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

Skip to comments.

The End of Intelligent Design?
First Things ^ | February 9, 2010 | Stephen Barr

Posted on 02/09/2010 3:15:53 PM PST by cornelis

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: jonno
I was using the dictionary definition: a Protestant movement emphasizing the literal infallibility of the Bible.

But you are right, there does seem to be some negative connotations what with the speaking in tongues and handling snakes.

41 posted on 02/09/2010 5:02:13 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
ID does not reject evolution. It rejects pointlessness.

I agree with you...most YEC...uhm...types...would not.

42 posted on 02/09/2010 5:37:16 PM PST by NucSubs ( Cognitive dissonance: Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between beliefs and actions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

Amen brother. The canard that evolution = atheist is asinine and counterproductive.


43 posted on 02/09/2010 5:38:32 PM PST by NucSubs ( Cognitive dissonance: Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between beliefs and actions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
...speaking in tongues and handling snakes...

Wow - if you think those are "odd", then holding to a "creator of the universe" or a "raiser of the dead" must be off the charts - right?

8^)

44 posted on 02/09/2010 5:41:08 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

“You’re not supposed to...”

That was the point of “Theory in search of evidence”.

Wereas Evolution makes wild assumptions based on incredibly impossible odds all breaking in favor of the theory and all occuring across a innumerable manner of species.


45 posted on 02/09/2010 5:46:50 PM PST by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

As for speaking in tongues or handling snakes, in my view they are just an exploration of various people’s faith.

Of course when the snake bites the handler one has to wonder what message that sends..:>)


46 posted on 02/09/2010 5:49:14 PM PST by padre35 (You shall not ignore the laws of God, the Market, the Jungle, and Reciprocity Rm10.10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jonno
"if you think those are odd"

It not what I think, it is what society thinks. And you just don't find many churches where they are speaking in tongues and handling snakes.

47 posted on 02/09/2010 6:04:03 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
It not what I think, it is what society thinks

So society thinks thinks that "speaking in tongues and handling snakes" is odd, but creating the universe and raising the dead are within the realm of possibility?

48 posted on 02/09/2010 6:10:44 PM PST by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cizinec

Best post I’ve ever read on an ID/CREVO thread. Bravo.


49 posted on 02/09/2010 6:23:13 PM PST by NucSubs ( Cognitive dissonance: Conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between beliefs and actions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Well sure, everyone believes in raising the dead. That is why that movie, Night of the Living Dead, was so popular.

Since you seem to be an authority, maybe you can explain why those that have been raised from the dead drag one foot and hold their arms out in front as they slow walk?

50 posted on 02/09/2010 7:05:27 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
How does one, scientifically, determine the difference between a random occurrence that was a coincidence and a random occurrence that was directed by God?

If it was directed by God -- or anyone -- it wasn't random.

All ID does is say that certain observed natural events perfectly match the markers by which we know objects are designed.

51 posted on 02/09/2010 8:16:18 PM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NucSubs
ID doesn't really rebut a Young Earth.

It just doesn't rebut an Old Earth (or Evolution) either.

No dog in the fight :-)

52 posted on 02/09/2010 8:19:31 PM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cizinec

Good post :-)


53 posted on 02/09/2010 8:20:42 PM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
No, ID posits that the universe was incompetently designed and that direct intervention was needed for things to develop the way they did. This is a theological position, not a scientific one. And events like a dice roll or game of chance we cannot help but perceive as random, but do you really thing anything escapes the guiding hand of God?
54 posted on 02/09/2010 9:03:05 PM PST by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
No, ID posits that the universe was incompetently designed

ID does not posit that and to say the design is incompetent is making a theological -- and very, very silly -- claim.

55 posted on 02/10/2010 5:01:52 AM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
ID absolutely claims that the physical laws the “designer” put into place were insufficient for life to develop without direct intervention by the “designer”.

This is a theological assumption, not a scientific one, and I agree, it is a rather silly one.

The assumption of science is that physical laws are both necessary and sufficient to explain physical phenomena.

The entire hypothesis of ID is that the physical laws of reality are NOT sufficient to explain the physical phenomena of the development of life on Earth; thus they posit that the “designer” had to directly intervene.

56 posted on 02/10/2010 6:53:18 AM PST by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
ID absolutely claims that the physical laws the “designer” put into place were insufficient for life to develop without direct intervention by the “designer”.

No. ID claims that things that are designed have distinct characteristics and if these characteristics are contained in an object the inference of design should be made.

Life has these characteristics hence it should be inferred life is designed.

Neither the designer nor the means of design are not addressed. There is no supernatural involved.

You, however, seem to be claiming that the laws of physics are sufficient for the development of life. Can you show how life occurred using the laws of physics?

If you can't, how is accepting this not a statement of faith and how is demanding the claim not be questioned not the imposition of a theological dogma?

57 posted on 02/10/2010 7:05:19 AM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bruinator

“I have a faith in Jesus Christ, and that was my point.”

Amen, brother, and that’s what matters.


58 posted on 02/10/2010 7:07:06 AM PST by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Because the operating assumption of science is that the laws of reality are sufficient to explain reality.

That is not a theological assumption, it is the only basis upon which science can perform or advance.

If everything that developed according to natural laws is designed, wouldn't everything in the universe have these distinct characteristics?

What wouldn't have these distinct characteristics of being designed?

What in this universe are you saying was NOT designed by God?

59 posted on 02/10/2010 7:13:01 AM PST by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Because the operating assumption of science is that the laws of reality are sufficient to explain reality.

1. Actually, it's not. If you want an example as to why your understanding if flawed think of thermodynamics

2. What "law of reality" says life can't be designed?

60 posted on 02/10/2010 9:26:52 AM PST by Tribune7 (Obama Is An Obstructionist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

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