Animal Biotechnology and Guided Evolution

[edwest2]

Your last two questions go the heart of the Political version of ID and the false fears generated by opponents of it. School boards are being infiltrated everywhere but just as you pointed out, there is nothing to teach. Yet, it is painted as a great threat being carried out by shadowy members of this or that Institute who are undoubtedly motivated by the evil but not secret, Wedge Document (which anyone who cares to look can find on the internet).

The actual theory of Intelligent Design is confirmed by Cardinal Schoenborn. It is both scientific and intuitive. The apparent design we all see in nature is actual design. God is not presented as a tinkerer but He can and has intervened throughout history. This linkage is historical and literal as well as spiritual. On this forum, and also in the Catholic Church, we must have the audacity to say that while science can provide some information, we are not haphazard mistakes, i.e. random mutation and natural selection fail to provide the complete picture.

It is in this complementary view where the reason of faith and the reason of science combine to present the whole picture. Science takes things apart, incredibly complex things, like cells, and proclaims, Ooh, ooh, this made itself. Given enough time, everything made itself. Which is just fine for the anti-theist mind set. It is a perfect explanation.

As Catholics, we are also informed by actual history and faith. Instead of denigrating the intelligence of the writers of the Bible and failing to take into account their divine inspiration, then when we read about the invisible things that were made by God, it makes sense.

So it must be, as Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, that there is design in nature. To say otherwise is an abdication of human intelligence.

Now what good is knowing this? The good is both practical and spiritual. First, people are told that in fact, they are not animals (mammals, yes). They are human and physical but also contain a spiritual component called a soul. As the Church has taught for 2,000 years, it is for their good in this life and for the life after to realize this. And upon realizing this, knowing, as a fact, that they can be in communion with the One who made them.

To paraphrase from Storm Warning by Billy Graham: “If what this man is saying [about Christ] isn’t true then it doesn’t matter. If what he is saying is true then nothing else matters.”

Science plays a role, but it cannot and does not provide critical information. In the current climate of anti-theism supported by most leading scientists, this must be widely known.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Camron]

This is an excellent point (I added emphasis).

In my view, everything except for sin and death is difficult without the eyes of faith. Catholic spiritual teachers have always referred to the loss of faith (especially atheism) as blindness. I don’t think we should underestimate that. Catholic scientists should not try to view the world through the eyes of materialist-philosophy, but rather with the profound truths of revelation guiding them.

Certainly, developing a precise definition of “designed things in nature” is a very difficult task and there are a mess of problems.

But as I see it, Darwinian theory comes with its own mess of problems and some scientists believe that they are insurmountable. (The following link gives an idea about the challenge that evolutionists face, and it does seem impossible as I read it).

boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/

I’ve read similar articles before.

Again, I’m not saying there are no anomalies within nature that are difficult for evolutionary theories to explain. Certain species, such as the spider wasp, certainly exhibit some behaviors which are not easily explained by purely evolutionary principles. I’m not sure of any evolutionary theories that adequately explain these kinds of co-evolutionary traits to my own satisfaction. But I’m talking about anomalies. By and large, evolutionary theories do explain the pathways of life that we observe everywhere around us.

Well, it depends on how you define “evolutionary processes”. If these are natural laws that work on random mutations and random environmental factors, then it’s difficult to say that “God used this” since these things (supposedly) can be demonstrated in a laboratory.

That doesn’t follow.

Just because these things can be demonstrated in a laboratory does not mean that God cannot use this to providentially accomplish His will.

Just as God can use work with random human accidents and random human choices to providentially accomplish His will, God can likewise use random mutations and random environmental factors to providentially accomplish His will too.

I really don’t see the reason for objection on this.

Some might say that if it’s random then it’s not God doing it. My objection to this is that, to God, it’s not random.

From a human perspective it may appear random (and even this randomness seems to be disappearing with time as more knowledge is gained). But from God’s perspective there’s nothing random about it at all, because He already knows what will happen, and He already knows that it will **work according to His will **regardless of what actually happens.

