[b said:
Quote[/b] ] but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science," the cardinal wrote.
that's driving me nuts. he obviously doesn't know a thing about evolution, science, or the evidence. I'll reply by saying that evolution isn't random (as i said already), and they're the ones ignoring the evidence against design... or at least about bad design.
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
How can a perfect being create such unperfect things? and why?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]he argues that only in a world where the laws of nature are not absolute can free will and miracles (which by definition are outside nature) be possible
if you want to say that quantum mechanics are because of free will, then you would have to say that the piece of paper to my right also has free will because the same things that atoms do in my body are also happening in that piece of paper.
besides, you can predict what atoms will do. I'm not saying I know much about quantum mechanics, but in chemistry we were taught about how the negative and positive charges and blah blah. Even if i'm wrong, I KNOW you can predict things in the "big" scheme of things. like radioactive dating, etc. It's not about how predictable single atoms are, but about what most atoms do, etc.
besides (like I said I don't really know about quantum mechanics... i'm sure plenty of you know more than I do so please correct me), The way I understand it, we don't understand exactly what goes on inside atoms. We can't even see single atoms, and we only know that gluons, quarks, etc. exist because we smash subatomic particles together and they come out. That's like smashing a computer and seeing it's components to see how it works.
one cannot say a computer is random because we don't know what goes on inside it.
*trying hard not to give links about intelligent falling*