Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Pope on the Periphery of ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague:] “Here’s a more complete summary of the Pope’s Wednesday audience. Note the clear emphasis on knowledge of God through reason prior to revelation: “Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator.” That view is both biblical and an important theme in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato as synthesized by Thomas Aquinas. The Pope’s point becomes even clearer when he lays aside the prepared text and speaks extemporaneously to the assembled pilgrims — including Cardinal Schönborn, who was present.”

Creation Reveals God and His Love, Says Benedict XVI
Comments on Psalm 135(136) at General Audience
Date: 2005-11-09
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=79681

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- God’s created works are the first sign of his existence and love, says Benedict XVI.

From “the greatness and beauty of created things” one knows, by analogy, their author, the Pope said at today’s general audience. He was commenting on Psalm 135(136):1-9, as part of his ongoing series of reflections on biblical passages used in the Liturgy of Vespers.

“God does not appear in the Bible as an impassible and implacable Lord, or an obscure and indecipherable being, or fate, against whose mysterious force it is useless to struggle,” the Holy Father explained when commenting on the Jewish poetic composition.

About 25,000 pilgrims gathered for the audience in St. Peter’s Square.

The Pontiff told them that God manifests himself “as a person who loves his creatures, he watches over them, he follows them in the course of history and suffers because of the infidelity with which the people often oppose his hesed, his merciful and paternal love.”

“The first sign of this divine charity,” he noted, quoting the psalmist, must be “sought in creation: … the heavens, the earth, the waters, the sun, the moon and the stars.”

“Even before discovering the God who reveals himself in the history of a people, there is a cosmic revelation, open to all, offered to the whole of humanity by the Creator,” Benedict XVI said.

“There is, therefore, a divine message secretly inscribed in creation,” a sign of “the loving faithfulness of God who gives his creatures being and life, water and food, light and time,” he added. “From created works one ascends … to the greatness of God, to his loving mercy.”

When the Pontiff finished his address, he put his papers to one side and commented on the thought of St. Basil the Great, a Doctor of the Church, who said that some, “deceived by the atheism they bear within them, imagined the universe deprived of a guide and order, at the mercy of chance.”

“I believe the words of this fourth-century Father are of amazing timeliness,” said Benedict XVI. “How many are these ‘some’ today?”

“Deceived by atheism, they believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order,” he continued. “The Lord, with sacred Scripture, awakens the drowsy reason and says to us: In the beginning is the creative Word. In the beginning the creative Word — this Word that has created everything, which has created this intelligent plan, the cosmos — is also Love.”

The Pontiff concluded, exhorting his listeners to allow themselves “to be awakened by this Word of God” and invited them to pray that “he clear our minds so that we will be able to perceive the message of creation, inscribed also in our hearts: The beginning of everything is creative Wisdom and this Wisdom is love and goodness.”

Other papal commentaries on the canticles and psalms of the Liturgy of the Hours are posted in the Wednesday’s Audience section of ZENIT’s Web page.

