A scientific theory should be able to provide some results. Whoever wants to propose a new theory for the species, is welcome to do it, as long as this new theory provides explanations for what we discovered while using the Darwinian evolution theory. It is essentially the same idea with that when physics substituted Newtonian mechanics with Einstein’s mechanics. Without some kind of experimental verification plus the ability to recover Newton’s physics for moderate velocities, Einstein’s theory would have remained dusty on a library shelf.
If the “intelligent design” wants to be called scientific theory, then it should be able to provide some sort of
results when applied. Like those that the evolution theory did long ago. When scientists said “if evolution theory is true, we should find more links between missing species”, they indeed found fossils that provided links. Also, Darwin said “for my theory to be possible, the history of species on the planet should be very very old”, and we eventually found that it is approximately 4 billion years from the first mono cells, 2 billion years for the multi cells and 100s of millions of years for dinosaurs and other species. Or like the other one: “if the species evolved, there should be a biological mechanism that allows that”, and indeed, we found the DNA and the mutations.
It is essential for every scientific theory to have potential falsifiable elements, so that they can be proven or disproven. Intelligent design can actually provide no such elements. Making empty claims like: “the species have been designed intelligently” and having as sole purpose to disprove another theory (which by the way all the attempts failed miserably), does not give sufficient grounds for making it theory itself. The “intelligent design” cannot be used to identify something with scientific value.
A single giant sequoia seed develops into a massive tree. It’s tiny seed is only a quarter inch in diameter, yet can grow over 300 feet high and keep it up for over 3000 years. That’s some pretty amazing intelligence at work there.
The human body begins as a zygote cell barely visible to the naked eye without a microscope (about .005 inch) and develops into an organism containing over 30 thousand cells each with it’s own innate intelligence. The digestive, circulatory and nervous systems all preprogrammed operating in perfect cooperation with all other cells so the whole body can survive.
The body’s defense mechanism lies in its immune system. In fact, the best organized system in the body is the immune system that functions without our intervention. The immune system has nothing to do with the intellect. It does not work at your will and pleasure. It acts spontaneously to respond to a challenge. It is innovative and it operates in a clearly defined fashion.
Life in us and around us is an amazing phenomenon.
Who or what is pulling the strings?
**Since the brain (aside from instinctual reflex) is basically a container and converter, the application of the operation of the intellect to try and intelligently reason out how the innate intelligence of the human organism came to be at the level it now, would seem to be a daunting task. Especially when those of a more Christian belief refer to “**For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.”
I just give this as my personal experience becoming a Catholic. Got it from a rather fierce Anti-Catholic who became a Catholic , John Henry Newman
"In one point alone the heresies seem universally to have agreed,—in hatred to the Church. This might at that time be considered one of her surest and most obvious Notes. She was that body of which all sects, however divided among themselves, spoke ill of…[ all the Protestants violently disagreeing amongst themselves could still muster unity to attack Catholicism ] so that she was on one side and all other bodies on the other.
And there is absoluite unity, expressed in 2 ways. The Catholic Church say it was founded by Christ and is the one true Church…and all the fighting sects with their entirely incomplatible silliness attack her. So I became a Catholic many years ago.
There is no religious, philosophical or political sect that does not result into a divergence of different interpretted values, over time as new sects, nor is not subject to synthezing exterior interpretted values , into their own system, so to maintain a sense of identity in the face of opposition.
All religious/philosophical/political sects derive a set of self-evident truths, which as the primitive level are effectively boundary claims on existences that that act of questioning is given a further boundary of refusal through meta-language games.
And in turn the sects use basic to advanced levels of reasoning by which to build a structure from said axioms. This reasoning is the scaling of the axioms in a manner where the single foundation exists in a variety configurations that reflects its appearance under differing contexts of application and conceptualization.
What remains across the sects is the execution of force behind the assertions as the founding point is purely assertion and what this nature of force is or is not is irrelevant as the nature of the force is limited to the act of assertion itself thus elevating the act of power and identity of the sect to a quasi form of a language game built into the structural level.
In these respects religion, philosophy and politics are boundary claims using language and symbols thus elevating language as the proto-typical religion, philosophy or political system as the language and symbolism act as means if containing and redirecting the attention of the members in a manner that maintains and expands the sects by very said act of attention.
The process of religious, philosophical and political sects are reduced to the following:
A boundary in existence is drawn by the assertion of a claim as self-evident.
The asserted claim is scaled with further claims to result in a transmission of the claim in accords to the various contexts by which it expresses itself.
The sects diverge into new sects while synthesizing the nature of the various sects to reinforces the boundaries of the claims of there own.
Re-contextualization of the claim appeara over time as a divergence of the structure under the means of time itself where sect A in time X appears different in time Y.
What remains is boundary claims on existence by language assertion thus resulting the sect being the act of language itself.
Language is the sect; language is the bounardy claim of how, what, where, who attention is directed as without attention the sect ceases.
Attention is the energy of the sect, language and symbolism is how the attention is structured as the sect.
The sect is a meta-language game, a meta-language game is the relation of language and symbol to language and symbol.
Well , no. You are confusing belief and Creed. I can believe the Bible is the Word of God and still differ where the Church has not come down on one creedal understanding. You entirely misunderstand as I see it. You don’t call Jazz and Classical sects of music or competing creeds or denominations for the very same reason. What is core is the Creed and what isn’t is up for grabs within limits.
A creed is how beliefs are structured, a belief is the elevation of a set of standards as a sole point for how un-actualized existence is to be unfolded. They, belief and creed, are mutual and overlap.
If there are so many interpretations it means one of two things. It’s all made up or it’s so vague that it is left open to multiple understandings. Either way, it is not a good sign.
First sentence destroys you. By positing that God is not necessarily benevolent and by denying His freedom you can’t be referencing the Biblical God. And bad stuff is bad ontologically not as you are saying the Muslim position, that God can command whatever .
Obviously not true..To believe is to believe something. IF it isn’t then what distinguishes the convert. A Creed is what beliefs are essential INCL who it is that tells you what is essential. the Church.
You can defend Pope Luther all you want but he said “No,the other Pope is wrong these 7 books do not belong in the Bible”
that line in the brackets was not said by Newman. 2) he’s focused on the old heresies and not Protestantism. Who else would one have been heretical against back then in Christianity? 3) this was a polemical argument made by a Catholic. 3) wouldn’t it be better to participate in a Church that seems true to you, not merely one that claims to be the one true Church - which other churches have done? Where the rituals, practices, ceremonies, etc. resonate with you. 4) Heresies attack the Catholic church? The Catholic church attacks what it considers heresies. Is it surprising that they disagree? 6) Everyone disliking someone or something is generally seen as not having a good references. It could mean that no one wants to accept a truly good person or thing or institution, or it could mean it’s a terrible person or thing or institution. It’s a really weak inference.
That is a convention of academic writing , to put what is from the academic in brackets !!!
HE says he was focused on Protestantism, he was Anglican at the time, not Catholic.,
A polemical argument is not ipso facto wrong — amazing to claim that.
is just stupidly illogical to say. Is Jesus Divine, if you say "No’ and someone else says "Yes’ one of you is wrong. Do you realize that by that comment you are arguing for one true church??. Of course you don’t.
is dumber than 4..Newman’s point was there were innumerable absolutely incompatible positions among those agreed that a claim to an actual answer must be wrong !!! And it isn’t an inference, not in me or in Newman. You contradict his famous starting point
“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”. SEE. he actually uses PROTESTANT
I see no way to mute you but I am done already with you. I am sure to agree with whatever readers conclude from my post and yours.