One may escape God’s grace if they so choose. But there’s simply no escaping God’s will no matter what the person do.

To say that “God created ice to form on the water when it got cold” is a problem when a scientist causes ice to form on water in his lab (or in his kitchen refridgerator). This is not saying anything about God’s “creative power”. Or, if it is saying that this is what it means to call God “the Creator”, then we really have an imaginary God who doesn’t create anything that the natural laws themselves can’t create on their own.

As one popular joke about God’s Creation ends, “Hey! Go create your own universe from nothing and get your own materials to work with!”

I find anyone who says that us being able to scientifically understand (and mechanically duplicate) some natural process necessarily means that God doesn’t do it to be the height of arrogance.

It’s not our primary reason for being here, but God placed us here to discover, understand and learn many things, being co-creators with God (in the minor sense) just as we are destined to be co-heirs with Christ (in the major sense).

Then, when humanity actually starts to really discover, understand and learn many things, which is what God intended for us to begin with on our path toward Christ, they actually have the audacity to claim that we have discovered, understood and learned that this means that God doesn’t actually do it after all.

This is utter rubbish, with humanity, yet once again, totally turning God’s intentions around so as to make it out to be the extreme opposite of what He actually intended.

This is the problem with Darwinian theory. It is built on materialist philosophy which asserts that all things in nature are explainable by natural laws.

The theory of evolution is not built on materialist philosophy. It’s built on the observations of the development of the universe’s material nature, specifically applied to the speciation of life on earth.

The problem in this is that many within the academic circles of the biological sciences think that their observations of the development of the universe’s material nature unveils the deeper meaning behind the original meaning of all life, which it doesn’t.

In fact, given that many seem to be looking at the fallen nature of this universe in order to find their meaning, lacking faith in God, it’s exactly the opposite of what they see.

I believe, as Catholics, we have to reject that notion. The natural laws themselves cannot explain all of nature – nor can science ever explain the development of all of nature. This goes against the claims of evolutionary science.
If God affected nature somehow, what did He do?

That’s a very good question. Take the 10 Commandments for example. They were inscribed by the finger of God Himself.

Bearing this in mind, could we use scientific principles to prove this, such as checking for fingerprints for example?

How exactly does one use science to prove that something which is spiritual has directly acted upon the physical world?

 

[edwest2]

Unfortunately, science is too focused, today, to consider any other explanation. As the Catholic Church teaches, anyone, whether it’s a scientist or a plumber, can detect God through natural reason. Science is not required for this to occur. Think of the apostle Thomas who saw Christ after He was raised from the dead. He doubted the reality of it.

And that is the problem with science, it is only one way of viewing reality and it is incomplete. For those who view life only through science and the pronouncements of scientists, far from leading a person to God, it has become a way of leading a person away from God and to the worship of the human mind. How would you answer this question: “Genetics and environment, what else is there?”

And what would a scientist say about a man who could turn water to wine or instantly cleanse lepers if he was there to witness it?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

Here I think you’ve conceded too much to materialist philosophy. You seem to be saying that, as Catholics, we must say that it’s possible that God is not our creator and that the miraculous does not exist.

No. That is not what I am saying at all. :nope:

First of all, you need to stop misunderstanding what I am actually claiming. :coffeeread:

1: I am not saying that God is not our Creator. I am saying that God is our Creator.

2: I am not saying that God using natural means to create means that God is not creating. I am saying that if God used a natural means to create our bodies this still means that God is still creating us, albeit indirectly from a spiritual perspective not directly discernable by science.

3: I am not saying that we need to totally revise Catholic dogma in order to make accommodations for the theory of evolution, such as some Catholics erroneously do regarding Original Sin. I am, however saying that, based on past stances that we have made regarding certain scientific discoveries, we may have to be **more cautious about what we claim as evidence ** that God is *directly interacting with His creation when He creates **.

***** Directly as in “God both physically and spiritually interacting with His creation in a purely miraculous sense” as opposed to Indirectly as in “God only spiritually interacting with His creation in a purely spiritual sense which exists outside the boundaries of science”.

