Why Intelligent Design Will Win

[hokiefan33]

Actually I was Steve. I wasn't interested in another round of hokie/2funny2c telling others that he is the only credible bible scholar, so I asked for it to be closed.

As for this thread, I think it's quite interesting that THE largest and most poweful church thinks ID is bunk.

Wait, Cardaway, you forgot to also link me to jimmiej. I mean, let's keep up now...

The largest? Yes. The most powerful? In terms of what? Correct? No way.

 

[hokiefan33]

Way to ostracize yourself from millions and millions of people!

I doubt 2funny cares about being ostracized from the Catholic church, nor do I (wait, I forgot, we're the same person. Just...can't...keep...all...these...multiple...personalities...straight...in...my...head...Must...try...harder...)

 

[hokiefan33]

Unfortunately, the prize may be a generation of graduates that feel they must consult the Bible for every answer, unable to form their own opinions from scientific studies, that Biblical religion is RIGHT and any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, making foreign relations and diplomacy a thing of the past...leading to even more senseless wars.

Science should be taught in school, religious origin theories and beliefs should be taught in Sunday School, churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious buildings.

We SHOULD consult the Bible for every answer, we SHOULD NOT form our opinions from scientific studies, Biblical religion is RIGHT, any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, who cares about foreign relations and diplomacy. That is the way it OUGHT to work, but unfortunately never will.

 

[sodaseller]

Better pieces fully debunking ID at Link and at TNR Of many points, the one simple to digest is

Darwin's third line of evidence came from biogeography, the study of the geographic distribution of plants and animals. I have already mentioned what Darwin called his "Law of Succession": living organisms in an area most closely resemble fossils found in the same location. This implies that the former evolved from the latter. But Darwin found his strongest evidence on "oceanic islands"--those islands, such as Hawaii and the Galápagos, that were never connected to continents but arose, bereft of life, from beneath the sea.

What struck Darwin about oceanic islands--as opposed to continents or "continental islands" such as Great Britain, which were once connected to continents--was the bizarre nature of their flora and fauna. Oceanic islands are simply missing or impoverished in many types of animals. Hawaii has no native mammals, reptiles, or amphibians. These animals, as well as freshwater fish, are also missing on St. Helena, a remote oceanic island in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean. It seems that the intelligent designer forgot to stock oceanic (but not continental!) islands with a sufficient variety of animals. One might respond that this was a strategy of the creator, as those organisms might not survive on islands. But this objection fails, because such animals often do spectacularly well when introduced by humans. Hawaii has been overrun by the introduced cane toad and mongoose, to the detriment of its native fauna.

Strikingly, the native groups that are present on these islands--mainly plants, insects, and birds--are present in profusion, consisting of clusters of numerous similar species. The Galápagos archipelago harbors twenty-three species of land birds, of which fourteen species are finches. Nowhere else in the world will you find an area in which two-thirds of the birds are finches. Hawaii has similar "radiations" of fruit flies and silversword plants, while St. Helena is overloaded with ferns and weevils. Compared with continents or continental islands, then, oceanic islands have unbalanced flora and fauna, lacking many familiar groups but having an over-representation of some species.

Moreover, the animals and the plants inhabiting oceanic islands bear the greatest similarity to species found on the nearest mainland. As Darwin noted when describing the species of the Galápagos, this similarity occurs despite a great difference in habitat, a fact militating against creationism:


Why should the species which are supposed to have been created in the Galápagos Archipelago, and nowhere else, bear so plainly the stamp of affinity to those created in America? There is nothing in the conditions of life, in the geological nature of the islands, in their height or climate, or in the proportions in which the several classes are associated together, which resembles closely the conditions of the South American coast: in fact there is a considerable dissimilarity in all these respects.

As the final peg in Darwin's biogeographic argument, he noted that the kinds of organisms commonly found on oceanic islands--birds, plants, and insects--are those that can easily get there. Insects and birds can fly to islands (or be blown there by winds), and the seeds of plants can be transported by winds or ocean currents, or in the stomachs of birds. Hawaii may have no native terrestrial mammals, but the islands do harbor one native aquatic mammal, the monk seal, and one native flying mammal, the hoary bat. In a direct challenge to creationists (and now also to advocates of ID), Darwin posed this rhetorical question:


Though terrestrial mammals do not occur on oceanic islands, aerial mammals do occur on almost every island. New Zealand possesses two bats found nowhere else in the world: Norfolk Island, the Viti Archipelago, the Bonin Islands, the Caroline and Marianne Archipelagoes, and Mauritius, all possess their peculiar bats. Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands?

The answer is that the creative force did not produce bats, or any other creatures, on oceanic islands. All of Darwin's observations about island biogeography point to one explanation: species on islands descend from individuals who successfully colonized from the mainland and subsequently evolved into new species. Only the theory of evolution explains the paucity of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater fish on oceanic islands (they cannot get there), the radiation of some groups into many species (the few species that make it to islands find empty niches and speciate profusely), and the resemblance of island species to those from the nearest mainland (an island colonist is most likely to have come from the closest source).

 

[2funny2c]

Unfortunately, the prize may be a generation of graduates that feel they must consult the Bible for every answer, unable to form their own opinions from scientific studies, that Biblical religion is RIGHT and any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, making foreign relations and diplomacy a thing of the past...leading to even more senseless wars.

Science should be taught in school, religious origin theories and beliefs should be taught in Sunday School, churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious buildings.

Its called a worldview. And Christians should have a biblical worldview. That does not mean we abandon science or reason but look at matters through the creator.

Evolution and naturalism have become religions in their own right as well.

ID is about science as well. Looking at the origins of life on Earth and realizing that life is just too complex to be the result of some random occurance.

What you are advocating is a two tier mindset. Putting religion in the upper room and science in the bottom room. Their are some very capable Christian scientists out there working in every field. They arent a bunch of rubes sitting around dismissing all science.

Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey and look at what she has to say about this manner.

Christians shouldnt have to check their biblical views at the door when entering into a discussion of science. Walking authentically with Christ means that we just dont leave our beliefs at church on Sunday.

 

[RickinNYC]

We SHOULD consult the Bible for every answer, we SHOULD NOT form our opinions from scientific studies, Biblical religion is RIGHT, any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, who cares about foreign relations and diplomacy. That is the way it OUGHT to work, but unfortunately never will.

You know what, I don't need that apology that you clearly won't provide. This post alone made my day!!!

 

[sodaseller]

Its called a worldview. And Christians should have a biblical worldview.

Walking authentically with Christ means that we just dont leave our beliefs at church on Sunday.

Walking authentically with Christ most assuredly does not mean having a "biblical worldview". Christ stood for truth - you are embracing the opposite

 

[hokiefan33]

Walking authentically with Christ most assuredly does not mean having a "biblical worldview". Christ stood for truth - you are embracing the opposite

Sodaseller, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Sodaseller, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Nah, I think this wins:

We SHOULD consult the Bible for every answer, we SHOULD NOT form our opinions from scientific studies, Biblical religion is RIGHT, any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, who cares about foreign relations and diplomacy. That is the way it OUGHT to work, but unfortunately never will.

 

[sodaseller]

Sodaseller, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Thank you for providing further validation as to its Truth

"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. Fundamentalism is, therefore, inevitable in an age which has destroyed so many certainties by which faith once expressed itself and upon which it relied."
--Reinhold Niebuhr



Reverence Over Reason?

By Drew Christiansen

Fundamentalism is the great heresy of the day. Fundamentalists are inclined to believe there is a simple response to every question. Orthodoxy demands complexity: two natures in Christ, three persons in the Trinity. The same is true of the moral and religious affections. A Christian needs to hold in tension justice and mercy, truth and forgiveness. St. Ignatius Loyola held to the primacy of charity, but he taught discreta caritas, “discreet charity,” which balances love with prudence. Men and women of mature faith can exercise two or more virtues in tandem.

 

[hokiefan33]

Nah, I think this wins:

I wouldn't expect a liberal Catholic to agree.

 

[hokiefan33]

Thank you for providing further validation as to its Truth

"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. Fundamentalism is, therefore, inevitable in an age which has destroyed so many certainties by which faith once expressed itself and upon which it relied."
--Reinhold Niebuhr



Reverence Over Reason?

By Drew Christiansen

Alright, more worthless quotes from sodaseller!!

 

[BelleMcNally]

We SHOULD consult the Bible for every answer, we SHOULD NOT form our opinions from scientific studies, Biblical religion is RIGHT, any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, who cares about foreign relations and diplomacy. That is the way it OUGHT to work, but unfortunately never will.

Do you have any non-Christian friends? Not trying to be rude, but I don't see how you could get along with them if you are this adamant about Christian superiority.

ETA: not to mention Catholic friends...

 

[sodaseller]

I wouldn't expect a liberal Catholic to agree.

The question is, would Christ agree?

 

[RickinNYC]

I wouldn't expect a liberal Catholic to agree.

Hokiefan, stop! I can't breathe! I need some water. The laughing has given me hiccups.

You are priceless! I have a couple of friends I can set you up with someday. We could double date.

 

[Aidensmom]

We SHOULD consult the Bible for every answer, we SHOULD NOT form our opinions from scientific studies, Biblical religion is RIGHT, any non-Christian person or country is WRONG, who cares about foreign relations and diplomacy. That is the way it OUGHT to work, but unfortunately never will.

Wow.

Do you have a doctor? Does he make his diagnoses based on the Bible or based on opinions from scientific studies?

 

[Bob Slydell]

I wouldn't expect a liberal Catholic to agree.

Whoever said I'm liberal?

 

[RickinNYC]

Whoever said I'm liberal?

Pssssst.... to certain ultraconservative religious folks, Catholic = religious.

Aint that a riot?

 

[scubamouse]

Alright, more worthless quotes from sodaseller!!

you don't agree therefore it's worthless

Fundamentalists are inclined to believe there is a simple response to every question. Orthodoxy demands complexity: two natures in Christ, three persons in the Trinity. The same is true of the moral and religious affections. A Christian needs to hold in tension justice and mercy, truth and forgiveness. St. Ignatius Loyola held to the primacy of charity, but he taught discreta caritas, “discreet charity,” which balances love with prudence. Men and women of mature faith can exercise two or more virtues in tandem.

I actually think this could be interesting discussion material.

 

[BelleMcNally]

I actually think this could be interesting discussion material.

Yes, I do too. I wonder if that kind of "doublethink" (couldn't think of a less Orwellian term, sorry!) is a sign of maturity in general, not just spiritual maturity.