Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; PatrickHenry
Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."

I'm not catholic, but I agree with the Cardinal.

If you believe in God, and you accept evolution, the inevitable result is some form of "intelligent design", maybe not capital "I" capital "D", but certainly lower case "i" and "d".

In my opinion, "intelligent design" means that the evolutionists have won the argument about evolution. Certainly a fair segment of Creationists see it that way, ID bothers them exactly on that account.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, hate ID just as much as the Creationists do, but for other reasons. They are correct in noting that ID interprets scientific data through a particular metaphysical lens. When you believe in God, you can't help it, inevitably you look on in awe at the genius with which this world is put together. But beyond that, if you believe in God you start with certain assumptions about life and purpose.

Evolutionists hate that, these assumptions are not measurable, they are in the end philosophical in nature.

Point taken. I'm comfortable with that, actually. I'm fine with letting the science geeks gather the data, thats what they do, and I'm quite capable of taking it from there, figuring out how it all fits together in the larger mosaic. I have never felt threatened by anything they do, how after all can truth be threatened by truth?

One of the most interesting areas that is beginning to open up is the area of information transfer. With experience in the development of computers, and software, and artificial intelligence under our belt, we are beginning to look back at the mechanics of biological processes with that experience as an analog, and what we are seeing is fascinating. Darwinian evolution is going to be superceded, not because it was wrong, but because he could only observe the effects, and we are beginning to see what is happening under the surface.

The natural world is shot through with intelligence, intelligence is the basic building block of the natural world. Some people see that, some don't, but it doesn't matter to me. Let the guys in the lab coats do what they do, and let the chips fall where they fall, and I'll be happy to watch on in awe.

233 posted on 09/01/2006 10:11:19 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]


To: marron
Evolutionists, on the other hand, hate ID just as much as the Creationists do, but for other reasons.

I do not "hate" Intelligent Design. I merely recognize that it is not science.
242 posted on 09/01/2006 10:26:52 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson