Archbishop Naumann: either allow discussion of Intelligent Design into classrooms, or

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

BTW…why do you always make the claim that Intelligent Design requires a supernatural designer?

Because a natural designer would be very easy to find traces of and the ID movement would not have to rely on incredulity regarding statistics to base their beliefs on.

Do you rule out more intelligent life from other galaxies?

As the designer of life, yes I do rule that out. I am a Catholic. My designer is God. I don’t believe He is an alien life form on another planet in another galaxy. Is there life on other planets? I don’t know.

If we have advanced (if you want to call it that) to the point of being able to clone and grow tissue, who are you to say that an older, more knowledgable race hasn’t developed the ability to design a whole ecosystem? If there is mathematical evidence of intelligence, as another poster mentioned, it is possible someone billions and billions (in my best Carl Sagan voice) of miles away designed us.

A Catholic who believes in God. That’s who I am to say that an older, more knoledgeable race didn’t design our ecosystem.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

scriabin:

I once met a scientist who believed in evolution in a Bible study group at my parish. During the course of conversation I mentioned that I didn’t particularly believe in evolution.

She was aghast, treated the remark as a personal offense, and started pulling out the “I know better than you” airs like a madman hearing criticism of his favorite hobby.

I have been told I am going to hell because I am a) Catholic, b) a geologist, c) accept an old earth and evolution. This was (on multiple occasions) by “christians”. I guess you find people like that in all walks of life.

Peace

Tim

 

[chipg5]

This discussion is fascinating.

I really don’t understand what the problem with evolution is for anyone who is Catholic.

Fundamentalist Protestants do believe in Biblical literalism and inerrancy, that is, that the Bible’s words are literally true. So for them, scientific evidence that contradicts the literal words of the Bible is very threatening to their faith.

That is not true of us Roman Catholics. There really is no contradiction between science – including evolution – and faith, for Catholics.

I’d also add that John Paul II spoke quite eloquently on this very topic. The Catholic Church has a long history of accepting science and scientific method. It is sad to see some revert to a fundamentalist position.

Here’s the quote from JPII, from " Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)"

Today, … new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

and

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

John Paul II’s words seem fully consistent with what Tim has been saying.

I think we as Catholics need to remember what separates us theologically from fundamentalist Protestant sects.

 

[Brad]

buffalo:

But it does all the time in the classroom.

And beyond the classroom. Most often, the teachers themselves are influenced by those that come to incoorect theological conclusions based on science:

From: Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as it Stands:

"I think that we shall have to concern ourselves with this question in particular from the aspect of faith. Does creation mean that God does intervene here and there? What do we mean, after all, by the idea of creation? One thing is certain: The conflict of worldviews about Darwin’s theory, about Darwinism, has kept the world intensively busy over the years, now nearly a century and a half. Here I shall offer only three examples of an interpretation that is indisputably imbued with ideology.

1. In 1959, Sir Julian Huxley gave a speech at the centennial celebration of the publication of the famous work: “In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure.” I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a “confession of faith” — that faith being materialism.
2. Thirty years later, in 1988, the American writer Will Provine wrote in an essay about evolution and ethics: “Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable.” This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim.
3. Four years later, the Oxford chemistry professor Peter Atkins wrote: “Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment.” Again, this is a “confession of faith”; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of “border-crossings,” that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview. "

 

[Brad]

chipg5:

That is not true of us Roman Catholics. There really is no contradiction between science – including evolution – and faith, for Catholics.

Read the article I posted above. You are right in the strictest sense. However, what is being taught as “evolution” goes far beyond what we know to be true - some of it is downright false- to such a degree that it is difficult to be a modern day scientist and debate species-to-species evolution.

As Catholics, we are required to believe that God created us and that He has had His hand in creation since it’s inception. A mindless, random, materialistic force of natural selection to rule the activities of our years is a belief in opposition to the Catholic faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Fantastic! Now, in some science classes they do talk abou the possibility of life on other planets. Is there conclusive evidence of such life? Not yet, but we know that it is possible scientifically, and we know what signs to look for.

If it’s okay to discuss the possibility of life on other planets and the signs they would leave, then why is it taboo to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design and the signs it would leave?

Orogeny:

Because a natural designer would be very easy to find traces of and the ID movement would not have to rely on incredulity regarding statistics to base their beliefs on.As the designer of life, yes I do rule that out. I am a Catholic. My designer is God. I don’t believe He is an alien life form on another planet in another galaxy. Is there life on other planets? I don’t know.A Catholic who believes in God. That’s who I am to say that an older, more knoledgeable race didn’t design our ecosystem.

Peace

Tim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

rlg94086:

Since I didn’t make the claim or say it was correct, I don’t feel the need to back it up. All I know is that it does happen…at least it did in my son’s case. My anecdotal experience doesn’t prove Buffalo right, but it does demonstrate that your anecdotal evidence led you to a hasty conclusion. I was responding to you because you assumed that your ignorance of any occurance was proof enough that Buffalo’s claim had “no basis”.