Comments
jimpressario the Miller Urey experiment did not produce "complex organics" and it is rejected as having any validity, see http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html You wrote: "Your last paragraph is where the real honesty shines through. It seems as if my first post in this thread was on to somthing, the pretense that ID is not religiously motivated is no longer operative." As far as my last paragraph it was nothing more then my opinion as to what motivates most evolutionists i.e they seek to change the ontological perceptions of people who believe in God, or more specifically religion. They do so because they fear and loathe religion for various reasons. Your first post on this thread was this: "Has the pretence of ID being non-religious been official dropped?" Since ID is pure science which concludes that an outside intelligence is the only plausible source for the natural world based on probability concepts, how is that a "pretence of ID being non-religious"? ID is upfront of what it teaches and makes no pretence about anything. Foolish demagogues thing that because ID doesn't call itself "Creationism" or put forward any type of religious dogma that IDers are being duplicitous. The reason we don't call ourselves Creationist's and call ID creationism is because those are loaded terms. Those words in most people's minds refer to specific religious doctrines. ID puts forth no specific religious doctrine. It is nothing more then an examination of scientific data. Because that data leads to a non materialistic theory, why should that theory be perjoratively labled and the scientists who promote that theory be attacked with ad hominem and straw man arguements? To suit the bigotry of atheists because they have a mental bloc against all and anyt scientific theory which does not posit a purely materialistic cause? What we object to is the numerous logical fallacies used in the arguments of evolutionists in their demagogic attacks on ID because it posits a "supernatural" rather then a purely materialistic hypothesis. For instance the demagogic evolutionists usually claim that ID is simply an attempt to make religion out to seem scientific and therefore it's real purpose is to force religion on people. That absurd notion is what we object to. If through rigorous empirical methodology we come up with the conclusion that the origin and diversification of life is more probable by an outside intelligence then by random mutation, then why should mentioning that be seen as "promoting religion" and therefore not allowed? If ID and it's conclusions were not science based, but purely religious dogma based, then that would be promoting religion in the guise of science. But since ID is in fact based on rigorous scientific research and not on any particular religous dogma, then it has just as much right to be mentioned in publicly funded schools as evolution, in fact more right because it can be proven to be more in line with scientific standards of proof then evolution. Evolution is not held up to a rigorous scientific standard yet it is promoted and taught as infallible absolute truth in publicly funded schools. In effect I am paying someone to teach bad science which ultimately has the effect of teaching that all religious beliefs are based on a myth. Philosophically and politically motivated atheists want to force their religous beliefs on children. Atheism is a type of religious belief. It posits that there is no God and all religions are bogus fantasies. Why is that allowed and seen to be perfectly reasonable to be taught to children in publicly funded schools by people who want to keep the mention of God outside of schools? They do not want to allow any criticism of evolution because evolution is their religion. They want to force their religion on others in public schools and they want no dissent. They use the langauage of the law rather then the spirit of the law in their attempts to keep their religious beliefs free from critical analysis in public schools. Because evolution is not treated as essentially cognate with a religious belief it is allowed free reign to preach atheism as the ultimate and supreme ontological paradigm through thinly disguised bad science in publicly funded schools. We object to the misuse of public education tax dollars being spent to teach atheism as absolute infallible ontological truth in the guise of science in schools. Evolution is a religion in the guise of science.mentok
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
that doesnt make any sense to me. hes saying there was no real adam and no real eve, and they werent created by god the way the bible says? if thats so- why did christ say he came as the second adam (which seems to point to the fact he thought adam was a literal man made in the manner the OT mentions.) ?? if men are just evolved apes- how would that make humans special? few people would doubt were special...but if we throw out genesis as a fairytale, then what ELSE do what throw out? do we choose to throw out the virgin birth, resurrection, and other doctrines? if we dont throw these things out, why not? if the pope so easily paints creation as mere myth, then how is it possible to say which parts of the bible are true and what arent? if youve got issues with the very first book, how do you have ANY faith in the rest of it? why trust any of it if you cant even trust the very creation of all of this itself? makes no sense to me.jboze3131
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Benedict on evolution: "....science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard -- the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven [or six] days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion -- an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green of the fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them..... "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason. It was a particular characteristic of the 19th century to appreciate the historicity of all things and the fact that they came into existence. It perceived that things that we used to consider as unchanging and immutable were the product of a long process of becoming. This was true not only in the realm of the human but also in that of nature. It became evident that the universe was not something like a huge box into which everything was put in a finished state, but that it was comparable instead to a living, growing tree that gradually lifts its branches higher and higher to the sky.....It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith." Benedict on design: "Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. They are constantly penetrating deeper into the inmost mysteries of life, attempting to decode its secret language and to understand what life really is. In so doing they brought us to the awareness that an organism and a machine have many points in common. For both of them realize a project, a thought-out and considered plan, which is itself coherent and logical. Their functioning presupposes a precisely thought-through and therefore reasonable design....we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me." All from the book In the Beginning....: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm Pick the Benedict you like. I prefer the evolutionary Benedict. :-) Phil PPhilVaz
