Against the Ropes with Darwin: The Imminent End of Evolution Theory

[PhilVaz]

dts << I am a “scientific ignoramus.” It’s not my field and I conceded that early on. >>

Thank you. Oh good another evolution thread, I get to post a link to my new article, a transcript and video/audio of the recent Nightline program (8/10/2005) where Intelligent Design takes a licking (but keeps on ticking). Conservative columnist vs. conservative columnist. Apparently George Will has read a few science books.

George Will beats up Cal Thomas

Phil P

 

[Forest-Pine]

.
Steve Andersen:

yeah but there are no evil atheistic scientists holding our children’s future ransome by trying to change the school system

it is the ID proponents who are trying to change the system…they are the ones stepping out of bounds

I disagree. I think both are of equal concern. An example of each:

Evolution proponent: I majored in biology at a major university. The branch I was in was small and only science majors. I started up a Newman Center (after an entire year of the school admin actively blocking my attempts) and chaired a Christian club. My grades immediately went from straight As to Cs and I was regularly called out in class and publicly derided for being a Christian. My biology lab prof was the worst. He would literally say how stupid Christianity is, etc. and make it clear that my grade was suffering because of my beliefs so that others wouldn’t be so stupid as to publicly profess a faith. Now we’re talking facts like counting goldfish breaths with varying temperatures of water here, so the only religion he knew of me was from my extra-curricular activities. That is worrisome that he was doing that, but scary that when I sought help for the problem, the admin sympathized with him, saying I was actively working against the teacher and all he believes in a public way by chairing the club (which, mind you, was not in the least an activist group). The admin as well as the teacher saw evolution/science/etc as a belief system that counters Christianity. I saw a news article the other day that said scientists, doctors, and psychologists are the least likely professions to have any religious beliefs, and overwhelmingly so. It is not surprising that so many scientists try to use science (something they do believe in) to counter religion (something they don’t) as that would be obvious. But when they go overboard, the results are just as bad as the opposite extreme.

Fundie: A couple I had the pleasure of meeting a few weeks ago homeschool their children. It is something I am genuinely interested in so I was asking questions. After showing me various curriculums, I asked what she uses for science. She froze as if I spoke a naughty word, bristled, then spoke through gritted teeth: “Do you believe in evolution?” Well, I mumbled something to which she quickly cut me off, “Because the Bible is PRETTY clear about the history of humanity and that evolution COULD NOT occur!” She practically sent me packing. A few days later (after listening to several disparaging comments from her husband about Pope Benedict), her children are excited to tell me about their trip to a small museum. They saw dinosaur bones! “But they weren’t real…” “Oh, were they molds of the dinosaur bones?” I ask them. She jumped in really quickly to say that it is difficult for them to go to museums since they don’t believe in evolution (apparently macro, micro, natural selection, specialization, anything) so she’s excited about a Creation Science museum opening in Kentucky that they plan to go to. Now I don’t know if she told them dinosaurs didn’t exist, or what. Those poor children, so mis-informed. It is scary. She is taking religion out of context and applying it to science–something which is was never intended to do. No better than the scientists doing the same, but in reverse.

 

[Forest-Pine]

Me: I honestly haven’t studied it enough to form an opinion on what exactly I like or don’t. I left the science college after the second year (as you might tell, it wasn’t a good match). I find it all fascinating, honestly. I think micro evolution is blatantly obvious, and macro I’m a little yes and no on still. I don’t have a problem with the concept of animals evolving, including man, but do have a mental barrier with the whole we came from monkeys and such. Honestly, while fascinating, I find it to be a moot point in regards to faith. Does it matter how I got here? Not really so long as I realize WHO was behind it. The Catholic Church allows one to fully believe in evolution or literal 6 day creationism or pretty much anything in between. ZENIT news service did a couple columns on this about a month ago that some here mind find interesting (it was in favor of evolution, fyi). But as fascinating as it all is, is it worth the time and attention it gets in the media (and the tempers it even got from some here)? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter in the least.