4: I am not talking about Deism, the idea roughly corresponding to God winding up His creation and then stepping away. I am talking about Theism, specifically Catholic Theism, which admits that God not only wound up His creation but also remained deeply involved with it, sustaining all things by His powerful Word, and creating, either physically, spiritually, or both when applicable, all throughout His creation.

We profess at Mass every Sunday that God created “all things seen and unseen”. So we have to accept some aspect of creationism. God created something – and certainly has intervened in nature in ways that were observed (miracles). There’s no way we can deny that and maintain our faith.

I’ve never questioned any of these things and yes we must accept some aspects of God being our Creator, because He is our Creator. I can certainly question “creationism” though.

In this sense I am only saying that God may have created in ways which are not necessarily miraculous in the “both physical and spiritual sense” noted above with the ( * ) and yet still be our Creator too.

Regardless of how He created us, He is still our Creator nonetheless.

 

[Camron]

A recent film is very illustrative of the meaning of Intelligent Design science. “My Kid Could Draw That” came out a couple of years ago and it’s about a family that put some paintings in a gallery that were said to be done by their 3 year old daughter (it’s an interesting film worth seeing). The paintings were very abstract – almost like Jackson Pollack. But in time, they got a huge audience and collectors paid a lot for them.

As the film progresses, however, the filmmakers and others became suspicious about whether the child did the work or not.
Through what I would call an application of intelligent design theory, the abstract paintings were scrutinized. In the end, it became obvious that the child’s father helped with the paintings. How did we know? The lines and shapes looked “adult”. When the child was filmed on her own, her lines and shapes looked “childish”. As a result, the entire thing was considered a fraud in the end.

This is a great example of the intuition that we have in viewing art, and also how we can detect design and intelligence. In this case, the viewers could see the difference between adult abstract art and a child’s abstractions. Was this “science”? There’s no reason why the art work could not have been analyzed scientifically and a conclusion reached. For example, on a big canvas, if there was a brush stroke that continued for over 3 feet without wavering or a break – it would be evidence of an adult’s work. Why? Because an adult’s arm has the reach and strength to paint that long, while a three year old child can only paint a continuous line that is a foot (or so) long.

That is scientific analysis to determine the nature of intelligent design in something that is very subtle.

Ok, let’s go with this.

Let’s pretend that we’ve found the authentic stone slabs (the second set which were not broken, which were place into the Ark of the Covenant) that has the literal handwriting of God on them, written literally with His own finger.

Now what could we tell about God by analyzing His handwriting?

Could we authentically determine anything about His personality by analyzing the stroke angles, print size and letter patterns as many criminal graphologists do with human handwriting?

You had also mentioned the fraudulent artwork above too, so much so that, in the end, it became obvious that the child’s father helped with the paintings.

You asked, “How did we know?”

You answered, “The lines and shapes looked ‘adult’. When the child was filmed on her own, her lines and shapes looked ‘childish’. As a result, the entire thing was considered a fraud in the end.”

So if we applied this same line of inquiry to God’s handwriting, would we perceive that the printing is “godlike”?

Or, if God did a painting, would we be able to determine God’s “true height” and “arm length” based on the size of the painting?

Or, if we had an example of Jesus’ handwriting from Apostolic times and God’s handwriting on the 10 Commandments, would we find them to be one and the same?

What exactly could we tell about God based on our analysis of these two tablets?

 

[Camron]

I think it’s simple enough to approach this with the limits of what science can determine.

In the case of St. Job, we have this:

Now we want to use science to determine if this was a miracle.

Ok, first we have to determine whether Job existed or not.

How would science do that?

