Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[SelfSim]

What is the criteria for something being designed?

Purpose/intent .. (which has to be imagined, believed or Faith'd .. certainly not evidenced).

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the criteria for something being designed?

Purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

Among consenting adults I think it is fine.

Well ... asked an honest question ... got an honest answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Purpose.

Purpose/intent ...

Ninja'd me!

 

[SelfSim]

Ninja'd me!

Ya see?
I do listen!

 

[coffee4u]

What is your point? Every religion has a version of the golden rule including the ones that preceded the OT.
If you point was that the golden rule is the closest thing to an objective morality we have, then I agree

The Golden Rule Is Common All Religions

BUDDHISM. Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.
CHRISTIANITY All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
St. Matthew.
CONFUCIANISM. Is there any one maxim which ought to be acted upon
throughout whole life? Surely the Of loving kindness is such — DO
not unto others what you would not they should do unto you.
HEBRAISM. What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is
the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary. Go learn it.
HINDUISM. This is the Sum Of duty: do naught to others which if done to
them would cause thee pain.
ISLAM. NO Of is a believer until he loves for his brother What he
loves for himself. Traditions.
JAINISM. In happiness and suffering. in and grief, we should regard all
Creatures as wc regard our own self and should therefore refrain from
inflicting upon Others Such injury as would appear undesirable to us if inflicted
upon Ourselves.
SIKHISM As thou deemest thyself sodeem others others. Then shalt thou become a
partner in heaven. Kabir.
TAOISM _ Regard your neighbor's gain your and regard your
loss as your own
ZOROASTRIANISM. That nature only is good when it shall not do unto
another is not good for its own self.

"We have committed the Golden Rule to memory,
let us now commit it to life."
Edwin Markham

from Of the Album by Doubleday co., City, York, 1961.​

I was simply pointing out that Jesus used it first in the Old Testament because many people assume he first said it in the New.

 

[disciple Clint]

The truth of the Gospels is not seriously disputed in this forum, even by those who think they are fiction because the issue is just not relevant to the creation/evolution discussion. Why you brought it up at all is not clear. The same for your "proof" of ID, which you justified by playing footsie with the definition of ID but was really intended by the site you linked to not as proof for ID but as proof for the existence of God, another issue which is not seriously disputed in this forum. Even stranger, you quoted a Roman Catholic theological authority, a member of a Christian denomination which rejects creationism and ID and is rejected in turn by creationists as apostate. Your line of argument here has definitely been confusing.

Looks very much like you want to avoid the evidence and instead want to attack me because I answered the questions that have been posted. (note: I have no control over what questions people post) If you want to refute anything on the site I linked, please do so. The confusion over intelligent design was caused by your failure to understand that that subject includes intelligent design of the universe and is not limited to evolution as was the case with the definition that you posted that is related to a specific program in Seattle. A simple google search indicates that your definition was in error as is your assertion that Catholics do not believe in creationism. The Catholic Church allows for evolution but insists that God created everything. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in anencyclical entitled Humani Generis (1950) held that Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution so long as they do not deny the creation by God of a unique transphysical soul in every human being.
Any Catholic theory must adhere to the following Dogmas:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence) Creation Regarding your assertion that the site I linked to is not proof for ID the table of contents includes the following:
   
   THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic
   

 

[disciple Clint]

What is the criteria for something being designed?

planed in such a way as to accomplish a specific need or goal.

 

[SelfSim]

I got to page 26 of 'Evidence of the Existence and Nature of God'.
(I skimmed and went to the conclusion, which is):

We may now proceed to our conclusion – combining a first premise from physics and a second premise from metaphysics:

(1) There is a high likelihood of a beginning of physical reality (prior to which physical reality was literally nothing).
(2) From nothing, only nothing comes (apriori true).

Therefore it is highly likely that the universe came from something which is not physical reality (i.e. beyond physical reality). This is commonly referred to as a “transcendent cause of the universe” (or “a transcendent cause of physical reality”) – in short, “a Creator.”

The term 'physical reality', if such a term was ever a topic of study in physics, (which it never is), would have to be objectively defined by the results of some last best tested theory/model, (same as anything considered as being part of science's 'objective' reality) ... and in this case, the actual model, which has been retold in anecdotes/informally loose commentaries, over the preceeding 25 pages or so, says nothing about 'physical reality'. Even if it did, this would still have zero impact on the last best tested theory/model anyway, (ie: Lambda CDM), because this theory is not about 'Physical Reality' in the first place.

