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

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" not science: Vatican paper
Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | 01/19/06 | Tom Heneghan

Posted on 01/19/2006 1:33:32 PM PST by peyton randolph

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion...

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; creationisminadress; dover; fsm; id; idiocy; idisjunkscience; ignoranceisstrength; science; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-606 next last
To: Elsie
Just couldn't read a little bit further into the speciation examples, huh.

I was just mentioning creationist tactics and you obligingly provide this wonderful example.

451 posted on 01/20/2006 7:56:04 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

One main argument for a heliocentric system is that one can have the law "things further out move slower than those closer in." This law fails in a geocentric system.


452 posted on 01/20/2006 8:47:42 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
1. Best Bond Girl. All of them. Err ... Jane Seymour.
2. Best Bond movie. Live and Let Die
3. Greatest name. (besides Jane Seymour?) Honey Rider.
453 posted on 01/20/2006 9:38:33 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to lie - joebucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: jec41
My favorite is Greek Mythology. Those Gods could fly, screw who they wanted to, intervene in anyones life, and the big guy carried a hammer and beat the heck out of anyone who did not obey.

Don't forget the lightning bolts.

454 posted on 01/20/2006 10:23:17 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to lie - joebucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Was Paul WRONG about this???

Yes.

Paul is wrong on so many things, it's amazing that he's even considered a Christian.

455 posted on 01/20/2006 11:01:57 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to lie - joebucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Well, if you dispute speciation, then at least we can agree on rejecting the Noah story as babyish nonsense (I originally typed childish, before I remembered that most children see through the story easily by around the age of 8). Even if we disagree on almost everything else.


456 posted on 01/20/2006 11:57:22 PM PST by Thatcherite (More abrasive blackguard than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
One main argument for a heliocentric system is that one can have the law "things further out move slower than those closer in." This law fails in a geocentric system.

I may be wrong, but this is rather like my understanding of the parallax argument someone raised earlier -- "If earth's orbit didn't have this particular diameter, then that star wouldn't be x lightyears away."

Yes, everything we've figured out after we had a solar system theory is consistent with the solar system, but I don't know if that proves the solar system. I guess what I'm struggling to say is that we can start with observed data and reach great conclusions, but does the reasoning work backwards? Do the conclusions somehow validate the original observations?

I know my limitations, and I shouldn't argue an issue like this with you, as you're quite likely to blow me away with something of which I'm unaware.

457 posted on 01/21/2006 3:41:44 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: linear
You hit on my pet peeve. Idiots around here think evolution has to do with the creation or the origins of life.

It's like you tell someone you are painting your house, and they tell you that that's impossible - because you can't build a house.

Never said I was "building" or "creating" anything. I'm only changing what already exists.

I sure wish the flat-earthers around here would give some thought to the concept. Evolution does not negate God. It's that simple

458 posted on 01/21/2006 3:48:47 AM PST by KeepUSfree (WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Upon reflection, your argument is a good one, but only if you recast it in this form:
If and only if p, then q.
And we have q;
Therefore p.
Otherwise, it would be a classic fallacy: "If p then q; and q; therefore p."

So your point may be spot on, depending ...

459 posted on 01/21/2006 4:03:01 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The only evidence going for it is the theological claim . . .

Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims. What makes you think such things are inherently "religious?" Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

A government school is not a public forum.

I said public "context." Public schools are paid for by people from all walks of life. The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis. Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports.

I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools.

Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?" You must believe people to be weak-minded. Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas. You are not arguing for free inquiry, but against it. You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house. Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."

460 posted on 01/21/2006 5:08:02 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
" Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims."

The point is we have NO IDEA why things exist the way they do. Saying that it's a designer/God is a theological, not a scientific claim.

"Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

Gay jeans argument.

" I said public "context."

*Public context* could mean anything. A gevernment school is not a street corner. The children there can not just walk out and leave. While they are there, they are at the mercy of whoever is teaching.

" The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis."

The law prohibits them from establishing religion. Teaching ID (a theological claim) is an establishment of religion.

"Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports."

No, they are obligated to teach NO religious viewpoints. Any teaching of a religious viewpoint as true is an establishment of religion.

" Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?"

When you have children as captive audiences in your class and you start teaching them a theological claim, you are indoctrinating them.

"Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas."

That's your view. You think people need to be taught theology, your theology, and it burns you inside that they can't be because of a Constitution you despise.

"You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house."

A government run school can ONLY teach non-theistic claims. You have it totally backwards (as usual).

"Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."

The Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion disagrees with you. It's precisely because the public is paying for these schools that any theological claims have to be curtailed. When you pay for the school with private monies, you can teach any religious view you wish. Not with public money.
461 posted on 01/21/2006 5:33:42 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Doesn't the ToE say that just ONE change, being propagated, is what is responsible for all the diversity today?

No.

462 posted on 01/21/2006 5:45:08 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The point is we have NO IDEA why things exist the way they do. Saying that it's a designer/God is a theological, not a scientific claim.

BS. When we come acrioss a humanly designed artifact we have at least some idea why it exists the way it does. As I said, there is nothing inherently "religious" about organized matter that serves a purpose, whether we know it is humanly organized or not. You've built yourself a nice straw man. Hold it tight.

Teaching ID (a theological claim) is an establishment of religion.

Please specify which religion is established by suggesting that organized matter that behaves according to laws may be the result of intelligent design. You have thuosands to choose from, none of which the governement may favor. Please explain to me how such a religion is established when the non-theistic points of evolution are also allowed at the same time. It has always been my contention that both points of view should be presented to the "captive" audience. That has not been your contention. You are not the champion of free inquiry you paint yourself to be.

A government run school can ONLY teach non-theistic claims.

You've swallowed a lie and become its mouthpiece. The public is made up of both secular and religious people. Does that fact escape you?

463 posted on 01/21/2006 5:49:47 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew (Charter member of the Christian Church of Organized Matter and Laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Are we supposed to limit our beliefs to only what the Bible says?


464 posted on 01/21/2006 5:55:51 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"When we come acrioss a humanly designed artifact we have at least some idea why it exists the way it does."

The universe is not a human artifact, so alas, we have no weighted evidence to say there was or wasn't a designer of it.

"As I said, there is nothing inherently "religious" about organized matter that serves a purpose, whether we know it is humanly organized or not."

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem. Any claims for (or against) such a designer are not scientific but theological.

"Please specify which religion is established by suggesting that organized matter that behaves according to laws may be the result of intelligent design."

The State Religion.

"Please explain to me how such a religion is established when the non-theistic points of evolution are also allowed at the same time."

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

"It has always been my contention that both points of view should be presented to the "captive" audience."

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children. Fund your own school.

"That has not been your contention. You are not the champion of free inquiry you paint yourself to be."

No, I am a champion of free inquiry; I am not a champion of the Government teaching theology. You are free to inquire about what ever you wish Fester, you are not free to force someone else's children to be taught your every whim.

"The public is made up of both secular and religious people. Does that fact escape you?"

No, it escapes you though. It is because of the wide range of theological views that people hold privately that the government cannot favor any. You can't get your theology to be taken seriously as science (a label you crave for your claim but whose methods you despise because it excludes your theology) so you want to force schools to teach it anyway.
465 posted on 01/21/2006 6:10:02 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I hate to admit it, but the creationists do seem to have thrown out the most insults so far in this thread. (at post 330)
Post 330???


Hi Elsie!
I had only gotten to post 330 at that point. The night before it was much closer. I hate to see the creationsist throw swipes. Makes Godly people look bad.
466 posted on 01/21/2006 6:20:54 AM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: KeepUSfree
You hit on my pet peeve. Idiots around here think evolution has to do with the creation or the origins of life.

I was taught in science class how life began from nothing, and evolved all the way to where we are today (This was almost 40 years ago). I was taught this as one complete system...evolution. It appears either that the origin of life has been separated from evolution by teachers, scientists, etc. since that time, or that my teacher was teaching something he was not supposed to link.
467 posted on 01/21/2006 6:33:13 AM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem.

It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological." Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law.

The State Religion

This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all. The federal government is prohibited from establishing Southern Baptist teachings, for example as a state religion. Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas. There are not even by necessity theological ideas. Besides, allowing for the teaching of ID is not "establishing" a religion. Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught.

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration. That is taking a position about God. It is taking a non-theistic shaping principle, which is fine. But it is not the only way to understand or explain the existence of a wide variety of species, or organized matter that behaves according to laws.

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children.

As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological. It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design? Furthermore, you obviously do not trust people to think for themselves. You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear. In that regard you are more superstitious than creationists.

Fund your own school.

That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools. Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions. You and your children will be smarter, better bred, morally superior, and free from having to think about troubling notions like intelligent design. You'll have all those high paying jobs and be free of all superstition and religion. Go for it!

468 posted on 01/21/2006 6:38:39 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological.""

Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God. Any such claims are necessarily theological.

"Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law."

No, theological claims are specifically excluded from government schools by law.

"This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all."

ID is not a generic summary of all religions; it's a specific theological claim.

"Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas."

Organized matter is not ID. ID is a religious claim.

" Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration."

No, it really doesn't. It may rule YOUR interpretation of God out (YEC), but that's your problem. Evolution like all science does not take a stand as to the existence or nonexistence of a God.

" As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological."

This is false.

"It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design?"

Because we do not know who, what, or how the designer is/does it's designing. We have no way of knowing this. Any claims that we do are theological in nature, not scientific.

"You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." "

That's a lie. I equate free inquiry with the right to explore whatever you want, on your own dime.

"You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear."

One is scientific, the other is theological. You are the one being irrational.

"Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions."

All science does that already. For centuries now. You want to go back to the time before Galileo and Newton.

" That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools."

I will still be paying for your religious teaching in the public schools. Nobody should have to pay for another person's religious instruction.
469 posted on 01/21/2006 7:03:20 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God.

It most certainly does. The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself. Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?

470 posted on 01/21/2006 7:18:10 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: kenboy

It is interesting that a Catholic school would teach that God is stupid, rather than intelligent.


471 posted on 01/21/2006 7:58:56 AM PST by Theo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jcb8199
He persisted in teaching as fact that which he could not prove, without doubt, was fact. It is for that reason that he got in trouble.

How long exactly did it take the Church to admit its mistake?

If "proof was all the Church was after", as you claimed, surely they admitted their error immediately once the proof was offered, right?

How long did that take, again?

472 posted on 01/21/2006 9:00:54 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"It most certainly does."

No, science cannot deal with untestable assumptions. By definition. Otherwise, it would be a useless epistemological tool. Anything and everything could be called *scientific* if you could include untestable claims. It's understandable why you wish to change the definition of science, since your claims aren't testable. You are desperate to have your claims be called science, because you know that that will make your claims sound more prestigious. Yet you despise what science really is. If right wing post-modernists (as opposed to the more well known left wing types) like you succeed though, science will have the same connotations as *unfounded guess* and will have the same prestige as astrology and ESP. The prestige you wish to expropriate will have been destroyed. It will be a Pyrrhic victory.

"The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself."

No it isn't. It's a fact. It's tested every time someone tries to introduce a non-natural, non-observable subject into science. Since these subjects can't be tested, and testing is a fundamental part of what science is, the proposition that science can only observe natural phenomena is supported each time this happens.

"Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?"

It's a metaphysical reality. Science, by definition, does not deal with the untestable. No matter what you WISH science to be.
473 posted on 01/21/2006 11:39:17 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
If this debate goes on ...
474 posted on 01/21/2006 11:51:34 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I think you need one of these :)


475 posted on 01/21/2006 12:01:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
It has become clear that you neither know the definition of science nor its limitations. Science must begin with untestable assumptions. In certain fields it makes testable claims, but it seldom, if ever, arrives at objective proofs. Testable claims are not what define science, but are only a small part of it. Likewise, science cannot take place with only theories and data. It must also have shaping principles. In your case one of them happens to be non-theism, but non-thesim is not testable. By your own requirements for science you have negated the capacity to honestly engage in it yourself.

You say that the statement "science can only observe natural phenomenon" is a "fact," but you have not proposed a way to test that very statement. You just stomp your feet and insist it is a "fact," but it is a fact only in your head. It reveals precisely what your biases are, and also explains why you give credence to philosophies that call themselves science.

Your notion of what constitutes science is as old and subject to error as that of Francis Bacon.
476 posted on 01/21/2006 12:12:16 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
"Paul is wrong on so many things..."

(shhhhh!...you'll disturb the coma)

"...it's amazing that he's even considered a Christian."

Why wouldn't he?

He invented Christianity by paganizing the teachings of Jesus.

477 posted on 01/21/2006 12:49:42 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught."

I don't grasp the concept of a non-religious understanding of ID.

478 posted on 01/21/2006 1:01:00 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"It has become clear that you neither know the definition of science nor its limitations."

That's a joke right? You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations. ANY claim can be science to you. You have redefined science as you have most other terms you use.

" Science must begin with untestable assumptions."

Absolute horse manure. It HAS to start with testable propositions, or else science isn't competent to say anything useful about the claim. What the hell is the use of making a claim you can't test?

"In certain fields it makes testable claims, but it seldom, if ever, arrives at objective proofs."

In EVERY field it makes testable claims. Being testable is not the same as being provable. Science never arrives at proof.

"Testable claims are not what define science, but are only a small part of it."

Testability is a fundamental part of what science is. Always has been. Always will be. Without being able to test your claim, it's cannot by definition be science.

"Likewise, science cannot take place with only theories and data. It must also have shaping principles."

Yes, there are metaphysical realities that must be obeyed. One is that untestable claims are outside of science. Untestable claims, because they are untestable, have no usefulness. Again, testable does not mean provable.

"In your case one of them happens to be non-theism, but non-thesim is not testable."

Non-theism isn't a claim about the natural world. It's a necessary starting position for scientific pursuits, because theistic claims, for or against, are untestable.

"You say that the statement "science can only observe natural phenomenon" is a "fact," but you have not proposed a way to test that very statement."

How do you study something that isn't natural or observable? How do you study something that isn't testable? You keep wanting to have untestable, unobservable claims to be a part of science, yet you have NEVER provided ANY means of doing so.

" Your notion of what constitutes science is as old and subject to error as that of Francis Bacon."

So, now you are against science as it has been practiced for the last 400 years. Let's make a catalog of all the successes that science has had in the last 400 years following my assumptions, and let's see what your position has accomplished. Put up or shut up.
479 posted on 01/21/2006 1:13:53 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
He invented Christianity by paganizing the teachings of Jesus.

How so?
480 posted on 01/21/2006 1:51:46 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: xmission
Paul: the Stranger

The Problem of Paul

481 posted on 01/21/2006 2:11:20 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to lie - joebucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

I'd rather hear it from you. If you want to make the statement, you should be prepared to defend it.


482 posted on 01/21/2006 2:13:22 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: xmission

Actually, maybe this is not the right place to argue this.


483 posted on 01/21/2006 2:16:12 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations.

As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations. As far as what it can answer, it is limited to human reason. There is no such thing as *the* scientific method, and there is no such thing as pure objectivity on the part of human observers. Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

There is more than one theory that can adequately explain the objective universe, just as there is more than one way of doing science. The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles. Even the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is a philosophical principle.

What . . . is the use of making a claim you can't test?

You tell me. You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. If you cannot test it then it is, as you say, scientifically "useless." Even if a claim is testable, it can only be tested within limits.

Put up or shut up.

The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design. What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science? Is there something science cannot accomplish by discarding the notion of intelligent design? Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up.

484 posted on 01/21/2006 3:23:58 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't grasp the concept of a non-religious understanding of ID.

So every time you see something you know is intelligently designed you suddenly get religion?

485 posted on 01/21/2006 3:32:15 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
" As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations."

Sure it has limitations, built into what can and can't be tested. Some subjects are for the time being at least off limits for epistemological reasons.

"Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

What is the experimental investigation of God going to look like? What is the observation of God going to look like? What is the description of God going to look like?

"The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles."

It's not based on whim. Its based on evaluation of evidence, and the testing of that evidence.

" You tell me."

Bait and switch. You make the claim that the untestable proposition that God exists and is responsible for the order we see is examinable by science. What good is an untestable claim? Where does the research go with nothing to test?

"You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. "

I have. I wrote it out to you earlier today, you just ignored it. Go back and look it up yourself.

" The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design."

Examples. Your uncited assertions are meaningless.

" What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science?"

The same thing that every science's avoidance of invoking untestable claims offers science; a means to test the claims one makes.

"Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up."

It introduces an untestable assumption masquerading as science. It conditions people to stop looking for testable claims and instead trains people to give up when the least bit of difficulty threatens their inquiry. It's a gutless choice for cowardly people.

Now YOU put up or shut up:

How can one investigate God? What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable? Who in their right mind would be convinced by a claim that isn't testable? You claim that God is capable of being investigated by science; tell us how or move along.
486 posted on 01/21/2006 3:41:58 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
How can one investigate God?

Prayer

What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable?

Salvation

Who in their right mind would be convinced by a claim that isn't testable?

Millions

You claim that God is capable of being investigated by science; tell us how or move along.

It's not provable between people who don't believe, but each person, scientist or not, has the opportunity to investigate this personally. It is between him/her and God. Ask God earnestly for an answer. It may take time, but answers are there.
487 posted on 01/21/2006 4:09:20 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: xmission

'What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable?' (me)

"Salvation" (you)

What if you are believing the wrong untestable claim? Odin may not be very forgiving then.

"It's not provable between people who don't believe, but each person, scientist or not, has the opportunity to investigate this personally. It is between him/her and God. Ask God earnestly for an answer. It may take time, but answers are there."

