It’s difficult to say how widely a methodology might be applicable when the methodology doesn’t exist as yet and nothing is known about its scope or approach. Would a successful version of astrology apply to evolution?
1 Like
If you want to call God an “intelligent cause,” sure, whatever, it’s semantics. It’s a fact that the ID endeavor rejects methodological naturalism and insists science can be done without it, and that is the main reason other scientists don’t agree that what they are doing is science.
2 Likes
So… you believe God is measurable, testable, manipulatable, and controllable? Otherwise it is you who are patently wrong because these are the methods of science.
Why? Because moderators should not understand how science works but simply buy into the rhetoric which is the only methodology of these pseudoscience activities?
I am fast getting the impression that you would attack God Himself if He dared to disagree with you in any way.
As someone who supported ID for a long time, I can tell you that you do not do the criticism of ID any favors by misrepresenting ID. Much of my time was spent addressing falsehoods, and they equally come from theists and atheists in my experience. And no, it’s not semantics, it’s rhetoric.
God doesn’t lie.
So that is how you would justify it. Tell Him He cannot be God if He is telling these “lies” that you have it wrong?
Which part of her statement are you saying was a misrepresentation?
1 Like
As someone who has discussed ID with ID supporters for a long time, I can tell you it doesn’t matter how much you invest in understanding their positions and good faith discussions, the minute you suggest they are not doing science, they will irately accuse you of misrepresenting them. I’m resigned to this reality at this point.
I’m a linguist and I’ve taught classes on semantics and discourse analysis. You are making a distinction without a difference in this context and I could do without the mansplaining, thanks. 
1 Like
That was perhaps the biggest bone of contention between our informal university intelligent design club and young-earth Creationists: we recognized that the moment we concluded that some particular field of science pointed to a Designer that anything utilizing that conclusion no longer counted as science, whereas the YECists kept wanting to use Bible material to guide scientific conclusions.
1 Like
Not going to happen; as the inspired writer said, God is a God Who hides Himself.
1 Like
A few days a week I maintain the proposition that bacteria and archaea arose independently.
2 Likes
And my comment was not intended to convey that I thought there is a chance it will ever happen.
I won’t try to explain irony to you, because as a man, I am sure you’re familiar with it.
My understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches about evolution was based on a sermon presented by a Catholic priest on youtube. I now suspect he presented some false claims about what the Church actually teaches.
Contrary to what that priest claims, I can’t find any official Church teaching that rules out universal common descent or any teaching that relates to the “kind/kinds” mentioned in Gen 1.
- You need to get out more: Catholic Church and Evolution
I agree. I’ve since learned that my understanding was incorrect. My understanding was based on a Catholic priest’s sermon presented on youtube. I now believe his made some false claims about what the Catholic Church teaches about evolution.
Unfortunately, we don’t have too many Catholics here, but it would be interesting to hear their voices. Often times, official positions of the church leaders do not reflect the views of the pews both in Catholic life and Protestants. My impression in the Catholic Church is that there is also a hierarchy of views with varied levels of certainty as well.
Intersting. Why not? Is God not capable of evoking physical facts? How do you handle miracles?
I’m not a Christian but I don’t see how speculation about what God can or cannot do rebuts a statement regarding the limits of what humans can do via science.
2 Likes
I believe God is an agent that can manipulate the physical world. I don’t believe humans can experiment on God (Or on alien life that is not present in our world, or on whatever “intelligent cause” ID is presuming to include as a variable). The scientific method excludes hypothesizing about supernatural causes. Science is more than simply observing facts, it’s offering viable models for why those facts are the way they are and what we can predict based on the facts we understand.
2 Likes
Complete boloney…read the bible and you will clearly find that YEC is not a modern interpretation…its an ancient one. Even leaders on this forum make the statement thst bible writers didnt know science…you cant have it both ways st roymond…you are playjng games with honest but naive peoples minds.
Old age earth only came to the fore as a result of evolution after the 1860"s.
Thats the problem here…the lies that are presented as facts