Irreducible Complicity

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2007/01/26irreducible_complicity"]Irreducible Complicity: Disappointing Darwin by Roddy Bullock[/url]

[quote]Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. ~Thomas Henry Huxley[/quote]

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut.

Surprised? You should be. How can the exact same methodology be both touted as scientific and doubted as religious? Are radio telescopes searching for Morse code-like evidence of space aliens inherently scientific while electron microscopes discovering source code-like evidence of design in the cell are not? Why are alien hunters with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) permitted to infer intelligence if ever they find evidence of specified complexity, but microbiologists who actually find such evidence are lambasted for inferring the same cause?

An honest assessment of our odd state of affairs explains the discrepancy by revealing a most unpleasant fact of modern science: an unholy alliance between institutions of science and the philosophy of naturalism. Science illogically rejects evidence of cellular design because it has taken upon itself the mantle of Godless (but not godless) naturalism, deeming all non-material causes non-scientific, regardless of the evidence. By unnecessarily championing the cause of a belief system, science has been duped into fronting for one set of philosophers, while being derisively dogmatic against another. Darwin would be disappointed to find his eponymous ism has driven such a venomous schism.

Read the rest at the link above.

[FullTruth]

Wow. That was a good post.

Glad to be a Creationist here.

I still don't trust Darwin or his theories though. . .

That would make God a liar when he said that Adam was the first, and that Man's sin brought death into the world.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1177444' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:18 AM']
Wow. That was a good post.

Glad to be a Creationist here.

I still don't trust Darwin or his theories though. . .

That would make God a liar when he said that Adam was the first, and that Man's sin brought death into the world.
[/quote]
Well, I'm a creationist, but as long as we're discussing evolution, theistic evolution agrees that Adam was the first man AND that man's sin brought death into the world. As a matter of fact, those are both defined by the Church as doctrines which absolutely must be believed by the faithful.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1177502' date='Jan 27 2007, 01:43 AM']
Well, I'm a creationist, but as long as we're discussing evolution, theistic evolution agrees that Adam was the first man AND that man's sin brought death into the world. As a matter of fact, those are both defined by the Church as doctrines which absolutely must be believed by the faithful.
[/quote]
I stand correct it. The Catholic Church does believe that and demands people believe it as well.