Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
That's like saying 'to the extent that my cay plays Chopin Minuets'. ID has yet to perform the actions you cite.
Intelligent designers are not by definition omnipotent or able to do just anything. They may be bound by physical laws.
Yet no ID proponent has offered the slightest clue how the 'designer' would execute their design using known physical processes. They just wave their hands faster and faster.
Nope. It could easily be explained away as an anomaly, much as when an old spark plug is found embedded in rocks that date "millions" of years old.
Nonsense. If human remains were found in strata that had reliably dated to the Jurassic it would be major news.
I just ran into a nice definition in Science News, Vol. 168, Nos. 26 & 27, p. 414:
What is intelligent design?It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.
Bruce Bower
Even when one looks at an automobile and assumes all automobiles are intelligently designed, he does not make claims about it origins, who designed it, why it was designed the way it was, etc. To observe entities that are intelligible, quantifiable, objective etc. is not necessrily to make claims about its origins.
If your designer can do anything and everything . . .
As I said, the potentials do not define the designer. Potentials do not necessitate actions. Just because Rembrandt could do a painting like Pollack does not mean Rembrandt must refrain from emulating Pollack to show himself Rembrandt. Besides, omnipotence is not a qualification for intelligent design.
Cute. Why is it that the opponents of intelligent design seem so incapable of positing the slightest serious definition of it? One would think it to be a ghost or vampire in their view; as if the very notion were alien to human reason and definition. I don't suppose it is a certain lack of objectivity, do you?
Not quite. Both your cat and Chopin Minuets are intelligently designed, but they are not designed to interface in such a way that the latter would normally be subject to the former. Now, your cat could probably listen to Chopin's Minuets, but not if neither the cat nor the Minuets were intelligently designed.
Yet no ID proponent has offered the slightest clue how the 'designer' would execute their design using known physical processes.
That's what science is uncovering all the time. Where have you been?
If human remains were found in strata that had reliably dated to the Jurassic it would be major news.
For a little while, perhaps. But then we'd just wave the evidence away as an anomaly. "It only happened once." "It's only anecdotal." "The human bones were planted there by those dastardly creationists."
Perhaps you're referring the Council of Trent and the Index of Prohibited Books?
One class of prohibited book was bibles in the vernacular, the justification being " ... that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, ...".
Accepting the Bible is true and the translation is faithful, regardless, a bible in the common language would undermine the authority of the Church.
Sermons and tracts in the common language were permitted (with permission of the bishop), but bibles had to be the Latin Vulgate.
But that is not what I said. I said omnipotence is not a requirement for intelligent design. Again, the fact that an intelligent designer has the potential to do something or not do something has no bearing on whether or not we are dealing with an intelligent designer in the first place.
The presence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of intelligent design. The absence of organized matter may be reasonably interpreted as an indicator of unintelligent non-design. Organized matter happens to be a large part objective reality. In every case it may be interpreted as supporting the assumption of intelligent design. In fact, in every case that human reason and senses are able to apprehend reality, the case for intelligent design is strengthened, for intelligent design by its very nature entails intelligibility.
Now, if someone wants to come along and say in the name of science that organized matter, or intelligible phenomena, cannot reasonably be interpreted as evidence intelligent design, and say so without offering a viable alternative, I would say the case is very strong for that person to be an ideologue or philosopher, but not a scientist. For that person will be denying the objective reality that is offered up for science to explore in the first place.
No, this was a contemporay setting. And to be honest, I can't remember if I read it or heard it during a Christian program. I believe I read it. But this was some 10 or 15 years ago.
They say the second thing to go is the memory and I forget the first.
How do you know? Couldn't there just be one tiny little smidgeon of a black hole over which the intelligent designer has no control; of which the intelligent designer has not the slightest awareness? Furthermore, how do you know the designer of the universe is not human?
. . . that organized matter is a result of unintelligent design.
I consider organized matter and nonintelligent (better word) design to be mutually exclusive entities. The two cannot co-exist, therefore I do not consider this to be a viable alternative. The point at which intelligent design ceases is the point at which science ceases.
I see we've entered FesterWorld again; I haven't the slightest idea how to parse this gibberish.
It basically means your cat was not designed to write or perform Chopin Minuets. If it ever does either one please let me know so I can add that phenomenon to the ever growing evidences for intelligent design.
