Pope's Astronomer: Creationism/Intelligent Design are "Bad Theology"

[ConstipatedVigilante]

It's smart distancing themselves from ID applied in such a tangible fashion. Saying that God created the universe and the laws of nature is a much more defensible position. The things say by the Pope's astronomer is often pleasantly surprising. It's good seeing such flexibility and evolution in religion.

I see what you did there.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's all been hashed and reshashed in previous threads.

NO it has not, you never gave even an inkling of an answer to the question, you waltzed around it a lot though but that's not really helpful.

A swift explanation shouldn't have to take more than a couple of sentences.

Of course, there is no such explanation, never was and never will be because you are just a liar, you lie not only to others but also to yourself and i'm fairly sure you don't think that it's actually a lie because your brain makes it into something acceptable just so you haven't broken any commandment.

Probably schizophrenia, you could probably be cured of your faith... i mean mental disabilities... yeah, they are the same, i know.

 

[mrkun]

Umm, this is nothing new. Pope John Paul II publicly declared that evolution is fact.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

NO it has not, you never gave even an inkling of an answer to the question, you waltzed around it a lot though but that's not really helpful.

A swift explanation shouldn't have to take more than a couple of sentences.

Of course, there is no such explanation, never was and never will be because you are just a liar, you lie not only to others but also to yourself and i'm fairly sure you don't think that it's actually a lie because your brain makes it into something acceptable just so you haven't broken any commandment.

Probably schizophrenia, you could probably be cured of your faith... i mean mental disabilities... yeah, they are the same, i know.

Predicatable. Insults and name calling. Why are you so threatened by the possibility of grand design to the universe?

 

[IronWing]

Predicatable. Insults and name calling. Why are you so threatened by the possibility of grand design to the universe?

Your golf course is designed. Your ball and club are designed. You have a defined goal: get the ball in the right hole using the club. You play a well designed game. Scientists work in the real world where there are no fairways, faulty clubs, and certainly no defined goal.

 

[mrkun]

Your golf course is designed. Your ball and club are designed. You have a defined goal: get the ball in the right hole using the club. You play a well designed game. Scientists work in the real world where there are no fairways, faulty clubs, and certainly no defined goal.

Tiger Woods' balls and club weren't designed, but he's still pretty good at using them to achieve his goal of getting them in the right holes.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[PowerEngineer]

This is far more interesting than the hack piece about baptizing aliens.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chr...terview-With-Cardinal-Christoph-Schnborn.aspx

"For me, the whole question of intelligent design is primarily a question of reason. The argument that the whole complexity of life can be explained as mere random process is unreasonable in my opinion. No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself. That's the point. The second step is to ask--OK, which intelligence [created this]? As a believer, I naturally think it is the intelligence of the Creator. And 90 percent of humanity thinks that too."

This quote is only last part of the Cardinal's answer to the question: Is the Christian view an alternative to Darwin? And I can see why you chose not to include the first part:

Christian teaching about evolution is not an alternative to evolution theory. Evolution theory is a scientific thesis, while the teaching about creation is a tenet of faith. I think, as do many other people, that both are open to each other and that they should not put each other in question. There is not a wall of separation between them. I don't expect the Biblical teaching about creation should be presented as a rival scientific theory to evolution theory.

People have tried to box me into a corner by setting up an either-or proposition--it's either evolution or intelligent design--that I don't accept. Evolution, intelligent design, and Christian teaching on creation are not all on the same level. For me,...

As to his opinion that the 'whole complexity of life' can not be explained as a 'mere' random process, I'm amused that he asserts that: 'No person who experiences such complexity would say that it created itself' when obviously there are many who are saying that very thing!

Googling, you'll have no trouble finding others who come to an opinion that the commonly accepted explanation for something is unreasonable and therefore feel empowered to declare that their even less reasonable explanation must be true. As an example, Von Daniken claims that the Pyraminds can not have been built by (mere) ancient Egyptians; therefore, aliens must have helped build them. This is bad logic.

