Evidence for Design?

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by inocente

Nope. I think ID purposefully undermines classical, Catholic theology since the Fathers of the Church.

Perhaps you don’t understand that ID was invented as a deliberately secular theory in an attempt to teach creationism in American science classes. It therefore invented an intelligent agent to replace God, and deliberately says nothing about the nature of the intelligent agent. ID is whatever you want - atheist (the intelligent agent is an alien), or deist (the intelligent agent as an absent deity). There's nothing in ID to tie it back to God, the theory was designed that way, intentionally designed as a deceit.

Believe it or not, the ID website used to post an article which at the very end refered to the fact that anything could be chosen as the intelligent designer. I often posted the link, but I doubt if anyone bothered to check it out. Recently, I tried to get back to the article which apparently moved from the home page. Methinks that someone involved with the website read the bottom of the article..........

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Woke up this AM with the thought that natural causes may work just fine, but they are not consistent. Check out Queen Victoria and Huntington Disease and its evidence. Check out probability statistics regarding one in four chances of being born with red hair. Actually, isn't the the probability statistics for that higher?

What I am finding out off CAF is that the type of evidence and how it is processed makes a huge difference when conclusions are inferred.

So, how does a biochemist explain inference (or the correct word) as it is used in real science?

I don't quite understand your question.

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.

I bet a dollar to a doughnut, that if the *design* people would think outside the box of ID, they could keep George Mendel's pea plants intact while at the same time defending God's design of the human person.

I completely agree with you.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Al Moritz

I don't quite understand your question.

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.



I completely agree with you.

Since I cannot keep up with the speed of these posts, I am in the midst of a PM to you.

[Charlemagne II]

Al

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.

You mean science cannot detect design when it designs an experiment?

You cannot both believe in design and not believe in design. That is schizoid.

If you believe God designed the universe, you cannot say there is no design either in abiogenesis or in evolution.

Siger of Brabant, who taught the existence of opposite truths, was handily defeated in this by Thomas Aquinas.

Either science is right, and there was no design anywhere in the universe; all is random.

Or Genesis is right, and God designed the universe, including planet Earth and everything on it.

You can't have it both ways.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

ID was invented in 1987, by disappointed young earth creationists. We have indelible proof -- a friend of mine, Nick Matzke -- found the smoking gun. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005...g-link-cd.html

So previous to 1987 no one believed that there was an intelligence behind the whole of creation?

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by vz71

So previous to 1987 no one believed that there was an intelligence behind the whole of creation?

Apparently not. It was a silly statement.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by vz71

So previous to 1987 no one believed that there was an intelligence behind the whole of creation?

Incorrect.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Incorrect.

You cannot have it both ways. Please explain your inconsistancy.

[Al Moritz]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

Al

One thing though, science works by methodological naturalism. As such, it cannot detect design (no, you naysayers out there, I am not talking about the applied science of forensics). Design is an issue that plays out in the domain of philosophy.

You mean science cannot detect design when it designs an experiment?

You cannot both believe in design and not believe in design. That is schizoid.

If you believe God designed the universe, you cannot say there is no design either in abiogenesis or in evolution.

Siger of Brabant, who taught the existence of opposite truths, was handily defeated in this by Thomas Aquinas.

Either science is right, and there was no design anywhere in the universe; all is random.

Or Genesis is right, and God designed the universe, including planet Earth and everything on it.

You can't have it both ways.

Huh?

You are confusing science and philosophy, that's the problem. None of the above makes sense.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by vz71

You cannot have it both ways. Please explain your inconsistancy.

Show me how I am inconsistent.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

ID was invented in 1987, by disappointed young earth creationists...

And inconsistant.

Either ID was there before 1987 or it was not.
You are claiming both.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by vz71

And inconsistant. [sic]
Either ID was there before 1987 or it was not.
You are claiming both.

So-called "Intelligent Design" theory is a pseudo-scientific "research program" invented in 1987 when Young Earth Creationism was outlawed. It has been championed by such people as Philip Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski. To date it has produced no results in 25 years.

[Charlemagne II]

Anastasia

So-called "Intelligent Design" theory is a pseudo-scientific "research program" invented in 1987 when Young Earth Creationism was outlawed. It has been championed by such people as Philip Johnson, Mike Behe, and Bill Dembski. To date it has produced no results in 25 years.

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.
“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

In “A Short Scheme of the True Religion,” Newton drew more vigorously on a biological illustration to support a God who exercises intelligent design. “Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juices with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therefore to be feared."

All this from only one scientist long before 1987.

[Charlemagne II]

Al

You are confusing science and philosophy, that's the problem. None of the above makes sense.

Huh?

It would make sense if you had any training in logic, which you obviously don't.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Christ interacts with "existing" creatures. Until they exist, God has no obligation.