The problem is that it DOES matter in the US because the only people publically supporting evolution are people who DO profess it as their scientific CREED, while the only people actively boycotting it are doing so with little to no credibility and a flawed religious doctrine which they use as “proof.” At least, that’s all the media portrays, and here in America, what the media says is gold.

So a challenge to us Catholics then, no matter where we are on the spectrum, is to clearly delineate between religion and science and counter this image by showing that we can have personal beliefs–based on science, based on religion, based on what our favorite colors are, whatever–but that it has nothing to do with our faith or our salvation and therefore the church allows individual opinions. Likewise, as a belief in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with whether evolution occurred, scientists should not feel threatened by our faith. While fascinating and something worth discussing as it is part of our human experience, it really has no bearing on the eternal salvation of our souls

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dts:

But of course, if they said there was no evidence for the supernatural that would violate Scripture. It would be an atheistic presupposition about the nature of reality.

Romans 1

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

This is about the witness of natural theology to God - which is investigable without revelation. As the argument of Romans 1 requires.​

The Resurrection (f’r’instance) is strictly supernatural - a revelation of it is needed; it cannot be arrived at by reason, but by revelation alone. Because it is wholly without analogies to itself, except among other equally supernatural entities, such the Incarnation or the Ascension.

IOW, there is and can be no evidence for it as the thing it is, because the non-supernatural order is incommensurate with the supernatural. Something wholly unlike it in kind, unlike it except in being the work of God no less that it is, cannot be intelligible as an analogy to it; therefore, cannot be recognisable evidence of it. ##

 

[dts]

PhilVaz:

dts << I am a “scientific ignoramus.” It’s not my field and I conceded that early on. >>

Thank you. Oh good another evolution thread, I get to post a link to my new article, a transcript and video/audio of the recent Nightline program (8/10/2005) where Intelligent Design takes a licking (but keeps on ticking). Conservative columnist vs. conservative columnist. Apparently George Will has read a few science books.

George Will beats up Cal Thomas

Phil P

Yes. Unfortunately, I am not expert in all fields. But, neither is George Will. He need not have read any physical science books to reach the conclusions he reaches.

The Apostle Paul teaches that there are adequate proofs in creation for all to know that there is a Designer:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse . . . " (Romans 1)

Therefore, to deny intelligent design is to make a religious or philosophical statement. Here lies the problem. Many evolutionists, though not all, deny intelligent design and they teach that science requires such a conclusion. At that point, they are trespassing into the realms of religion and philosophy. Thus, we have the great cultural conflict that we are witnessing.

It is not about creation vs. evolution. It is about epistemology and the proper limits of science. And, about the nature of the scientific method.

Atheism, a religion, is in many instances being thrust upon our children in the name of science.

 

[dts]

## This is about the witness of natural theology to God - which is investigable without revelation. As the argument of Romans 1 requires.

Agreed.
Gottle of Geer:

The Resurrection (f’r’instance) is strictly supernatural - a revelation of it is needed; it cannot be arrived at by reason, but by revelation alone. Because it is wholly without analogies to itself, except among other equally supernatural entities, such the Incarnation or the Ascension.

IOW, there is and can be no evidence for it as the thing it is, because the non-supernatural order is incommensurate with the supernatural. Something wholly unlike it in kind, unlike it except in being the work of God no less that it is, cannot be intelligible as an analogy to it; therefore, cannot be recognisable evidence of it. ##

This is inaccurate. The Resurrection occurred at a specific time and place according to the testimony of many witnesses. Accordingly, there is evidence for this and some other supernatural events.
Nevertheless, you are correct to distinguish between things that can be known from nature versus those that cannot.

 

[CreosMary]

Orogeny:

I think that is very much what drives the debate. The debate is not about the science or there would be no debate.

