Posted on 03/22/2006 6:22:07 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser
Doesn't matter what fits or doesn't fit under the ID umbrella. The fact is that it depends entirely on theology to make it work. Therefore it can't be explained by scientific principles. Science does not pulling answers out of a hat the way ID does.
Actually, that's not true. We simply say that, as a matter of faith, it doesn't matter whether there was tweaking or not.
That being said, though science cannot rule out an occaisonal tweak, from a theological perspective I would find it rather uncharacteristic of the way God usually works. So a priori, I would tend to say there wasn't any tweaking, though of course no one can prove it.
And the same can be said of most of the scientific community.
Accepted scientific thought has become just as much of a religion as judeo-christianity. It is every bit as dogmatic and has more than it's share of mindless zealots. Those from either side of that argument who posit their theories and ideas as fact, not to be questioned or challenged, are equally worthy of being run out of the classroom, and ridiculed by all thinking people.
Consider the theory of "dark matter". Star observations have observed that the universe is indeed expanding, however, in violation of existing Big bang theory, and all Newtonian Physics, the expansion is ACCELERATING. Lacking any explanation for it, many scientists have latched onto a theory called "dark matter" for which there is even less that can be said to be evidence, than can be presented supporting the existence of a God. They observe an effect(accelerating expansion), and cannot explain it, so they just make up something out of thin air to explain it. Yet they think the theory is worth exploring.
So how is THAT theory, purely made up, with zero evidence, any MORE worthy of exploration than another theory, such as a Creator? How many scientific minds are saying that since we do not have any evidence to prove the existence of "dark matter", that we should not bother exploring it? Are they trying to ban discussion of "Dark matter" from H.S. classrooms?
Never heard of Dark matter, have ya?
Not as ID is defined by the proponents of the movement. They assert that certain features of life, like the bacterial flagellum, could only come about by direct supernatural intervention.
That's quite a different thing from infering the existence of God from the inherent order we observe in the constants of nature, the anthropic principle, etc.
So you are a fideist.
What make you of the argument by cosmological design (NOT to be confused by ID)? You know, the idea that the apparent fine-tuning of all the constants of nature, how all the laws of physics seem to work just right to allow for life, all these things, at the very least, suggest the existence of a Creator?
So I guess when you don't have an intelligent statement to make, you just ask pointless, inane questions?
Your first point is correct, thank you for pointing it out, and I also agree with your second point. Well said.
For theistic evolution to be truly theistic it would also be unexplainable by scientific principles as you've defined them. If God had nothing whatsoever to do with how we got here (i.e., how human beings came to exist) then there's nothing theistic about our existence at all. On the other hand, if God did have something to do with it, then whatever method He used is intelligent design. If he created us outright, it's design. If he started the first microscopic life form and then guided it as it evolved into higher forms, it's design. If he started it and programmed it to evolve into us, it's design. If He had anything at all to do with how we got here, then it's design.
That's the crux of the debate here. It's why this debate will never be brought to a close (by humans, at any rate).
The idea that there can be some sort of "compromise" position is just word games. Telling Christians that they should support Theistic Evolution instead of ID or creation is silly. In order for evolution to be theistic, it would have to be design, and for that matter, creation. Likewise, if God had nothing to do with evolution, then it isn't theistic.
I believe that the existence of a Creator is suggested, not merely by the order of the Universe, but also by the beauty of the Universe.
I have a hunch that it will also be suggested, soon, by the weirdness of the Universe(s), if things play out as it seems they will, that there is more than one Universe and that ours came into being when it popped through the "skin" of another one.
Seeking truth is never a waste of time. I would agree that interpreting ANY evidence in a way to support any preconcieved idea is incorrect... whther that idea be that there is no creator or there is.
IF, it could ever be found that a pattern emerges which indicates an intelligent designer, however, I do not think it would be worthless. Patterns of things, often hypothetical imaginary things, are quite often used by the scientific community to make intuitive leaps in scientific thought. Quantum Physics is a good example. Nearly everything in quantum physics is hypothetical interpolation of patterns of behavior from very scant and non-existant hard evidence. But since half of what Stephen Hawkings (just one of many examples) talks about is purely imaginary, why isn't the scientific community trying to block HIS ideas from exploration?
"In a Gallup poll released last October, 53 percent of American adults agreed with the statement that God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it. "
In other news, exit polls show John Kerry winning the Presidency...
No, the issue is that Creationism is religious dogma, not science, it does not hold up to the scientific method and should not be taught in a science class any more than the story of Odin or a Native American creation story. Teach your creationism in your churches, leave science to the scientists.
That's not the way "Intelligent Design" is defined.
"Intelligent Design" hypothesizes that scientists can prove that God created life on earth because there are structures which are "irreduceably complex" and thus, could not possibly have evolved through natural selection.
The point is, the dark matter theory is completely "pulled out of the hat"... which you accuse ID of being. There is precisely as much evidence of Dark matter being the explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe as there is evidence the Easter Bunny did it. So why are scientists not declaring THAT theory unworthy of discussion?
As for my prior question, your non-answer proves you are ignorant of what is taking place within the scientific community, and your opinion will be judged based on that.
"Imaginary"? I do not think this word means what you think it means.
Evolution in Science and ID in Philosophy where unsupported assertions belong.
Pure Creationism does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.. and niether does pure Darwinism. If God is completely discredited due to that.. then so is Darwin.
ID is a theory that both are correct, just not completely correct. You have proven to me only that you know little of ID or Darwinism.
Unsupported assertions? I can show you LOTS of unsupported assertions which are explored by the scientific community. They are known as Scientific Hypothesis, and are the very FIRST step of scientific exploration.
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.