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
ID has theological implications. So does Darwinian Evolution. So does the Big Bang.Bombadill
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
maybe i missed something, but i dont think mentok was saying that ID is religiously motivated. im also wondering how many times well have to listen to jim make this claim.jboze3131
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
jimpressario, the Miller-Urey experiment is a joke amongst honest scientists, both on the ID side and Darwinist... 1. The wrong atmosphere was used. 2. Intelligent agents "controlled" the experiment. 3. The end product was a brown sludge (produced by shooting electricity directly into the containers). Any idea of the vastness of the chasm between brown amino acid sludge and a single functional cell? It is mind boggling. And that's not even considering the Irreducibly Complex functionality of a single cell. Dr. Stephen Meyer - "Miller's work is understood by the origin-of-life research community itself to have little if any relevance to explaining how amino acids--let alone proteins or living cells--actually could have arisen on the early earth."Bombadill
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
About evolutionary "predictions" http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp Long but worth reading.MGD
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Mentok, Your post seems like one of the most honest I've seen from a IDer here. Thank you. I was being sarcastic when I said 'great conversion'. On the subject of argument from authority I'll just add that before Newton, gravity existed. Just because one person (or everyone) believes something doesn't make it true. Science is not democratic. On abiogenesis you are right, it is cutting edge science and there is no theory yet. However there are experiments which show the complex organics rising from simple compounds. (Miller and Urey, Schlesinger and Miller 1983,Chang et al. 1983). Also there is work on autocatalysts plus whether life could have begun deep underground and risen to the surface. Exciting times! Your last paragraph is where the real honesty shines through. It seems as if my first post in this thread was on to somthing, the pretense that ID is not religiously motivated is no longer operative. DaveScot, "predict for me when the next human species will emerge and what features will separate it from h.sapiens." 2:22AM June 14 2490 Seriously, what a banal question. And why not save your answer and snarky comment until after someone's replied? I need to go to work but I'll write more later.jimpressario
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
ID prediction: ID predicts that scientists can culture bacteria for forever plus one day and at the end of the day the bacteria will not have evolved into organisms that are no longer bacteria. Moreover, they can accelerate the mutation rate with chemicals and radiation, they can employ artificial selection to accelerate natural selection, and still at the end of the day there will be nothing that is not still a bacteria. So far that prediction has proven true. It must be very frustrating for evolutionary dogmatists to have their theoretical beliefs shot down in flames by experimental science. I feel your pain.DaveScot
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
doctormark "The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power." Good point, doc. Use evolutionary theory and predict for me when the next human species will emerge and what features will separate it from h.sapiens. What, you can't predict that? The problem I have with evolution is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power. Don't you just love to see people hoist on their own petards? I know I do. :-)DaveScot
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
pressario "Or are you of the mind that God makes each individual flake?" No. Are you of the mind that snowflakes can't be observed forming a pattern because the process happened only one time billions of years ago?DaveScot
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
About the snowflake argument. I haven't read the link you want but I have heard people make a claim that snowflakes show that design can happen by chance. That is very true. In fact if I take some paint and throw it at a canvas I will occasionaly create a design of some sort. But what are the chances of the Mona Lisa coming about by that method? Simple designs can come about by random chance. But the more complex a design is the less chance there is for it to come about by chance. From molecular biologist Michael Denton: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"mentok
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
jimpressario you wrote: "On Flew’s great conversion he said afterwards “I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction” (Carrier 2005)." In fact Flew admits to not being a person who has done much study of science. At first he claimed it was Gerald Schroeder who convinced him of the scientific necessity of God for the explanation of our present circumstances. What's funny is that there is absolutely no credible theory for abiogenesis. Yet people who take argument from authority as their basis for developing their viewpoints care little about actual investigation into the facts of a topic. They seek to win an argument reagrdless of the integrity of their argument. Therefore they will quote anybody as an authority if that argument seems to back up their cause. Abiogenesis has not been proved nor is there even the slightest amount of data to support any type of theory for it. In fact it has been proven in numerous ways for it to be impossible. Even the building blocks of life have never been created in a lab using all the power of the human intellect, what to speak of a cell itself without any guiding hand in ahostile environment. Irreducible complexity proves that abiogenesis goes against common sense. A cell