BTW…why do you always make the claim that Intelligent Design requires a supernatural designer? Do you rule out more intelligent life from other galaxies? If we have advanced (if you want to call it that) to the point of being able to clone and grow tissue, who are you to say that an older, more knowledgable race hasn’t developed the ability to design a whole ecosystem? If there is mathematical evidence of intelligence, as another poster mentioned, it is possible someone billions and billions (in my best Carl Sagan voice) of miles away designed us.

Treating the possibility that the Designer is an extraterrestrial only sucks you into the quicksand of infinite regress - presumably a life form complicated enough to ‘create’ other life forms is complicated enough to have been Designed. In the end it has to come to some uncreated being.

 

[rlg94086]

From a thological perspective you are correct. However, from a scientific perspective, the designer is undetermined. Therefore as a theory, it is detached from theology. In other words, proof that life was designed intelligently would neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.
Andreas Hofer:

Treating the possibility that the Designer is an extraterrestrial only sucks you into the quicksand of infinite regress - presumably a life form complicated enough to ‘create’ other life forms is complicated enough to have been Designed. In the end it has to come to some uncreated being.

 

[MikeinSD]

rlg94086:

Fantastic! Now, in some science classes they do talk abou the possibility of life on other planets. Is there conclusive evidence of such life? Not yet, but we know that it is possible scientifically, and we know what signs to look for.

If it’s okay to discuss the possibility of life on other planets and the signs they would leave, then why is it taboo to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design and the signs it would leave?

Because ID is theology, not science. Scientific theories must offer the possibility of being proven wrong. If different scientists testing a hypothesis (conducting similar experiments) consistantly come up with different results than postulated by the hypothesis, the hypothesis is incorrect. When scientists perform the same process and arrive at a consistant result, the hypothesis is likely to be correct. A good example in evolution is the study of whales. talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Molecular biology consistantly shows whales are related to ungulates (hooved mammals) – the same conclusion reached by paleontologists through study of whale fossils.

ID cannot be proven wrong since there is no mechanism to disprove a supernatural intervention. Example – hypothesis that God killed off the dinosaurs by throwing a comet at the earth. Scientists can prove an impact area exists in the Gulf of Mexico. And that something hit the earth roughly at the same time (give or take several thousand years) as the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Whether God threw the comet or not simply cannot be tested. Scientists can study the impact area. And theorize and computer test the results of the comet impact. But they cannot disprove that God threw the comet.

 

[rlg94086]

My understanding of ID is that something that was designed with intelligence would leave signs of the intelligence. This can be either be shown to exist or not to exist therefore it can be proved or disproved.

How is that theology? Where is supernatural intervention required in Intelligent Design?

MikeinSD:

Because ID is theology, not science. Scientific theories must offer the possibility of being proven wrong. If different scientists testing a hypothesis (conducting similar experiments) consistantly come up with different results than postulated by the hypothesis, the hypothesis is incorrect. When scientists perform the same process and arrive at a consistant result, the hypothesis is likely to be correct. A good example in evolution is the study of whales. talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Molecular biology consistantly shows whales are related to ungulates (hooved mammals) – the same conclusion reached by paleontologists through study of whale fossils.

ID cannot be proven wrong since there is no mechanism to disprove a supernatural intervention. Example – hypothesis that God killed off the dinosaurs by throwing a comet at the earth. Scientists can prove an impact area exists in the Gulf of Mexico. And that something hit the earth roughly at the same time (give or take several thousand years) as the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. Whether God threw the comet or not simply cannot be tested. Scientists can study the impact area. And theorize and computer test the results of the comet impact. But they cannot disprove that God threw the comet.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

rlg94086:

My understanding of ID is that something that was designed with intelligence would leave signs of the intelligence. This can be either be shown to exist or not to exist therefore it can be proved or disproved.

How is that theology? Where is supernatural intervention required in Intelligent Design?

I concur. The Science of Intelligence Design looks at facts within the known universe and draws conclusions based on probability/difficultly of occurance randomly and leads to the general conclusion that something was involved in designing the universe and all that is in it.

Philosophy then can speculate that the designer is God.

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Fantastic! Now, in some science classes they do talk abou the possibility of life on other planets. Is there conclusive evidence of such life? Not yet, but we know that it is possible scientifically, and we know what signs to look for.

Because if life exists on other planets, it will be within the natural realm. A designer capable of designing life is not within the natural realm.

If it’s okay to discuss the possibility of life on other planets and the signs they would leave, then why is it taboo to discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design and the signs it would leave?

Because ID is not science. It is a way to get creationism into the classroom.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

My understanding of ID is that something that was designed with intelligence would leave signs of the intelligence. This can be either be shown to exist or not to exist therefore it can be proved or disproved.

How do you show something does not exist?

How is that theology? Where is supernatural intervention required in Intelligent Design?

Show some evidence of anything in nature capable of creating the universe and maybe you can make the case that the designer is not supernatural.