Peace

Tim

Hi Tim, I knew I would find you in here!
I think the battle is over and the war is won…for God!
God Bless
Br CreosMary

 

[Orogeny]

dts:

The Apostle Paul teaches that there are adequate proofs in creation for all to know that there is a Designer:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse . . . " (Romans 1)

I don’t believe that Paul was speaking about scientific evidence here. I believe in God. I believe He is the Creator. But I believe these things on faith, not because I have seen scientific evidence for them.

Therefore, to deny intelligent design is to make a religious or philosophical statement. Here lies the problem. Many evolutionists, though not all, deny intelligent design and they teach that science requires such a conclusion. At that point, they are trespassing into the realms of religion and philosophy. Thus, we have the great cultural conflict that we are witnessing.

There is a difference in believing in a Creator based on faith and requiring scientific evidence of the same. ID is not science. Is there a Designer? Absolutely yes! Is there scientific evidence of the Creator? NO.
You are right about one thing, though. To deny ID is a religious or philosophical statement because ID is religion and/or philosophy. To deny ID is to make a proper scientific decision.

It is not about creation vs. evolution. It is about epistemology and the proper limits of science. And, about the nature of the scientific method.

What are the proper limits of science? I thought that science was bound by the natural.

What is the nature of the scientific method? Should science include the supernatural in it’s study? How do you test the supernatural?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

## Unfortunately, it is not a very intelligent article - as pointed out.

God is truly an Almighty Gracious Creator-God, even if He works by natural processes within creation so as to govern and maintain what He has created by the word of His power; an author who doesn’t appreciate this, is not an author who can be taken seriously. God’s activity does not have to be startling or spectacular or unconnected to the natural order, in order to be the activity of God. “More spectacular” or “less connected to the natural world”, does not imply “more religiously valid” or “more truly God’s work”.

Darwinism does not destroy the doctrine of creation ex nihilo - it leaves it alone, because Darwinism does not go “into God” Who is the transcendent Creator of all things. Darwinism cannot do so, because it does not profess to transcend creation - it is not a species of theology, discourse about God, in the strict sense; but of a theology which considers His works; & no more.

Unfortunately, the author of the article sacrifices the Providence of God to His Creativity, and completely ignores the Transcendence of God, as well as implying that God does not work through and in nature. A supernatural Creator-God is no Christian God, if He is not a God of Providence, immanent in creation, & wholly transcending it.

Neither Darwinism in particular nor ideas of evolution in general do anything to make Christian theism more difficult to believe than before - a belief in some form of evolution (such as Darwinism) merely increases the amount of *detail *for the believer to consider. Since Christian believing does not come from reason but from God’s grace bringing about the grace of faith active through love in us, no extra burden is imposed on reason at all. So Christian believing and Christian theology are, in their essence, unaffected. ##

Very well said, Michael.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

CreosMary:

Hi Tim, I knew I would find you in here!
I think the battle is over and the war is won…for God!
God Bless
Br CreosMary

Hey, Creos! You know me all too well!

Keep well, my friend.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

I don’t believe that Paul was speaking about scientific evidence here. I believe in God. I believe He is the Creator. But I believe these things on faith, not because I have seen scientific evidence for them.

Faith can be supported by the evidence of the natural world though it is not necessarily dependent on it…

The Apostle is clearly saying that the natural creation itself is obvious evidence for God irrespective of one’s faith. He is talking about pagans, who did not have Christian faith.

I can’t say that he had our modern notion of natural science in mind, but he was certainly speaking of plain observation. He is making an intelligent design argument from the observed facts of nature.

Orogeny:

To deny ID is a religious or philosophical statement because ID is religion and/or philosophy. To deny ID is to make a proper scientific decision.

This is the problem. If ID is religious or philosophical then it must work both ways. Pure natural physical science can neither deny nor affirm. When it denies, it is engaging in religion (atheism) or philosophy. This is the thing that many evolutionary scientists won’t admit.

Sciences such as logic can clearly support ID.