First, by checking every bit of evidence that one can find to figure out when and where Job lived and what records we have about him. Then, we need to determine where his oldest son’s house was. We could then check the weather for that particular time. If it was shown that there was zero wind anywhere in the area on that day, and that no other properties suffered wind damage except for that house which suddently was blown to the ground (we investigate how strongly the house was built also), and we observe that there were no other natural or human forces or causes that could have resulted in the four corners of the house collapsing … then, we add the claims of St. Job, an honest and honorable man, known as a Prophet of God, and as Catholic scientists we conclude: “there is no scientific explanation for the sudden collapse of that house. There was no wind recorded anywhere in the near vicinity that day, no storms, nothing of the strength and power needed to collapse a stone house. St. Job stated it was a miracle. As scientsts we can see no reason why this event was not a miracle and we assert that it was until other evidence can be shown otherwise.”

What about a microburst?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Microburstnasa.JPG/250px-

A microburst often has high winds that can knock over full grown trees. They usually last for a couple of seconds. In Vaughan Ontario, Canada, for example, one very strong microburst wind flipped a several ton shipping container up the side of a hill…



Certainly an ancient home built in Job’s time would not be able to withstand this. In fact, it would most likely be a miracle if it did stand up to these kinds of winds. :yup:

We can proceed with the next one:

Technically no. Not until we’ve rules out the possibility of a microburst. :nope:

But let’s proceed further anyway.

 

[Camron]

This is certainly more difficult and more subtle. Here we have “the sound of marching” in the tops of the trees.

For science to evaluate this, we’d need more corroborating evidence – statements from other people, etc.

Obviously, science has severe limits when trying to determine the cause of transitory events in the past.

Again, this doesn’t stop evolutionists from making all sorts of claims about what “could have happened”.

We’re not talking about random evolutionary processes right now. We’re talking about discerning God’s influence in nature, Guided Evolution, the exact opposite of random evolutionary processes

In this case, though, we have no snapshot in time to determine if there was the sound of marching in the trees.
If we had the testimony of 20,000 people who could be validated somehow … then a miraculous event would be “the best explanation we have so far”.

I actually accept that for the most part, regarding the Catholic Church anyway. Certainly, some saints have been reduced to local status as there is (I think) not strong evidence they actually performed the miracles required for one to pray with them. Otherwise, I trust the Catholic Church as clearly stated by her in the Apostles’ Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and Earth
And in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit
Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried.
On the third day, he rose again
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand
of God, the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the Communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Other world religions I do not accept their testimony hardly at all, except as a semi-historical witness as to what the people of those cultures believed.

In other words, in contrast to other world religions, the testimony of the Catholic Church corroborates the Biblical witness, which likewise matches with the development of Christianity. Compared to all other world religions, only Christianity (specifically Catholicism) remarkably stands out from the rest.

But the question is, “How do we use science, without faith, to determine that an active intelligence was involved behind the otherwise natural event?”

This is true of more recent events. Certainly, the Fatima miracles, the story of St. Bernadette, as I mentioned — St. Pio, and others.

True. But this isn’t science. This is testimony. Again when one looks at the living witness of the Catholic Church, I accept this.

But, again, how do we use science, without faith, to determine that an active intelligence was involved behind the otherwise natural event?

Evolution teaches that we are in competition with others and this is the sole driver of development and growth.

That’s Darwinian Evolution .That’s not necessarily Theistic Evolution, although Darwinian elements are certainly present in a “fallen sense”.

But Our Blessed Lord gave us a radically different teaching:

God has “clothed” the lilies of the field. We are to “learn from” the wild flowers. They are clothed in a splendor which is greater than what Solomon ever had.

This is a clear refutation of Darwinian theory. The flowers are clothed by God – not by mutations.

No doubt that God has “clothed” the lilies of the field.

So how are we to know that God did not clothe the lilies via evolutionary principles? That’s the real question at hand.

We are to thank God – for his creation. To claim that flowers are accidental by-products of mutations and physical laws, is to deny these words of Jesus. He is directing us to see God’s creative power – His design, in the clothing of flowers.

Yes. But it requires the clear light of reason (not empirical science) to see that He is directing us to see God’s creative power – His design, in the clothing of flowers. And this still hasn’t ruled out Theistic (Guided) Evolution either.

 

[redneck22]

That’s a very good question. Take the 10 Commandments for example. They were inscribed by the finger of God Himself.

The finger of God AKA The Holy Spirit wrote “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” I wonder if our Lord Jesus “believed” this?

Bearing this in mind, could we use scientific principles to prove this, such as checking for fingerprints for example?

How exactly does one use science to prove that something which is spiritual has directly acted upon the physical world?

Even if we could use science to clearly and unequivocally detect this, would that “proof” really convince any humanist or atheist.

Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

 

[rossum]

The finger of God AKA The Holy Spirit wrote “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” I wonder if our Lord Jesus “believed” this?

Be careful, do you believe in a solid dome in the sky holding up the “waters above”? See Genesis 1:6-8.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

If you are part of the Bible Explanation Industry, read no further. If you are not, I invite you to look at the following:

ourladyofguadalupe.org/ologimage.htm

The image of Our Lady on the tilma or cloak should have disintegrated years ago, but it has not. The cloak has been declared as not painted by human hands by the Church. There is also the Congregation for Saints’ Cause which takes years to investigate miracles. Every year, miracles associated with Lourdes are claimed but only a handful are judged by the Church to be worthy of investigation.

The greatest recent miracle was Christ’s ressurection from the dead and the spiritual result being access to salvation to all. The physical result is being given access to life more abundantly while still on earth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Camron]

Be careful, do you believe in a solid dome in the sky holding up the “waters above”? See Genesis 1:6-8.

rossum

Some Jehovah’s Witnesses think that the “dome” is a ring system like Saturn around the Earth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/saturn_backlit_huffpo.jpg

I see no evidence of this. But it is slightly plausible according to “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1:6-7…

And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so…

I guess it depends on how literal one wants to read Genesis.

 

[redneck22]

Be careful, do you believe in a solid dome in the sky holding up the “waters above”? See Genesis 1:6-8.

rossum

You mean the one that collapsed during the first judgement of man’s sin by God?

.

 

[rossum]

You mean the one that collapsed during the first judgement of man’s sin by God?

I will need chapter and verse for that please.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I guess it depends on how literal one wants to read Genesis.

Exactly my point. Read literally thare are many strange things in the Bible, so even “literalists” will interpret some apparently literal passages in a non-literal way. The firmament was a standard part of the ANE cosmology and would have been understood literally by the early readers of the original texts. Modern readers almost never interpret it literally.

rossum

 

[Camron]

The finger of God AKA The Holy Spirit wrote “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.” I wonder if our Lord Jesus “believed” this?

I am unsure if the finger of God literally means the Holy Spirit, although the Holy Spirit, it would seem to me, would most certainly be involved.

Even if we could use science to clearly and unequivocally detect this, would that “proof” really convince any humanist or atheist.

Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

See, but that’s one of my main points with this whole inquiry. There are many who would, even if they came face to face with God, still not trust God. This is what happened with the fallen angels for example.

Simply knowing that God exists is not sufficient. They need to trust their Creator too.

 

[reggieM]

You posted quite a number of good thoughts on this topic, Cameron so I hope I won’t miss any of them in my replies. I can only answer them a little at a time though because the thoughts are deeper than usual and you’re asking challenging questions.

Again, I’m not saying there are no anomalies within nature that are difficult for evolutionary theories to explain. Certain species, such as the spider wasp, certainly exhibit some behaviors which are not easily explained by purely evolutionary principles. I’m not sure of any evolutionary theories that adequately explain these kinds of co-evolutionary traits to my own satisfaction. But I’m talking about anomalies. By and large, evolutionary theories do explain the pathways of life that we observe everywhere around us.