can only be created by another cell. Without DNA a cell cannot come into existence. Yet DNA cannot come into existence without a cell. Therefore abiogenesis is impossble. No matter how many chemicals sit around in some puddle for any amount of time they will never be able to accidentely create a cell. A cell is vastly more complex then a machine like a car, but if I told you that if we wait long enough that a puddle of chemicals will produce a ferrari by random natural forces you would call me mad. Yet you blindly accept that a self replicating machine incalcuably more complex then a car not only came about in that way but it happened repeatedly and created vast quantities of various types of self replicating machines. But for some people common sense is relegated to the trash bin in their disturbed desire to destroy people's faith in God. No amount of rational scientific proof will satiate their demented urge and psychopathic drive to eliminate God from peoples lives. They may claim that what they do and that their driving force is establishing rationality as supreme over all, but in truth they are delusional and what they truly seek is to dominate over others in order to destroy peoples faith in God. They are the God killers and they are proud of it. Yet their intellectual weapons are as feeble as their minds are twisted. They are like spoiled children thowing temper tantrums who cannot see what madness has done to their objectivity.mentok
November 12, 2005
November
11
Nov
12
12
2005
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
jboze3131 Apologies, you are right that I didn't recognize you were quoting me. Are you saying God is testable or that evolution isn't? I hope neither. As you are confused as to what evolution is ('Evolution is DUCKING the issue of origin' is like saying 'The theory of Gravity is suspiciously silent on Architecture'.) I'll cut and paste from an earlier reply. 'Nobody is refusing to look at the origins of life, it’s just that’s NOT evolution. Evolution deals with how life changes once started. Harvard announced in August of this year that it is pledging $1M a year to study life’s origins so it is not being avoided at all, quite the reverse. Science progresses by finding answers to things we do not know.' On Flew's great conversion he said afterwards "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). The're is a habit on this site of claiming arguments have been solved previously with no links or conclusions oranything beyond a dismissive comment. If no-one can link to where my snowflake example 'bit the dust on this blog a long while back' then I have to presume that this never happened. When you say 'i posted a link to their site... ' but don't include the link I have to be a bit sceptical about that as well.jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Now I know some critics have said that Flew's deism or theism is weak and that his support for a God is somewhat tentative and he is also not a qualified scientist so who is he to draw support for God from science? I really don't care what the critics say because the critics are biased who speak in that way. The ardent dogmatic atheist will not accept any scientific evidence for God apart from God introducing himself personally. And as far as I am concerned they are only harming themselves by such attitudes. It's like if someone told you that in the next room there a person with a cure for your incurable disease which leads to immenent death and you refuse to check and see if that is true. The result is that you live in fear of your immenent death seeing nothing ahead for you after death. You live in the prison of your mind sentenced to death due to the kneejerk rejection of any possbility that the universe may have more to offer then a short life and eternal death. A person who tears down the irrational kneejerk antipathy towards the possbility that the universe offers more then what you have experienced in your few years through your little existence on a tiny rock in space is doing him/her self the greatest favor possible. You can live forever in your mind or live on death row. A wise man will want the truth to be in hisown best interest. He will seek truth with an open mind. The fool will cut off his own nose to spite his face. Instead of looking for ways to disprove God it is in your own best interest to do the opposite. You just may be surprised to find yourself to be a part of a living universe which can show you what you need to know if you open up to it rather then fight it's attempts at illuminating your mind to it's presence, within and without you.mentok
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976 From the article: NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.mentok
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
jim- evolution is DUCKING the issue of origins. you cant claim a mechanism when theres no evidence any mechanism could arise from nothing without guidance. and you shouldnt be too quick to laugh at the so-called irony above...i was QUOTING YOUR COMMENTS when you said that god is untestable and outside the realm of science. by that logic, ape to man is also outside the realms of science, because no one has observed or tested any part of it! you said that NO ONE has come to support ID based on the evidence, that they only came out of religious faith. thats either ignorance on your part or a lie. because, i named ONLY two people (i could name others if you want) who came to the conclusion of ID without any religious motives. which, itself, totally destroys your claim that only religious faith brings people to the evidence and support of ID. btw. id probably not use livescience as a link to back your claims in this matter- i posted a link to their site the other day where it proclaimed that evolution is the unguided, purposeless process in which humans came to be, and that evolution also means that there is no god, no afterlife, no purpose for any of this, and that its all an accident. linking to a site thatmakes those bogus non-scientific claims to prove your point that ID is religious and evolution has nothing to say of it is probably a bad idea! (oops!)jboze3131
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
'ask michael denton or anthony flew..' why? Darwin himself could have fallen to his knees and prayed to Allah, doesn't make any difference to the facts of evolution. An argument from authority is no argument at all.jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
'you cant proclaim that all life is the result of a mechanism then refuse to explain how on earth the mechanism could have possible arisen by itself out of nothing!' 'god is untestable, therefore outside the realms of science' excuse me a moment... hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha. Sorry, but that I needed that. I hope you can see the irony. Nobody is refusing to look at the origins of life, it's just that's NOT evolution. Evolution deals with how life changes once started. Harvard announced in August of this year that it is pledging $1M a year to study life's origins so it is not being avoided at all, quite the reverse. Science progresses by finding answers to things we do not know. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050815_ap_life_origin.htmljimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
“What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?” is not changing the subject. If religious people are not bought to ID by their religion, then what? You were the one who said : ‘Many of them [IDists] were convinced first by the evidence’. I ask again, what evidence brings people to ID if not religion faith? ------------- ask michael denton or anthony flew...then learn how to be honest and stop claiming that only the religious find evidence in ID.jboze3131
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Rick Toews : I was dismissed earlier for citing a page from talkorigins.org so excuse me if I don't take your reference to creationist Dean Kenyon and Unlocking the Mystery of Life too seriously. (A quick google tells me the answer he was looking for is a covalent bond, attached by the enzyme DNA polymerase.) avocationist “What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?” is not changing the subject. If religious people are not bought to ID by their religion, then what? You were the one who said : 'Many of them [IDists] were convinced first by the evidence'. I ask again, what evidence brings people to ID if not religion faith? “Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life". Again not changing the subject, just pointing out that when you write 'either we must imagine that matter arose uncaused out of nothingness...or we must imagine that matter is ever-existent' you seem to be arguing against something other than evolution. I bought up the big bang as an example of something you might be confusing evolution with.jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
doctormark you wrote: "The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power. Instead it simply invokes a supernatural agent to explain complicated natural phenomena. In the end we may have to invoke a supernatural agent to explain the origin of life; however, I see no reason why we should not try to take natural explanations for the development of life as far as they can go. Because theories based on natural laws do have predictive power." I disagree. ID predicts that life as we know it will be across the board irreducibly complex, and it is because of that prediction that we can logically conclude that evolution is impossible. Also ID predicts that no intermediary species will be found in the fossil record, that prediction is confirmed by the fossil record to date. Also ID predicts that you will never be able to find how life came into existence because of the simple fact that all life as we know is dependent on a blueprint and a mechanism to process the info in that blueprint and then a mechanism to build the living organism based on that info. Therefore life has to be a product of a design and an intellect. Those mechanisms have to exist in perfect working order in a perfect stable environment in order for life to exist. It is factually impossible for those mechanisms to exist in a working model without being built. Random events in nature follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore life as we know it had to come about due to intelligent design. There is simply to other option. Therefore ID accurately predicts that we will never be able to create life by experiements utilizing random events based on conditions thought to exists billions of years ago on earth. Evolution is not the default position on origins and diversity although it is treated as such by most evolutionists. Just because you feel that ID is not predictive enough that doesn't validate evolutionary theory. Evolution stands or falls on it's own merits not on the merits or demerits of other theories. But evolutionists start from the position that evolution is true and then demand that those who disagree and show why they disagree with evolution must provide an alternative theory in order for their critique of evolution to be valid. doctormark you also wrote: "Similarly, in biology, evolutionary theory has undergone modifications as new data have become available. Is it a perfect theory? Perhaps not. But it does a very good job of predicting the outcome of some rather sophisticated controlled experiments, and at explaining some rather complicated changes in species with time." A one legged dog can still survive but I wouldn't put money on him to win a race. The glaring huge gaping bleeding wounds to the theory of evolution cannot be fixed with a band-aid. Whenever I hear evolutionists claim that the current theory on evolution may be faulty but that those faults don't disqualify it as a viable theory immediately I know that the person who holds such views is not educated on the arguments against evolution. Evolution is impossible regardless of how may predictions you think it provides in controlled experiments. You may want to read up on the arguments against evolution. The best place that I have found on the web is http://darwinismrefuted.com The author has brought together all or most of the current arguments agaisnt evolution that have been put forth by various scientists and arranges all of the info in a succinct and orderly fashion. I recommend you read that first before making any more assumptions about ID and evolution.mentok
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
btw... "God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science" god is untestable, therefore outside the realms of science...yet bacteria to fish to mammals to ape to man is also untestable and unobservable, but its NOT outside the realm of science? convenient!jboze3131
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