Is it possible that the designer is God? If that is the possible answer, how can you say that ID isn’t theology?

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Well, like I said, my High School science teacher taught us about the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. We discussed the signs of existance and what possible forms such life may take. I didn’t hear any complaints about that being taught in the classroom.

Is there evidence that life on other planets exist…or is there evidence of it’s absence? Did this or did it not belong in the classroom? If not, why not?

Again, the ID theory doesn’t rely on the nature of the designer. You are slipping into theological discussion…not very scientific.

Orogeny:

How do you show something does not exist?Show some evidence of anything in nature capable of creating the universe and maybe you can make the case that the designer is not supernatural.

Is it possible that the designer is God? If that is the possible answer, how can you say that ID isn’t theology?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rlg94086:

Well, like I said, my High School science teacher taught us about the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. We discussed the signs of existance and what possible forms such life may take. I didn’t hear any complaints about that being taught in the classroom.

You seem to be missing the point. Life on other planets falls within the realm of scientific possibility. Discussions of scientific possibilities is appropriate in a science class.

Is there evidence that life on other planets exist…or is there evidence of it’s absence? Did this or did it not belong in the classroom? If not, why not?

I’ll ask again. What does kind of evidence shows something doesn’t exist? How do you prove a negative?

Again, the ID theory doesn’t rely on the nature of the designer. You are slipping into theological discussion…not very scientific.

Read this document and tell me that ID isn’t theology. (click on the .pdf link at the bottom of the page for easier reading).
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_true_history_of_the_wedge.php

I’m not the first to call it theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orogeny:

Because if life exists on other planets, it will be within the natural realm. A designer capable of designing life is not within the natural realm.Because ID is not science. It is a way to get creationism into the classroom.

Peace

Tim

One can accept the timeline and physical mechanisms of evolution but still be an ID proponent if one insists that those mechanisms can not be expected to have achieved their results based purely on random activity/chance. There is a real difference between “creationism” meaning that “God churned out the universe in 6 calendar days 6000 years ago” on the one hand and ID on the other. Some scientists fail to recognize the distinction because as soon as they here anything about God they stop listening.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Orogeny:

You seem to be missing the point. Life on other planets falls within the realm of scientific possibility. Discussions of scientific possibilities is appropriate in a science class.

So it’s scientifically impossible that God initiated the formation of life on earth? I hope what you meant to say is that the sort of evidence we would consider relevant to the existence of extraterrestrial life can be examined using scientific method (whereas we do not know of any empirical method to verify the existence of a Designer).

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever OBSERVED an electron, in the sense of seeing it, measuring it, etc.? Or have we just observed the effects of different actions on what we posit to be the subatomic particle known as an electron?

 

[rlg94086]

So, you are saying that intelligent design of life is not a scientific possibility? What planet are you on? If we look at a chemical compound, are we able to study it to determine if it was designed by a human being or a naturally occurring chemical? Of course!

All Intelligent Design says is that we study life and determine whether it has signs of being created by an intelligent entity. The form or even the existance of this entity is a separate issue. You keep asking about evidence that something doesn’t exist, which is a silly and irrelevant question. There are many things that aren’t proven that are discussed in science classes. Can you prove the Big Bang? Black holes? etc… How can you prove that they don’t/didn’t exist?

If there are signs of intelligent design, those signs exist and may or not be evidence. If there are no signs of intelligent design, then it is just a guess. If there are inconclusive signs (i.e. could be a sign of intelligence or something else), then they fall in the realm of black holes. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with examining the evidence and teaching about the theory in a classroom.

The fact that you aren’t the first to call it theology is also irrelevant. I’m not the first to believe in open discussion about the origin of life in classrooms. The fact that some Intelligent Design authors talk about God is also irrelevant. Some evolution theorists talk about the non-existance of God. Should that put their theory into question?

Orogeny:

You seem to be missing the point. Life on other planets falls within the realm of scientific possibility. Discussions of scientific possibilities is appropriate in a science class.I’ll ask again. What does kind of evidence shows something doesn’t exist? How do you prove a negative? Read this document and tell me that ID isn’t theology. (click on the .pdf link at the bottom of the page for easier reading).
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_true_history_of_the_wedge.php

I’m not the first to call it theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[chipg5]

Andreas Hofer:

One can accept the timeline and physical mechanisms of evolution but still be an ID proponent if one insists that those mechanisms can not be expected to have achieved their results based purely on random activity/chance.

Hmmm, as John Paul II himself noted,
Here’s the quote from JPII, from " Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)"

Today, … new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

and

The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being.

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

So it’s not so much the mechanism of evolution that is the problem from JPII’s perspective – and we have to remember that what he is affirming, the very essence of evolution, is random mutation etc. For him the “moment of transition to the spiritual” is the key moment, and that moment cannot be observed or specified scientifically.

I do think it interesting that no one on this thread has engaged John Paul II’s statements on this issue.