 

[Orogeny]

dts:

Faith can be supported by the evidence of the natural world though it is not necessarily dependent on it…

The Apostle is clearly saying that the natural creation itself is obvious evidence for God irrespective of one’s faith. He is talking about pagans, who did not have Christian faith.

That is true if one has the Grace of God to see it.

I can’t say that he had our modern notion of natural science in mind, but he was certainly speaking of plain observation. He is making an intelligent design argument from the observed facts of nature.

I think you misunderstand what ID is about. ID isn’t about plain observation. It is an argument that science cannot explain certain things so those are evidence of a designer. The belief that there is a Creator and ID are not necessarily the same thing. I believe in the Creator but I reject ID as science.

This is the problem. If ID is religious or philosophical then it must work both ways. Pure natural physical science can neither deny nor affirm. When it denies, it is engaging in religion (atheism) or philosophy. This is the thing that many evolutionary scientists won’t admit.

If you have been reading my responses, you already know that I agree with this.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

What are the proper limits of science? I thought that science was bound by the natural.

What is the nature of the scientific method? Should science include the supernatural in it’s study? How do you test the supernatural?

Peace

Tim

I think you are right the natural sciences should be bound by the natural. But, it’s not so easy.
Even natural science is dependent on metaphysical science. Natural science cannot function without metaphysical science.

Natural science is not the only kind of science.
Broadly speaking a simple dictionary definition for “science” is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

All science relies on the use of the science of logic. Logic applies to all knowledge. It prescribes how to combine concepts into judgments and judgments into syllogisms and chains of reasoning so as to achieve truth.

As you can see, we quickly get into issues like epistemology. This is where things get messy and philosophical. It also serves to point out why it so easy for natural scientists to cross the line from the physical sciences to metaphysical sciences.

Part of the problem is our modern insistence on separating and rigidly categorizing these different areas of thought.

Aggressive use of the Establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution to exclude any semblance of religion from schools and other areas of public life exacerbates the importance of the problem. Because, without religion there can be no unity to our knowledge.

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

I think you misunderstand what ID is about. ID isn’t about plain observation. It is an argument that science cannot explain certain things so those are evidence of a designer. The belief that there is a Creator and ID are not necessarily the same thing. I believe in the Creator but I reject ID as science.

ID relies not only on things science can’t explain, it also points to the things science can explain (ie. their relationship, harmony, and complexity).

It is possible for us to look at a given thing and say that it evidences intentional design. We can and do use scientific methods to aid us in making such observations.

 

[Orogeny]

dts:

ID relies not only on things science can’t explain, it also points to the things science can explain (ie. their relationship, harmony, and complexity).

If science can explain it, ID isn’t needed.

It is possible for us to look at a given thing and say that it evidences intentional design. We can and do use scientific methods to aid us in making such observations.

I’m sorry, but I will disagree with you here. Please give one example of an observation using the scientific method that evidences intelligent design. If your argument is irreducible complexity, that is a neat idea that has no scientific basis, so I would be disinclined to accept that.

I recommend you read a book by Kenneth Miller titled “Finding Darwin’s God”. Dr. Miller is a devout Catholic and a cellular biologist. He has a chapter in his book that slams ID pretty convincingly in language that is not too technical.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

dts:

Natural science is not the only kind of science.

Ah, but it is the only kind of science that deals with biological evolution and that is taught in science class. Any attempt to translate it to another field changes what evolutionary theory is.

Aggressive use of the Establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution to exclude any semblance of religion from schools and other areas of public life exacerbates the importance of the problem. Because, without religion there can be no unity to our knowledge.

I would agree with that. I would like to see religion back in schools, but not in science classes. A metaphysics or philosophy class would be an appropriate place to discuss ID.

Peace

Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dts:

Agreed.

This is inaccurate. The Resurrection occurred at a specific time and place according to the testimony of many witnesses. Accordingly, there is evidence for this and some other supernatural events.