On reading the entire piece, it seems pretty clear to me that the Cardinal's position is determined by the evil inferences that people have drawn from evolution and then applied to other areas (e.g. economics and society). Not liking the implications of a theory does not make it any less true. Truth is also not affected when "90 percent of humanity thinks that too".

I'm agnostic because I understand that the question of whether of not there's some sort of 'god' behind the workings of the universe can't be answered. In that sense, I see both atheists and believers as being in error by thinking they know the answer. IMHO it therefore follows that believers who feel obliged to dispute scientific theories as if they somehow threaten their faith are taking on a fight they don't need to.

 

[Molondo]

Predicatable. Insults and name calling. Why are you so threatened by the possibility of grand design to the universe?

Could you show me the evidence You have to back up your claim, I have seen one side, i still need to see yours.

Thanks.

 

[BudAshes]

That is almost certainly true. Just take a look at the library of tracts put together by Jack Chick on the subject of Catholicism.

If I'm not mistaken, however, our favorite ID'er on this forum is Catholic. :sneaky:

Just look south of the border. There are catholics everywhere. Thanks again catholic church for being against birth control. Reason #5012 the catholic church is the most evil organization in the history of man.

 

[Bateluer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronomer-baptise-aliens

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's all been hashed and reshashed in previous threads.

Nonsense. Explain to us the way the evidence favors special creation. More importantly, explain to us how evidence could conceivably disfavor special creation. I can conceive of a literally limitless circumstances of evidence which would falsify evolution... can you tell us what would be evidence that special creation is false?

 

[Gibsons]

Nonsense. Explain to us the way the evidence favors special creation. More importantly, explain to us how evidence could conceivably disfavor special creation. I can conceive of a literally limitless circumstances of evidence which would falsify evolution... can you tell us what would be evidence that special creation is false?

:hmm: That question looks familiar.

I suspect the answer, or lack thereof... will be the same.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The problem for you atheists is you rule out non-naturalistic causes a priori.

SO DO YOU, you disingenuous twat. Right now as you are trusting that your senses accurately report the existence of a computer, you are assuming a priori that the immensely long string of physical interactions that connect your senses to that same computer monitor and the rest of physical reality were not disturbed by some supernatural trickster trying to deceive you. You expect your senses to accurately reflect reality because you assume a priori that supernatural causes did not disturb them.

So take your disingenuous accusations and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm sick of it.

I don't make such a prejudgement.

Liar.

I just look at the evidence and see what what model fits best.

No, like every other creationist you decide ahead of time what you want to be true, and you twist, distort, and lie about the evidence in order to maintain the illusion to yourself.

 

[zinfamous]

[/I]
SO DO YOU, you disingenuous twat. Right now as you are trusting that your senses accurately report the existence of a computer, you are assuming a priori that the immensely long string of physical interactions that connect your senses to that same computer monitor and the rest of physical reality were not disturbed by some supernatural trickster trying to deceive you. You expect your senses to accurately reflect reality because you assume a priori that supernatural causes did not disturb them.

So take your disingenuous accusations and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm sick of it.


Liar.


No, like every other creationist you decide ahead of time what you want to be true, and you twist, distort, and lie about the evidence in order to maintain the illusion to yourself.

I think PFW has compiled a sufficient library of evidence that his account is nothing more than pure troll. I'm rather confident that whoever is creating these posts is just having a good go.

He's The Flying Pig, only not awesome.

fuck, it could be another TFP account.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Nonsense. Explain to us the way the evidence favors special creation. More importantly, explain to us how evidence could conceivably disfavor special creation. I can conceive of a literally limitless circumstances of evidence which would falsify evolution... can you tell us what would be evidence that special creation is false?

In previous thread, I gave examples how intelligent design can be falsified, I've shown how the evidence favors special creation, and I refuted the evidence for common ansestory. There's no point in continuing to replow the same ground.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

[/I]
SO DO YOU, you disingenuous twat. Right now as you are trusting that your senses accurately report the existence of a computer, you are assuming a priori that the immensely long string of physical interactions that connect your senses to that same computer monitor and the rest of physical reality were not disturbed by some supernatural trickster trying to deceive you. You expect your senses to accurately reflect reality because you assume a priori that supernatural causes did not disturb them.

