Awesome summation of the "real evolutionary debate"

[mschrank]

wie.org/j35/real-evolution-debate-intro.asp

 

[The_Barbarian]

The site you linked to includes religious doctrines like intelligent design and “directionists” which seem sort of a mystical bunch somewhat like de Chardin.

And there were some rather surprising inaccuracies in the representation of some of the others. Not to mention that most “NeoDarwinsts” also approve of evo-devo, and so on.

It conflates science and religion, and then makes distinctions that don’t exist.

Odd indeed. Mostly just unsupported opinions, with little actual data to show for it.

Ah…
"Founder of WIE, Andrew Cohen, is widely recognized as a defining voice in the emerging field of evolutionary spirituality."

Just the thing the Pope described about people trying to push science beyond its proper place.

 

[Rat_Doctor]

Hope it’s OK if I join in
Have you read Christoph Cardinal Schonborn’s “Chance or Purpose” ? I thought it was really well written (I have a strong biology background).

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ve read some of it. The Cardinal is clearly not the IDer, some have presented him to be. I think it’s unfortunate that he used the title he did; obviously nature and design are separate things, and of course the Church teaches that God can use chance in creation.

 

[ricmat]

I’ve read some of it. The Cardinal is clearly not the IDer, some have presented him to be. I think it’s unfortunate that he used the title he did; obviously nature and design are separate things, and of course the Church teaches that God can use chance in creation.

I haven’t read the whole thing either, but I’ve probably read the same excerpts on amazon.com that Barbarian did.

On page 18, Schoenborn says (my bolding below):

God did not just make his creation at one time, but is sustaining it and guiding it toward a goal. … God is not merely a Creator who once upon a time set everything going like a clockmaker who has made a clock that will then run for ever more; rather he is sustaining it and guiding it towards a goal.

Sort of rules out chance, or the idea that God merely established the natural laws and let them work their evolutionary magic with no intervention.

I also thought it was interesting that Michael Behe (Mister ID himself) would have been selected to give a testimonial to the book on the back cover.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I haven’t read the whole thing either, but I’ve probably read the same excerpts on amazon.com that Barbarian did.

On page 18, Schoenborn says (my bolding below):

God did not just make his creation at one time, but is sustaining it and guiding it toward a goal. … God is not merely a Creator who once upon a time set everything going like a clockmaker who has made a clock that will then run for ever more; rather he is sustaining it and guiding it towards a goal.

Yes. This is a nice refutation of the “designer” as promulgated by the Unification Church and Discovery Institute. It’s not a designed clockwork, but a creation that is sustained and guided by God.

The teaching of the Church (Communion and Stewardship, prepared by the International Theological Commission, under the direction of Cardinal Ratzinger) is:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

Sort of rules out chance,

Hopefully not; I’m pretty sure the Cardinal is in accord with the magesterium.

or the idea that God merely established the natural laws and let them work their evolutionary magic with no intervention.

Well, that’s for sure. “Magic” is the province of ID, not science.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, that’s for sure. “Magic” is the province of ID, not science.

I don’t believe that ID as it is contributes much to science - but I think calling their view “magic” goes a bit far.

I’d think most any of us in the Theistic Evolutionist camp would believe that design could be reasonably seen in creation, even in evolution - but that discerning it would fall into the realm of philosophy rather than science. ID proponents have hit on some very reasonable points in the past - but where they choose to categorize them is, in my opinion, a mistake.

 

[RobbyS]

On page 18, Schoenborn says (my bolding below):

God did not just make his creation at one time, but is sustaining it and guiding it toward a goal. … God is not merely a Creator who once upon a time set everything going like a clockmaker who has made a clock that will then run for ever more; rather he is sustaining it and guiding it towards a goal.

Yes. This is a nice refutation of the “designer” as promulgated by the Unification Church and Discovery Institute. It’s not a designed clockwork, but a creation that is sustained and guided by God.

The teaching of the Church (Communion and Stewardship, prepared by the International Theological Commission, under the direction of Cardinal Ratzinger) is:

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

Hopefully not; I’m pretty sure the Cardinal is in accord with the magesterium.

Well, that’s for sure. “Magic” is the province of ID, not science.