‘Mud to man’????? You seem to be comfusing evolution with something else (abiogenesis?) Evolution is silent on the subject of the origin of life. -------------- that is the most ridiculous argument darwinists ever come up with. OF COURSE evolution deals with the origin of life...you cant proclaim that all life is the result of a mechanism then refuse to explain how on earth the mechanism could have possible arisen by itself out of nothing! for evolution to get started, you have to first posit the very first life- to do that, you have to complete write a hypothetical narrative of how this single celled life came about, and how it could possibly be SO simple as to even arise and then complicated enough to eventually transform into the next life form one step high...and then up one more level, finally up to human beings. you cant claim humans are the result of evolution then proclaim that you dont have touch the subject of origins! no other field of science would allow scientissts to duck this very big issue (and very big problem)!jboze3131
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
'lo Jim, "What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by?" But you have changed the subject. You said that ID people are motivated by religion first, and fit the facts to it. In many cases, it is the opposite. And some people believe in God and not intelligent design. "God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science " I would not deny it is subjective, but it is not outside logic, and I hold the hope that it is not outside science. We do not know what science may be able to test one day, but we do know that science can detect many things now that were utterly impossible in the past. I believe in God for two reasons. The first is a subjective, intuitive 'faith' type thing, which is much weaker than the second reason, which is that of logic, which argument I gave you. "Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life. Are you arguing against the Big Bang here?" Again, you change the subject. You had stated that belief in God kicks the problem down the road, for we must find out who designed the designer. I explained. Now, if evolution is so very silent on existence itself, and life itself, then why all the hubris? Why so many atheists? Why do so many books say that even though various evolution theories had been kicked around, that Darwin 'solved' the problem of where life came from, and did away with the need of a God? Why would I argue against the Big Bang? It is certainly interesting, that is, why some scientists might not agree with it (I'm a layperson) but I can't see why it matters if there was a big bang or not.avocationist
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
"I disagree, snowflakes look designed but have no designer." Snowflakes look designed? I know this is a suggestion that's been brought out a time or two ;-), and it looks as though responses have been presented--such as by avocationist, above. I remember hearing Dean Kenyon (in Unlocking the Mystery of Life) relating his unsuccessful attempts to find a property of nucleotides that would cause them to tend to come together to form DNA. On the other hand, as pointed out, snowflakes can readily be explained by the "propensity for certain molecules to form crystalized patterns." There's also the difference of information. DNA is coded. It's not a pattern that can be expressed mathematically. It's like the difference between this sentence and a sequence of letters: ABCBABCBABCBA. The one carries meaning, while the other--even though certainly a pattern that conforms to a rule--does not. "Of course there’s also the problem of just kicking the problem down the road: who designed the designer?" This one has also been dealt with before; however, why is the fact that acknowledging design may lead to more difficult questions relevant? If the design is real--and we have every reason to conclude it is--this reality is not altered by possibly uncomfortable questions that must follow that recognition.Rick Toews
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Dear Mentok, I appreciate the fact that Wegener's hypothesis about continental drift did not gain immediated acceptance. But I think the history of continental drift and plate tectonics actually proves my point. Initially, there was relatively little evidence to support the theory so there was relatively little support for it among scientists. But science is an ongoing process, and eventually the evidence in favor of plate tectonics gradually accumulated and Wegener's initial speculations were found to be justified. In my own field of physics the initial receptions to quantum theory, and relativity theory were quite cool among many physicists. But again as the data supporting the theory piled up acceptance followed. In the case of quantum mechanics the initial primitive versions of the theory made predictions that only partially agreed with the experimental data. But as more data was accumulated it became clear that quantum ideas were pointing in a promising direction, and modifications were made to the theory that helped it become exceptionally powerful in terms of predicting the behavior of nature at the molecular and sub-molecular level. Similarly, in biology, evolutionary theory has undergone modifications as new data have become available. Is it a perfect theory? Perhaps not. But it does a very good job of predicting the outcome of some rather sophisticated controlled experiments, and at explaining some rather complicated changes in species with time. The problem I have with ID is that it is a theory that has little or no predictive power. Instead it simply invokes a supernatural agent to explain complicated natural phenomena. In the end we may have to invoke a supernatural agent to explain the origin of life; however, I see no reason why we should not try to take natural explanations for the development of life as far as they can go. Because theories based on natural laws do have predictive power.doctormark
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
jaredl,please link. A search of 'snowflake' yields no results.jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Avocationist What is the evidence that IDers were convinced by? God may be apparent to you, but that is subjective, untestable and outside the realms of science (except maybe physcology, anthropology etc, perhaps I should say it's outside the realms of Biology and Zoology). Human being are a long, long way from crystals, but these creatures are not. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/radiolaria/radmm.html Evolution is the process over time by which we get from such organisms to multi-cellular complex organisms like you and me. Evolution does not deal with matter from non-matter, or life from non-life. Are you arguing against the Big Bang here?jimpressario
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
The snowflake example bit the dust on this blog a long while back. It hits the necessity node of the explanatory filter.jaredl
November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply