Re: What's with the personal attacks on Darwin?

On May 6, 9:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 6, 5:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 6, 12:03 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 1:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 6, 8:55 am, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SNIP...

Evolution says
intelligence is not seen in nature.

Correct.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/253d2b9cf9bf9947

"If true that is also intelligent human design. Evolution says
ntelligence is not seen in nature. Evolution rejects ID."

Steven J, in response, writes:

"Evolutionary biology, like the rest of science, rejects 'god of the
gaps' arguments from personal incredulity and appeals to magic.
Evolutionary biology is compatible with intelligent design, if you
can
provide some evidence for the alleged designer and give some idea of
his abilities, constraints, purposes, and/or design philosophy. ID
'theory' has none of that."

Bob: why don't you ask Steven to post, lets say, just two evolutionary
scholars who have said "Evolutionary biology is compatible with
intelligent design"?

Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, Th. Dobzhansky, Teilhard
Chardain among the Christians (Catholic, Evangelical, Catholic,
Orthodox, Catholic, in that order). All think/thought that God worked
through natural mechanisms that humans could parse out. And that is
just off the top of my head. And only names that you might
recognize. Most scientists, of course, don't actually say what their
religious belief are because, when they are doing science, it doesn't
matter. Science, after all, is not theology.

If true this should be no problem - right?

How about 5 or 10 evolution authors or scholars?

See above for 5.

Richard Colling. He’s a professor at Olivet Nazarene University.

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/olivet3.html

Alex Bolyanatz, an assistant professor of anthropology at Wheaton
College, in Illinois.
Howard J. Van Till, a now-retired physics professor at Calvin College,
had an even more grueling experience when he published The Fourth Day:
What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation
(Eerdmans, 1986).

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37a01201.htm

--David L Wilcox, Ph.D. in Population Genetics, prof. at Eastern
College, author of God and Evolution (2004), and contributor to
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2003).

Then there are *all* the authors in the following book.

Keith B. Miller, editor; Perspectives on an Evolving Creation 2003
Eerdmans. A strong Christian case for evolutionary theory According
to the authors of this book, who explore evolutionary theory from a
clear Christian perspective, the common view of conflict between
evolutionary theory and Christian faith is mistaken. Written by
contributors representing the natural sciences, philosophy, theology,
and the history of science, this thought-provoking work is informed
by both solid scientific knowledge and keen theological insight.

I will accept even one.

See above.

Bob: how do you explain Steven's comment?

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have miunderstood Howard. I asked for quotes saying that evolution
and ID are compatible, not a list of persons who hold to a deistic
biological First Cause.

And I did not give you a group of deists. I gave you a group of
people who, by and large, think there is a personal god. All of them
are Christians. All of them think a *supernatural* deity exists and
guides nature.

But then again you are also bluffing. None of the persons you invoked
say that God is involved in reality.

They *all* do. They do not, however, think it necessary for God to
work by magical poofing as opposed to natural mechanisms that are
known to exist. That very clearly means that they think that God is
involved in reality. *You* are the one who claims that God did not
work by 'real' (aka natural) mechanisms but had to work by magical
poofing. You are the one claiming that God cannot be involved (or
create) by natural or real mechanisms.

Since I (undoubtedly correctly) assume that what you mean by
Intelligent Design would be more accurately described as Supernatural
Intervention (or Guidance), I gave a list of people who believe in
that. As for a quote, I can certainly provide those. Just recently
there has been the following from the Vatican that provides a position
that is consistent both with science (natural causation) and
supernatural intervention in a way that is consistent with science.

"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular
contribution by God, though it remains that their emergence was
brought about by natural causes" of evolution, it said.

"The article, published in the May 5-6 edition of L'Osservatore
Romano, was written by Italian evolutionary biologist Fiorenzo
Facchini.

"The article said that, "when the biological conditions necessary for
supporting a being capable of reflective thought were attained, the
will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be."

"The article posed the question: Does this mean that humans evolved
from chimpanzees?

" "No, it might be better to say that at some point God willed a spark
of intelligence to light up in the mind of a nonhuman hominid and thus
came into existence the human as a being, as a subject capable of
thought and the ability to decide freely," it said."

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802496.htm

You can agree or disagree with the position, but to claim that the
Catholic Church is not proposing the view that Supernatural
Intervention *and* the observable (scientific) process of naturalistic
evolution as being compatible is merely self-serving idiocy (designed
or not). They are simply observing the dictum of Augustine not to
make fools of themselves by denying empirical reality. You, OTOH....

Ray


.

Relevant Pages
Loading