Bellarmine was a brilliant intellectual and a patron of Galileo, who was interested in his work and encouraged it. I seem to remember he had died by the time the Galileo affair achieved critical mass. But that's not to say that he would have been in a position to come to Galileo's defense, were he then living. The Roman Church is not a democracy: the Pope -- who stands in the place of Christ on earth -- is sole authority. The College of Cardinals may propose, but only the Pope may "dispose."
Plus you neglect to discuss the historical context of l'affaire Galileo: This was during a time when the Roman Church was asserting its authority against the encroachments of Reformed Christianity, the great achievement of Luther and Calvin. Interestingly enough, the Reformed Church has strong democratic elements. But I digress.
Bottom line, the Galileo trial was, at least in part, a political exercise, and not so much a resolution of an intellectual dispute. It seems that Galileo was (unfortunately) a pawn used in the Church's counter-reformation strategy.
You must remember that religion and church institutions are not the same thing, and ought not to be conflated. All church institutions are human institutions, and are thus prone to error. There have been some exacrable popes. There have been charlatans in many religious confessions. But then there have been magnificent, faithful popes, such as the late John-Paul II, who have suffered genuinely to take up Christ's Cross for the good of their fellow members in the Body of Christ.
As my dear friend hosepipe has said, Christ did not come to establish a religion; He came to establish a family under God.
It remains to be said that the American Founding was specifically Calvinist in philosophy, not Catholic. Indeed, Catholics in America were held in deep suspicion, right up to quite recent times. Indeed, JFK's Catholicism was a burning issue in the Presidential Campaign of 1960. Many Americans of Reformed persuasion felt that he could not be trusted as president, because of his supposed primary allegience to the Pope (who is the sovereign of a sovereign nation, the Vatican). But he squeaked out an election victory all the same (thanks to voter fraud in Chicago and Texas :^) ); and anti-Catholic sentiment began to die down from that time forward.
The last thing I'd like to point out is one doesn't have to be Catholic to be a faithful Christian. Or even "churched," necessarily.
FWIW. Thanks ever so much for writing, Patrick!
Lovely display; loving, factual, tolerant, yet not wishy washy.. A marvelous example to follow or even lead with..
For a very specific reason the biblical texts denote a particular time in history known as "the fullness of time," the designer of the universe assumed human flesh while at the same time remaining designer of the universe. The biblical texts also specifically denote human attributes in the designer of the universe from the very beginning, including such things as intelligence, speech, hearing, smell, anger, love, even physical parts such as arms, nose, and eyes.
What is more, the biblical texts hardly proclaim the human nature of the designer of the universe to be an insulting or degrading idea, but in fact exult in this very thing, calling it the "glory of God" at the very hour He sheds blood and undergoes a human death.
Frankly, when it comes to science, things couldn't get much more human. So, from the standpoint of people like myself who accept the biblical texts as being in agreement with science and reason, it stands to reason that there is a human element in the designer of the universe. It also stands to reason that intelligent design would permeate the designer's handiwork. It is no wonder there is so much organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. It is all intelligently designed.
Someone wants to make natural selection and random mutations the be-all and end-all of real science? Fine. I'll even let them teach it in public school. But the rest of the world is not obligated sit idly by and watch the state establish only, and principally, atheistic science by law in the public schools. That is prohibited by our Constitution.
But you also said that both could be created by the designer.
These are the two possibilities I might attribute to a designer that is omnipotent: 1.) organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws, and 2.) unorganized matter that does not behave according to predictable laws (possible, but highly unlikely). Notably absent from this list is the notion of organized matter that is non-intelligently designed - an illogical, mutually exclusive dual concept that someone else might want to entertain, but not one I've suggested.
As for the first possibility on my list, the intelligent designer who organizes matter for various purposes does not even have to be omnipotent.
Yes. That is why I refrain from promoting notions that are contrary to the biblical texts, and why I consider any practice that by definition considers God outside of its purview to be atheistic in nature. Atheistic means "no God allowed" or, "God not allowed in science." If I were a liar I would call something that is atheistic "agnostic." I'm not into lies and half-truths. I don't have to come up with a fancy philosophy masquerading as science to attribute organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws to "unguided causes" or an airborne pasta critter.
But I'll gladly let those who feel a need to assuage themselves and others with such notions speak their piece in a public school. Really. It needs to be heard so reasonable people can judge for themselves what makes the most sense.
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.