It can be preached, it can be received as a fact, it can be testified to, its power can be experienced by Christians, and that experience can be inferred by others; though whether they will reason back to the Resurrection as cause of that experience, is another matter: those present at the Baptism did not hear the Voice of the Father so as to recognise it for what it was - so with the Resurrection & its power. It is not itself accessible; which is why direct proof of it is impossible, so its effects can be misapprehended, and go unrecognised; because it is not at all of man or nature, but is sheerly of God. Even if proof of it by the normal methods of historical study were possible, that would not show the Resurrection to be what faith recognises in it - and faith is the only instrument by which it can be grasped as the thing it is.​

Nevertheless, you are correct to distinguish between things that can be known from nature versus those that cannot.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Orogeny:

That is true if one has the Grace of God to see it.

I think you misunderstand what ID is about. ID isn’t about plain observation. It is an argument that science cannot explain certain things so those are evidence of a designer. The belief that there is a Creator and ID are not necessarily the same thing. I believe in the Creator but I reject ID as science.

Does ID base its case for design on the lack of an adequate scientific account for them ?​

That’s asking for trouble:

• God is not an explanation (see previous posts, ad nauseam)
• Explanation-by-Creator is not necessarily incompatible with explanation-by-evolution (the One may work by the other, for instance) (s. p. p, a.n.)
• God is not a “God of gaps”, as ID appears to be implying - God is the God of all His creation, the explained & explicable bits as much as the unexplained
• Will God, having ceased to be necessary as an explanatory hypothesis for certain entities (once the gaps are filled in), be dispensed with ? It would be logical to dispense with Him, unless He served some other epistemological function for science as well.
• Mixing a world-view (or even a universe-view) with science is unsound as a method for scientific research; the two are incommensurable, so both suffer.
• God cannot be used as an explanation of anything by science, because God is not an entity belonging to the natural order. So ID cannot use God as a scientific explanation.
• As William James pointed out in 1902, the argument from design is anthropomorphic (or is certainly liable to be); we see design in what is design for our purposes. And what is design for us, may not always reflect what is design in God’s eyes. So we may misconstrue the workings of this Intelligence; and no firm conclusions can be based on uncertain inferences from the study of God’s designs in nature.
• ID may be theistic - but plenty of theisms are incompatible with Christian theisms; some of which are not wholly compatible with Catholic theism (the theism most of these objections presuppose) ##

If you have been reading my responses, you already know that I agree with this.

Peace

Tim

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

If science can explain it, ID isn’t needed.

I don’t see the logic in this statement. It seems to beg the question. Please explain.

Orogeny:

I’m sorry, but I will disagree with you here. Please give one example of an observation using the scientific method that evidences intelligent design.

Observations:
I am looking at my computer screen. I keep seeing messages signed by Tim. I see repetitions of various letters. The letters are placed into a logical order that I know is English. Not only are the letters arranged to form English words, but they are also arranged to form sentences that express complete thoughts that I can usually understand.

Hypothesis 1: these letters formed randomly through natural mutations to express complete thoughts that work in harmony to communicate with me in a language known as English.

Hypothesis 2: these letters were formed by an intelligent designer to express complete thoughts that work in harmony to communicate with me in a language known as English.

Test 1: I’ll post a response to see if Tim replies. If he does, then that certainly increases the odds that there is an intelligent designer on the other end. Of course, I will follow up with some additional tests for further confirmation or rebuttal. If there is no response, then I will still need to prepare some additional tests.

 

[dts]

Orogeny:

Ah, but it is the only kind of science that deals with biological evolution and that is taught in science class. Any attempt to translate it to another field changes what evolutionary theory is.

Not so, logic also comes into play in the science classroom, even if it is not acknowledged or consciously taught. Other sciences may also come into play though they may be assumed on the part of the participants.

Rightly or wrongly, evolution theory has been translated to numerous fields other than biology. American jurisprudence has even been infected with it.