Do you at least agree that the existence of God is not a scientific question, that it is a theological question that will not yield meaningful results with the limited tools of scientific inquiry? That is the crux of my position here.


488 posted on 01/21/2006 4:21:00 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I wrote it out to you earlier today . . .

No you didn't. I've been waiting in vain to see you scientifically test your claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." All you've done is reassert your belief over and over again as if it is "fact." If you cannot test this claim, then it is scientifically useless.

The statement "science can only observe natural phenomena" is a philosphical one. It is one you adopt, and one you think should be enforced by law in public schools.

How can one investigate God?

By doing science.

489 posted on 01/21/2006 4:29:20 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
What if you are believing the wrong untestable claim? Odin may not be very forgiving then.

I have information that you don't have (If I assume wrong, let me know), direct involvement from God. There is no doubt because I have 100% proof.

Do you at least agree that the existence of God is not a scientific question, that it is a theological question that will not yield meaningful results with the limited tools of scientific inquiry? That is the crux of my position here.

I'd agree that science is not equipped to investigate this, and therefore it is not happening. It would be a scientific question if there was a place to start.

I wasn't arguing, just answering your questions.
490 posted on 01/21/2006 4:32:06 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"No you didn't."

Yes I did:(post 473)

"No it isn't. It's a fact. It's tested every time someone tries to introduce a non-natural, non-observable subject into science. Since these subjects can't be tested, and testing is a fundamental part of what science is, the proposition that science can only observe natural phenomena is supported each time this happens."



"I've been waiting in vain to see you scientifically test your claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena."

It's not a scientific test, it's a metaphysical reality. Science doesn't deal with the untestable subjects in the same way that theology doesn't deal with microbial reproduction.


'How can one investigate God'

"By doing science."

That's the gay jeans argument yet again. If that's the best you have, you have nothing.

Now again:

How do you investigate God? Be specific.


491 posted on 01/21/2006 4:42:10 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: xmission

"I have information that you don't have (If I assume wrong, let me know), direct involvement from God. There is no doubt because I have 100% proof."

Your *feelings* are not objective evidence.

"I'd agree that science is not equipped to investigate this, and therefore it is not happening. It would be a scientific question if there was a place to start."

Well, then you agree with me that science has limits and that Fester is wrong to claim that science can indeed investigate God.


492 posted on 01/21/2006 4:44:36 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: xmission

There is no doubt because I have 100% proof.

So claims Bin Laden.

493 posted on 01/21/2006 4:49:58 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Your *feelings* are not objective evidence.

Who said anything about feelings? I never presented my "Feelings" as proof to you or anyone else. I went out of my way to say (or at least try to say) that GOD can't be proven (by people) to someone who does not believe already.

Well, then you agree with me that science has limits and that Fester is wrong to claim that science can indeed investigate God.

Investigate god? Yes! Prove his existence? Only on a individual basis, between each scientist and GOD. You can never know of his existence for sure, until you honestly inquire of him. Like I said, it may take time, but answers are there if you want them.
494 posted on 01/21/2006 4:58:46 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Where did you see this written?


495 posted on 01/21/2006 4:59:29 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: xmission

See what written?


496 posted on 01/21/2006 5:03:30 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: xmission
"I went out of my way to say (or at least try to say) that GOD can't be proven (by people) to someone who does not believe already."

In other words, you have no actual evidence just your feelings. I actually have a feeling that a creator had a say in the way the universe is made; I also know that I can't provide any evidence of this and that there is no way I can test this feeling.

"Only on a individual basis, between each scientist and GOD."

Then the scientist is investigating God through means other than science. Which is fine; I have been saying it's a theological and not a scientific question.

"You can never know of his existence for sure, until you honestly inquire of him. Like I said, it may take time, but answers are there if you want them."

But not objective answers/evidence you can have someone else test. Gotcha.
497 posted on 01/21/2006 5:04:27 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
In other words, you have no actual evidence just your feelings. I actually have a feeling that a creator had a say in the way the universe is made; I also know that I can't provide any evidence of this and that there is no way I can test this feeling.

I confused by the above, are you referring to me or you?
498 posted on 01/21/2006 5:09:31 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: xmission

The second part is my position; sorry about the confusion. I have a feeling I am tired today; THAT I have a lot of evidence for. :)


499 posted on 01/21/2006 5:10:31 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Ok. Sorry if I assumed that you were an athiest (g). I'm tired too!

BTW: There's a great Ronald Reagan tribute thread going on.


500 posted on 01/21/2006 5:14:00 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 601-606 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