Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What's your source for this "fact"?
Same way it always has proceeded. Ignore evidence. Make up arguments from improbability. Accuse biologists of being Nazis. Collect book royalties.
OK, discussion over until you do some historical research on Newton, Bohr, Bacon, Farday, Boyle, etc.
What did they do that required an assumption of intelligent creation?
The evos look at fossils and attempt to extrapolate plausible history. By “evos” I mean those who adhere to macroevolution. I think its safe to say that we have reached a consensus on both sides to accept microevolution (fka adaptation.) The ID people look at mathematical probabilities of designs of similar complexity arriving by chance.
How many areas of scientific inquiry does it arise in, where the designer in question is a diety?
If it was just a matter of a disagreement over whether it was verifiably random or possibly directed, it might be easier. A quick read of the threads should tell you that's not nearly all there is to it.
Had to read it a few times, but I can only disagree on one point. God did not keep His purposes secret, and He did not conceal Himself from us any more than an architect is concealed from those that live in his buildings.
Gonzales’ Privileged Planet is an exploration of the Bible’s phrase of the heavens reveal Your glory.
However, as I understand it, ID does not specify a deity. Panspermia, or the belief that life came from outer space, is one of several ID theories. Other ID theorists don't go so far as to postulate the source of the intelligent design. Obviously, ID opens the door to those who believe in a creator God, but does not dictate that the intelligent designer must be God.
Stein presents that as one of the opposing viewpoints to ID, or at least not something that's apparently to be seriously considered as a legitimate example of ID.
Forgive my poor form but I was asking a question, as in,’ Has God kept his purposes secret?’ as part of a line of reasoning leading to either belief in God as a creator or rejection of the questions in favor of atheism.
Do I think He has hidden Himself? Of course not. But thanks for pointing out that my composing skills are about a D grade. mea culpa!
If we're going to give it "equal consideration" in academia, then they should be able to add collecting research grants, and getting paid to tour the lecture circuit and prostheletize. I don't see them spending much time in the lab.
——But if I accept that there is a an intelligent creator who is the not the higher power but the highest power then I might ask why He created anything in the first place, then has he kept His purposes secret, then if not where can I find the answers, then what part do I play in God’s purposes, what does He expect, demand of me?——
In this physical life, all we are commanded to do is love the Lord and love thy neighbor as thyself. If we can pass this simple test, maybe God has much more in store for us. It seems He just wants us to focus on this simple task now, which some of us just can’t handle.
Happily for us God hasn’t kept Himself and purposes secret from us. He’s even explained how are to show our love of Him and neighbor.
I posed some logical questions that are answered in the Bible.
——Happily for us God hasn’t kept Himself and purposes secret from us. He’s even explained how are to show our love of Him and neighbor.
I posed some logical questions that are answered in the Bible.——
Well that’ll teach me to jump into the middle of a conversation(maybe)...lol
Amen and carry on.
I agree with you in part. I saw the movie, and it certainly appeared Stein did not take Panspermia seriously. I can’t put my finger on it, but I cam away with the impression that Stein believes God is the creator. Nonetheless, I don’t remember him saying that directly.
However, I have heard some ID theorists include Panspermia as one possible type of intelligent desgign, especially when distinguishing ID from creationism. ID theorists do not assume who, or what, the intelligent designer might be. (Of course, they all might hold personal beliefs as to who or what that designer would be, but this is not assumed under that theory.)
On the other hand, as I understand, at least some Panspermists (if that is even a word) will tell you that theirs is a third separate theory, partially because they do not want to be know as being members of the ID camp. (They’d probably lose their jobs if they did that.)
That's one of the reasons I think the movie is providing more heat than light. The movie leaves the impression that if it isn't being taught as an explicitly theistic philosophy, it isn't really ID. The ID proponents will submit on the surface that it's not about religion, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the only acceptable "designer" they'll accept is their own personal God.
——Panspermists——
Is that anything like ectoplasm? lol
Knowing the identity of the designer isn't a predicate to detecting that something was designed.
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.