So take your disingenuous accusations and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm sick of it.


Liar.


No, like every other creationist you decide ahead of time what you want to be true, and you twist, distort, and lie about the evidence in order to maintain the illusion to yourself.

Most of your arguments are non-sequiturs.

An atheistic worldview limits you to naturalistic causes while a theist worldview doesn't. Ruling out potential causes a priori, which your worldview demands,is poor science.

 

[IronWing]

Most of your arguments are non-sequiturs.

An atheistic worldview limits you to naturalistic causes while a theist worldview doesn't. Ruling out potential causes a priori, which your worldview demands,is poor science.

Scientific method:
Observe stuff
Develop testable hypothesis to explain observed stuff
Collect data necessary to complete test
Evaluate hypothesis wrt to test data
Reject/modify hypothesis if warranted
Obverse more stuff
Go back to top

Theological explanations of the universe generally fail as science on four of those steps.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

This thread will be at least 10 pages long by the end of tomorrow.

 

[IronWing]

This thread will be at least 10 pages long by the end of tomorrow.

That there is a hypothesis. It can be tested. However, I would recommend a statement of how many posts/page you are considering to prevent ambiguous results.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Scientific method:
Observe stuff
Develop testable hypothesis to explain observed stuff
Collect data necessary to complete test
Evaluate hypothesis wrt to test data
Reject/modify hypothesis if warranted
Obverse more stuff
Go back to top

Theological explanations of the universe generally fail as science on four of those steps.

I believe that "science" is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence.

Rejecting a plausible cause before you even start your investigation is very poor science.

 

[IronWing]

I believe that "science" is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence.

Rejecting a potential cause before you even start your investigation is very poor science.

I can't develop a testable (falsifiable) hypothesis based on a deity that can modify any data collected at any time. No data could be accepted as reliable. I don't reject the god hypothesis simply because I don't like it, I reject it because it isn't valid hypothesis amenable to testing.

How did the golf game go?

 

[nick1985]

I came into this thread expecting phineasjwhoopee to be debating the world on religion.

I was not disappointed.


I do have a question for phineas though...do you believe in life outside of Earth?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In previous thread, I gave examples how intelligent design can be falsified,

Wrong. You absolutely failed to to show how for any observable X, we can know that God did not design X.

I've shown how the evidence favors special creation,

Where?? In invisible type? You don't really understand how evidence works, as I've clearly shown. Something can only be evidence for special creation if special creation could not be true if that something were different. That's why evolution has so much evidence. If traits were not heritable, if traits were not subject to selection pressures, if biological organisms were not imperfect replicatiors evolution would not be true. What kinds of things would we expect to see if special creation were not true. You cannot say.

and I refuted the evidence for common ansestory.

Laughable. Covering your ears and eyes and pretending the evidence doesn't exst is not "refuting" anything.

There's no point in continuing to replow the same ground.

Oh but there is. The point is to shine a big, bright light on your lying face so everyone can see it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Most of your arguments are non-sequiturs.

Most of your arguments are strawberries.

See how meaningless baseless assertions are?

An atheistic worldview limits you to naturalistic causes while a theist worldview doesn't.

You are invited to show that the string of words "non-naturalistic cause" is at all coherent. Not every concatenation of English letters is a sensible concept.

Ruling out potential causes a priori, which your worldview demands,is poor science.

As demonstrated above, you rule out the very same "potential causes" every second of your waking life, so making the same behavior the crux of your criticism reveals you to be a hypocrite... like it surprises any of us at this point.

Here's a little exercise for you: how do you rule out the possibility that your mind is actually in the Matrix? How do you rule out the idea that the real cause for the totality of your sense experience is a magical and impenetrable illusion perpetrated on you by a powerful wizard while your body actually rests imprisoned in his chambers? After all, it is your assertion that you do not rule out "non-naturalistic casuses" a priori. How is it, then, that you can deduce the falsity of these scenarios from your sense experience?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This thread will be at least 10 pages long by the end of tomorrow.

A prophecy! Surely, if this prophecy is fulfilled we should be compelled to acknowledge that you speak for God and follow your every instruction.