Intelligent Design or Mindless Evolution

CERC ^ | 10.26.05 | Bishop Donald Wuerl

[Gumlegs]

The ongoing debate concerning the origin of the cosmos and the beginning of human life focuses on a number of explanations. For some the answer is in what is called "creationism." Here the assertion is made that in the beginning God created all that is, basically, as we know and experience reality today. Others find satisfaction in what is described as "evolution by natural selection."

Blew it in the first paragraph. Not a record, but impressive nonetheless.

[Varda]

This embarrassment is my Bishop.

[Coyoteman]

Show me a picture of the first human.

Cameras hadn't been invented yet, silly.

[Varda]

"it is interesting that we should learn biology now from bishops and cardinals"

Don't blame the Cardinal for this one. He came back to explain himself,
"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday.

"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.

"..It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal."

[js1138]

Not to mention, there is no first of any species, unlell you are a creationist.

[TradicalRC]

Show me the intellegent designer!

Show me the one who designed the pyramids; this should be easier as they're more recent.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Yet there clearly is a middle ground — "intelligent design." In this view we recognize both God's free creation of all that is and the possibility, or even probability, that creation carried within it the plan of development which we can call evolution.

But this isn't ID. This is standard cosmology for many scientists.

ID says there is no plan of development in creation. It says special creation occurs periodically to create innovation in species.

[balrog666]

[Thatcherite]

What happens if evolution and the laws that govern chance were specifically designed to create life as we know it?

Even an ardent ultra-materialist like myself can acknowledge that what you say may be true. However as no scientific test has yet been proposed that would discern this form of anthropomorphic design it belongs in that huge class of beliefs which are possibly true, but not scientific.

[taxesareforever]

What is the first species of a skunk?

What is the first species of a salmon?

What is the first species of a tree?

What is the first species of.......You get the picture.

[js1138]

I don't get the picture. I can't tell if you are joking or serious.

[Thatcherite]

can't tell if you are joking or serious.

With "taxes" if you can't tell he is probably serious. I thought that he was joking when he forthrightly declared his approval for the institution of slavery, but it turned out that he was serious

[Doctor Stochastic]

Why not? You posted the article. For better or worse, you get the comments.

[taxesareforever]

What is the first species of a skunk? What is the first species of a salmon? What is the first species of a tree? What is the first species of.......You get the picture.

Evolutionists believe everything evolved. All I am asking for is what is the first of each of these species.

[taxesareforever]

Didn't realize that I had created that much of an impression.

[js1138]

The reason I wondered if you were joking is that there is never a first of any species. If you understood the science you argue against, you would know this.

[taxesareforever]

What kind of argument is that for evolution? No first of any species? Then why all the hoopla involved with the Endangered Species Act? You would think that all the "best science" scientists would me raving at Congress that there is no such thing as species. If there is not a first then there is not a last. Go figure.

[stacytec]

You are SOOOOOO bad!

[js1138]

What kind of argument is that for evolution? No first of any species?

It's not an argument for anything. It's a statement of fact. There is not firs of any species. Not nonow. Not ever. You should try understanding biology before you think you have the wits to trash it.

[onedoug]

Gerlad Schroeder, The Science Of God

"The believer must explain why there is human evil. The atheist must explain everything else." ---Dennis Prager