Agnostics for Intelligent Design

Great Debates
21

You lost me. Isn’t that exactly what Trinopus said?

No, scientists do not have the same problem, because science does not posit that the universe came from anything. And IIRC, there is currently a theory as to how abiogenesis occurred, but it is not absolutely proven. So the current level of understanding as to how life originated is “we don’t know”.

The parodox is only there when you NECESSITATE an intelligent designer. It is the positive assertion that generates the paradox.

You don’t have to be an agnostic to have that opinion. The statement “We don’t know what lies beyond the universe” is consistent with so-called “weak” atheism.

22

I don’t understand it either. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution as explained by scientists, (evolution could be God’s tool, and religion is separate) so why do these people?

23

Maybe they’re Protestant?

24

Maybe not, just last week while flipping channels I came upon a Catholic priest on EWTN praising ID as a valid proof that God created the universe instead of “godless evolution.”

25

The Catholic Church’s position is not “it’s evolution, baby!” They don’t do that sort of thing anymore. Their position is “whether true or not, the belief in basic concept of evolution and common descent doesn’t contradict any basic fundamental part of our religion, as long as you still believe —list of things, key one being that god intended man, and that mankind was specially ensouled at some point—”

26

“Life must have been created, not evolved!”
“Why?”
“Well, it’s just too complex to have popped up out of nowhere all by itself!”
“Ok, granted. So where did it come from?”
“Well, God made it.”
“Ok, so life is too complex to come from nowhere, but something BY DEFINITION more complex than the ENTIRE UNIVERSE came from nothing, then created life?”
“Yeah, now you understand!”
“Get out of my house.”

27

In a discussion with a Catholic Priest recently (I’m as atheist as you can be - so this was an ‘interesting’ chat! ) I found out about what they call ‘ensoulment’ - which I believe is the Catholic scholars ‘take’ on Evolution?

It appears that they accept ‘according to Darwin’ evolution upto a certain point - where God took the Ape and ‘ensouled’ it, making Man. There’s reference to a missing chromosome? (we have less than apes??) which is related to this apparently (you can tell this isn’t my ‘field’ - sorry!)

If you think about it for a moment tho - to completely non-scientific people, the world must appear so complex as to preclude any explanation other than the existence of something ‘a lot cleverer than us’.

Once that idea has been around for 100s of years, anyone wishing to dispute it needs a good armory - and it will take a long time, with some people refusing to change regardless of the evidence - pretty-much indefinately.

Darwin did this - and it was as much a ‘trick’ of getting the right people on his side from the start - as it was writing down his theory…

Nevertheless - I certainly find it ‘silly’ to assume that because something is so complex I can’t understand it - that someone ‘far more powerful than I’ exists - but it’s not necessarily a logical view I suppose…

More generally, I’m getting the feeling that science is getting ‘too complicated’ for the layman - and whenever that happens people do have a tendency to ‘run for their faith’ so to speak.

Atoms and Molecules were hard enough to grasp, Quantum Physics is something VASTLY more complex that Joe Public can’t even begin to grasp.

Genetics is a FAR more complex topic than it appears at ‘first glance’ too - and so again people to tend to fear it and ‘hide from it’s complexity’.

Evolution is also hard to accept - the idea that you’re just a ‘complex ape’ and that from a universal standpoint, there’s nothing between you and a Gorilla other than a bit of dexterity and an ability to grasp more complex tools…

Even worse - universally, the entire lifespan of man is a mere ‘wink’ in time - kinda makes you feel insignificant and you need a bit of perspective to ‘get by’ - which some people simply don’t have.

Ultimately tho - people NEED a God because people NEED something beyond life. Death is the one-and-only thing which is going to happen to EVERYONE!! Whatever your beliefs - how many people can say they don’t beleve they are more than a ‘sack of proteins and electricity’ and that they should ‘go on beyond’…

I’m comfortable with ‘oblivion’ - but few people I speak to are…

TTFN

JP

28

The Gospel According to elucidator

Energy evolves toward life, life evolves toward intelligence, intelligence evolves toward enlightenment.

At some point in the staggeringly distant future, the enlightenment of dead matter reaches a point where God comes into Being. At that distant future point, God will exist. Being God, and not subject to the constraints of time, God can project Himself down his own timeline, Billy Pilgrim style. Hence, because God will exist, God does exist, and has existed.

Unless, of course, he shoots His own grandfather.

29

Please don’t tell me that’s what passes for philosophy these days.

Speculating about Singularity is interesting, but asserting that it has any particular properties is inappropriate. If you could imagine it, it wouldn’t be Singularity…

30

I never understood the talk of “something larger than myself”.

I believe in lots of things that are larger than me: trees, mountains, this planet, a galaxy…

31

The concept of Intelligent Design falls flat if one looks at the final designs.

A good example of poor design is the human eye. The blood and nerves are placed IN FRONT of the receptors.

The octopus has a much better design for the eye. The blood and nerve supply comes in from the back.

32

You do realize that none of those things are necessarily true, don’t you?

33

In addition, there is no evidence suggesting it is or can ever be possible to make something or someone retroactivley exist.

But hey, if it made sense, it wouldn’t be religion.

Ow! Hey! Put the rocks down!

34

Well, you need to change the use of “they” to “he.” Whatever that particular priest’s belief, the RCC has chosen to not get into that discussion. (And there is certainly no part of Church teaching that looks to the number of chromosomes as an indication of when or what God did–not by scientists, not by theologians as a group. Any individual theologian may have said anything, just as the scientist Behe might say something without being taken as representative of the group.)

The Church holds that we understand that God is the author and that, at some point, humanity arose from less developed species. (I have never heard the word ensoulment, but I suppose we could use it for lack of a different term). However, the Church does not attempt to identify either the time, the process, or even the event at which humanity “came to be.”

35

As I understand it, the Church doesn’t necessarily take a definitive stand on the truth of evolution. The official position is simply that evolution per se does not contradict Church doctrine.