Normally, I would not want to argue by the anomalies or exceptions, but as I see it, evolution (I mean Darwinian theory) makes such sweeping claims and admits no questions or doubts (I’ve had that experience with some of the evolutionary-defenders here on CAF) that one must push first to establish that there are things in nature which evoutionary theories have not explained adequately. I’d say that you’re quite rare in admitting that here. There are many who refuse to accept that there are any weaknesses in the standard evolutionary theory at all.
I would agree that the spider wasp provides a major challenge. There are others as well – the sonar systems on dolphins and bats, the micro-fiber sticky hands of the gecko, electric eels … actually there are many others (I’d almost say that it’s more than just anomalies). Even the evolution of the eye is difficult to explain.
So, if the proposal is “everything in nature is explained by Darwinian theory” then these anomalies are more important.
If the proposal is “evolution may explain some things in nature” - that is a radically different idea.

Just because these things can be demonstrated in a laboratory does not mean that God cannot use this to providentially accomplish His will.

Yes, but when evaluating things in scientific terms, if we can demonstrate them in a laboratory, we cannot say that God’s “special creation” or “guidance” was necessary in a way we can observe.

Some might say that if it’s random then it’s not God doing it. My objection to this is that, to God, it’s not random.

From a human perspective it may appear random (and even this randomness seems to be disappearing with time as more knowledge is gained). But from God’s perspective there’s nothing random about it at all, because He already knows what will happen, and He already knows that it will **work according to His will **regardless of what actually happens.

I understand what you’re getting at. In some ways, that is an irrefutable point, depending on how one views God. I do think it’s an issue for Catholic philosophy and theology to establish first. Otherwise, one could imagine “a god” doing things like this.
I mean first we have the notion – “Nature looks like it was designed (as Richard Dawkins among many others admit) but it was actually caused by random chance.”

But then we would have to twist that:

“Nature looks like it was designed, but the process used to design was essentially random, although – it just appears like the process is random, when it really is God designing it.”

Again, that cannot be refuted as I see it. God could have created the appearance of design, then the appearance of randomness, but the reality was design.

But if that’s true - why wouldn’t we just say that the appearance of design is true – since it was designed? I guess there are too many loops in that cycle for me.

Then we would consider Catholic philosophy and theology to understand the nature of God. Would God create something that looks like He designed it, only to show us that there are processes that look random, so we’d then conclude that the randomness is not random, and the design is not design - except through the appearingly random process?

I think Catholic philosophy would direct us to conclude that God would not create that many illusions in our grasp of reality. By unaided reason, we can see the essence of things. Through intuition and common sense, we can see God’s creative intelligence expressed in nature. I just don’t see how a"random-appearing" process really fits. But we have to look at this more later.

It’s not our primary reason for being here, but God placed us here to discover, understand and learn many things, being co-creators with God (in the minor sense) just as we are destined to be co-heirs with Christ (in the major sense).

Then, when humanity actually starts to really discover, understand and learn many things, which is what God intended for us to begin with on our path toward Christ, they actually have the audacity to claim that we have discovered, understood and learned that this means that God doesn’t actually do it after all.

I fully agree with you on this and it’s a great insight.
But I think we have something more than an assertion of faith in making our point. Personally, I believe that we can show that an understanding of God is necessary for understanding nature.

 

[reggieM]

No. That is not what I am saying at all. :nope:

First of all, you need to stop misunderstanding what I am actually claiming. :coffeeread:

Ok, rather than go into this again since I have misunderstood you here and I have done so before (that is not my intention at all, by any means) … could you explain your comment here in more detail?

Catholic scientists, if they are indeed true to their faith, must accept only the possibility of some aspects of creationism, intelligent design and the miraculous, but only insofar that they are not permitted to outright say that it’s impossible for God to have directly intervened.

To me, that looks like we *only *have to accept the *possibility *of the miraculous, and not have to affirm, as a profession of Faith, the miraculous itself.
I can’t follow that, or perhaps it’s mis-worded from what you really meant. I would appreciate an explaination further though, please.

 

[reggieM]

We’re not talking about random evolutionary processes right now. We’re talking about discerning God’s influence in nature, Guided Evolution, the exact opposite of random evolutionary processes

I think we need to talk about this more (Guided Evolution) – since that is the topic of this thread.

I have an idea about the difference between Guided Evolution and Unguided Evolution, but I’m not sure that I’m correct.