In fact, Lambda CDM is about:

• the (measurable) existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background;

• the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies;

• the observed abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium;

• the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae.

The final conclusion there, ie: 'Therefore it is highly likely that the universe came from something which is not physical reality (i.e. beyond physical reality)' is just utter gobbledygook as it has zero connection with Lambda CDM's focus (nor with the preceeding 25 pages).

 

[Larniavc]

Purpose.

That is a good answer: it certainly gave me pause. How do you identify something’s purpose?

 

[Larniavc]

planed in such a way as to accomplish a specific need or goal.

I understand that. I’m asking how you identify that.

 

[Larniavc]

Purpose/intent .. (which has to be imagined, believed or Faith'd .. certainly not evidenced).

And how do you identify purpose?

 

[disciple Clint]

And how do you identify purpose?

fulfilling a need

 

[Bungle_Bear]

fulfilling a need

What need does a giraffe fulfil?

 

[Speedwell]

planed in such a way as to accomplish a specific need or goal.

How do you tell? Why is that not the way one detects design in human-made objects?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a good answer: it certainly gave me pause. How do you identify something’s purpose?

By reading the manual that comes with the product.

 

[Larniavc]

So, from an ID perspective if something does not have a purpose it is not designed: correct?

 

[Speedwell]

Looks very much like you want to avoid the evidence and instead want to attack me because I answered the questions that have been posted. (note: I have no control over what questions people post) If you want to refute anything on the site I linked, please do so.

Why should I want to refute any of it? I'm an Anglican, educated up to and including a Bachelor's degree by Roman Catholics. I'm familiar with the content of your link and agree with most of it.

The confusion over intelligent design was caused by your failure to understand that that subject includes intelligent design of the universe and is not limited to evolution as was the case with the definition that you posted that is related to a specific program in Seattle. A simple google search indicates that your definition was in error...

You can play definition games all you want, but as the term is customarily used in this forum, "Intelligent Design" refers specifically to an hypothesis about the development of biological complexity concocted by the Discovery Institute. If you use the term "Intelligent Design" here without explaining that you are intending it merely as a synonym for divine creation you will only cause confusion--as you did.

as is your assertion that Catholics do not believe in creationism.

I know enough about the Catholic Church to know that you are wrong. If nothing else, Roman Catholics reject the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura which is fundamental to creationism.

The Catholic Church allows for evolution but insists that God created everything. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in anencyclical entitled Humani Generis (1950) held that Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution so long as they do not deny the creation by God of a unique transphysical soul in every human being.
Any Catholic theory must adhere to the following Dogmas:

1. God created everything out of nothing ("ex nihlo" in Latin)
2. God created an orderly universe (the universe is not a product of chance)
3. God sustained everything in being (everything depends on God for existence)

"Catholics are free to believe, or not believe, in evolution..." So there you have it: by your own admission, the Pope himself is not a creationist and does not require faithful Catholics to be, either.

Regarding your assertion that the site I linked to is not proof for ID the table of contents includes the following:

1. THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR
   I. The Big Bang
   II.The Borde-Vilenkin Guth Proof
   III. Evidence From Entropy
   IV. Something, Nothing,and Creation
   V. Fine-Tuning
   VI. Conclusion
   Obviously reading the linked resource would have eliminated much confusion and provided more than adequate evidence. The 7 Essential Modules - Credible Catholic
   

Those are all evidence that God exists and created the universe. I see no evidence of creationism at all. If you think otherwise, show me the evidence for the literal historical inerrancy of Genesis and that accepting it as such is a requirement for Salvation. In the meantime stop insulting Roman Catholics by calling them creationists.

 

[Frank Robert]

What is the criteria for something being designed?

Evolutionary Biologist, Dan Cardinale hosted Michael Behe (3/22/21) for a chat on irreducible complexity on youtube. Dan focuses on Behe's criteria for IC (the main component of design)during the first half.

 

[Direct Driver]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

As a Christian myself I do find many arguments from "my side" to be very frustrating. Too many Christians see the bible as a genuine source of scientific knowledge. It's not. That is not its function. Science is about how, religion is about why.

Heck, the authors of the earliest books of the bible believed the earth was flat and there was "solid ground above us that was held up by the pillars of the mountains. And that was fine. They got God's message out just fine. He didn't need to impart 24th century scientific knowledge on them to get the message of His purpose for us out by detailing such knowledge. And yes, "24" was not a typo. If the Lord waits, we're going to know a heck of a lot more than we do now in these soon to be "ancient" times.