disobedience on both sides. Most scientists and most religious believers refuse to be drafted into the fight. Whether out of a live-and-let-live philosophy, or a belief that religion and science are actually compatible, or a heartfelt indifference to the question, they’re choosing to sit this one out.
Still, the war continues, and it’s not just a sideshow. There are intensely motivated and vocal people on both sides making serious and conflicting claims.
There are atheists who go beyond declaring personal disbelief in God and insist that any form of god-talk, any notion of higher purpose, is incompatible with a scientific worldview. And there are religious believers who insist that evolution can’t fully account for the creation of human beings.
I bring good news! These two warring groups have more in common than they realize. And, no, it isn’t just that they’re both wrong. It’s that they’re wrong for the same reason. Oddly, an underestimation of natural selection’s creative power clouds the vision not just of the intensely religious but also of the militantly atheistic.
If both groups were to truly accept that power, the landscape might look different. Believers could scale back their conception of God’s role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of “higher purpose” are compatible with scientific materialism. And the two might learn to get along.
The believers who need to hear this sermon aren’t just adherents of “intelligent design,” who deny that natural selection can explain biological complexity in general. There are also believers with smaller reservations about the Darwinian story. They accept that God used evolution to do his creative work (“theistic evolution”), but think that, even so, he had to step in and provide special ingredients at some...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why would I think horses designed horse drawn carriages, when horse-level intelligences have never been observed to designed carriages? The point is, the ONLY known cause of complex, specified, digital codes are designing intelligences. And since the digital code that develops, operates, and reproduces itself in biological organisms is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than human codes, it is also reasonable to infer that the designing intelligence responsible for the code of life is far superior than human-level intelligence.
Thanks for the ping!
So, you are admitting that simple, specified, digital codes do not require ID?
Isn't it sort of defaming God by referring to the intelligent designer instead of God?
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
First, I have not concerned myself with ID proper, but merely an inference to the concept of intelligent design. Second, there is a wide variety of positions within ID proper with respect to the question of evolution. But why are you trying to change the subject, why don’t you answer #35?
#35 was not to me. Why don't you answer my #'s 40, 43 and 44 to you?
As far as I know, there are two positions.
1. God created man as man (he did not evolve), and
2. Man evolved.
AFAIK, every ID reference requires that man evolved.
The concept of ID in man's evolution?
Your reply was to my #35, which was part of a larger thread which asked the question whether creation/intelligent design or evolution best explains the existence of the complex, specified, digital code contained in our DNA.
What does the concept of intelligent design have to do with the concept of evolution?
Two positions, and only two?
What is the other?
1. God created man in his present form, or
2. God did not create man in his present form.
Every ID theory I have seen requires that man was not created in his present form.
You’re trying to change the subject again. First you said, there is only two choices, creation or evolution. Then after I point out that there is more than two choices, you come back with a new choice to take the place of evolution. I’m starting to think you are not a serious person.
PS I’m still waiting for you to answer #35, or do you concede that creation/intelligent design is the best explanation for the complex, specified, digital code contained in our DNA?
I think you are not serious for supporting theories that man was not created in his present form.
Virtually all creationists I know of draw upon the research of creation, evolution, and intelligent design scientists. Creationists are not in the habit of burying their heads in the sand like your evo co-religionists.
Creation is not the same as design.
Which is why I wonder about your leaving God to cross over to the ID?
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.