I would say that Unguided Evolution is Darwin’s theory. Guided Evolution is considerably different as I see it.

I do not think we can call ordinary natural processes “guided” in the way the term is used in Guided Evolution. Yes, God’s providence guides all things, but we don’t think of gravity, for example, as a “guided” process. Gravity is predictable and consistent. It is sustained by God, but it is “unguided” as a natural law. We can pray that God will “redirect” gravity from it’s inevitable path – but that means we want God to intervene and change the “unguided law” and “guide it” in ways it would not ordinarily go.
When a storm comes, we pray that the tree won’t fall on our house.
The next day, when we see the most obvious path for the tree was directly at our house, but that it somehow turned away and missed – we rightly thank God for this miracle of His Guidance of the natural law. Otherwise, without His help – our house would have been crushed. The unguided law would have worked without God’s help and would have done the obvious and predictable thing.

 

[hecd2]

I think we need to talk about this more (Guided Evolution) – since that is the topic of this thread.

I have an idea about the difference between Guided Evolution and Unguided Evolution, but I’m not sure that I’m correct.

I would say that Unguided Evolution is Darwin’s theory. Guided Evolution is considerably different as I see it.

I do not think we can call ordinary natural processes “guided” in the way the term is used in Guided Evolution. Yes, God’s providence guides all things, but we don’t think of gravity, for example, as a “guided” process. Gravity is predictable and consistent. It is sustained by God, but it is “unguided” as a natural law. We can pray that God will “redirect” gravity from it’s inevitable path – but that means we want God to intervene and change the “unguided law” and “guide it” in ways it would not ordinarily go.
When a storm comes, we pray that the tree won’t fall on our house.
The next day, when we see the most obvious path for the tree was directly at our house, but that it somehow turned away and missed – we rightly thank God for this miracle of His Guidance of the natural law. Otherwise, without His help – our house would have been crushed. The unguided law would have worked without God’s help and would have done the obvious and predictable thing.

This idea of “miracles” and “guided” processes is no more than magical thinking. One can choose to believe in magic or one can choose to accept that that the world proceeds according to natural laws that are discernible. The former approach is that of the witch doctor, the shaman, the priest, the credulous, those who pretend that they can affect the natural world by magical thinking and by interceding with an overarching intelligence; the latter is the approach of the scientist whose premise is that behaviour of the world is not arbitrary but governed by natural law that cannot be influenced by magical thinking. It is obvious which approach has been more successful in describing the behaviour of the natural world in a coherent fashion and in developing technologies based on that understanding.

If one accepts your definition of guided evolution, why not a process of guided gravity, and guided chemistry and guided light propagation? - the scientists might as well pack up and go home. But since science works, and all aspects of the world appear just as they would if the world behaves according to a set of unguided natural laws, it is magical thinking that we should reject, and belief without evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

In general, the personal incredulity of an individual, particularly one not versed in science, is no argument against the Theory of Evolution.

I would agree that the spider wasp provides a major challenge.

Really? Why?

Even the evolution of the eye is difficult to explain.

You might find it difficult to explain, but not only is the idea that the evolution of the eye represents a problem for evolutionary biology outmoded and utterly refuted, but the molecular biology of eye development and the biochemistry of colour vision represents just two of thousands and thousands of major pieces of evidence in support of evolution. Your ignorance of both of these facts means that your argument is no more than the uninformed parroting of creationist arguments that have been long refuted.

But we know all about your bias. Not only are you anti-neo-Darwinism - you are also anti any other mechanism for the evolution of species, which you have called materialist nonsense. In other words, any science that gets in the way of your religious beliefs is rejected a priori - a deeply unscientific attitude.

So, if the proposal is "everything in nature is explained by Darwinian theory"then these anomalies are more important.

I know of no scientist who makes this proposal. Do you?

If the proposal is “evolution may explain some things in nature” - that is a radically different idea.

And one that all serious scientists agree with. One of the things that evolution explains is the diversity of species.

Alec
evolutionpages.com