Depends on what one means by “chance.” The anti-theists, like Lord Russell, do not admit continguency. They simply say that
an improbably event is not to be examined for meaning. One simply does not ask questions about certain matters. Science is a kind of closed system, which has a notion of God as no more than a no longer necessary hypothesis. Rationality in mankind is limited to what is revealed by the scientific method. That which cannot be explored by this method is irrational. Thus the nature of man is put to the side, the attitude being that rationality is is simply a power that allows mankind to survive, more or less as an elephant’s size and strength allow it to survive.

Men are reduced what they can do, and whatever they can do, provided it ensures human survival, is “good.” Of course, that means that the individual really counts for nothing, only the collectivity.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Depends on what one means by “chance.” The anti-theists, like Lord Russell, do not admit continguency. They simply say that an improbably event is not to be examined for meaning. One simply does not ask questions about certain matters. Science is a kind of closed system, which has a notion of God as no more than a no longer necessary hypothesis.

In the same sense that it is not necessary for a plumber to consider God when fixing your pipes.

Rationality in mankind is limited to what is revealed by the scientific method.

I hope not. Science is a very limited method, applicable only to the physical universe. Are theologians then all irrational?

Men are reduced what they can do, and whatever they can do, provided it ensures human survival, is “good.”

No. Emphatically no. Scientists will tell you that science cannot provide you with values. That has to come from somewhere else.

BTW, most scientists are libertarians, with some liberals and conservatives tossed in. Few would buy the idea of the collective as the ultimate good.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t believe that ID as it is contributes much to science - but I think calling their view “magic” goes a bit far.

The notion that some unnatural zap had to be added from time to time is closer to magic than anything else.

I’d think most any of us in the Theistic Evolutionist camp would believe that design could be reasonably seen in creation, even in evolution - but that discerning it would fall into the realm of philosophy rather than science.

“Design” is what limited creatures do. And there is no evidence for design in nature. Which makes sense. God has no need to figure things out. And it also makes sense that He would have created nature to develop as He intended.

ID proponents have hit on some very reasonable points in the past

Other than theism, I can’t think of any. And since ID is the official doctrine of the Unification Church, I’m not too enthused about their theism, either.

 

[Nullasalus]

The notion that some unnatural zap had to be added from time to time is closer to magic than anything else.

No ‘unnatural zap’. Go read Michael Behe - he’s said that he believes every example of “irreducible complexity” seen in nature could be the result of natural mechanisms and events that God had ‘front-loaded’ into the unfolding of the universe. His argument is whether some of the popular mechanisms of evolution (mutation in particular) are sufficient, on their own and operating as we understand them, to result in certain things we see in nature. He’s also said that he would be entirely at home with a God who operated according to TE principles - he just doesn’t believe it himself.

I say this as someone who doubts ID’s stronger claims, and as a TE myself. Characterizing their view as ‘magic’ is needlessly insulting and oversimplifying.

“Design” is what limited creatures do. And there is no evidence for design in nature. Which makes sense. God has no need to figure things out. And it also makes sense that He would have created nature to develop as He intended.

You’re playing with definitions too much. The Catholic Church believes the universe is the result of design - a conscious, omnipotent being intentionally created and/or sustains and has orchestrated the universe we live in. Did God need to learn via trial and error? No, of course not.

Again, I stress - I don’t accept ID claims to science. But the idea that the natural universe can be explored, observed, and that some of God’s thoughts and intention can be discerned through reason is the stuff of mainstream and classic Catholicism. ID’s stated belief that the world is designed may not be scientifically explorable, but the essential and basic statement is hardly different from what christians (and others) as a whole believe.

Other than theism, I can’t think of any. And since ID is the official doctrine of the Unification Church, I’m not too enthused about their theism, either.

‘Theism’ is very broad. And ‘feeding the poor is good’ is an official teaching of the UC. Who cares what they think? That’s as strong a condemnation as ‘neo-darwinism is a strong and personal belief of many atheists’.

Not only that, but ID has had some important secondary accomplishments. Theistic evolutionists have, frankly, been extremely lax in addressing a lot of the abuses of science - pointing out where the science ends and philosophy begins in many renditions of evolution or natural science in general, or talking about how the view developments in everything from neurology to biology to cosmology. ID as a ‘group’, at the very least, takes those developments seriously.

This hostility between ID-proponents and Catholics/Christians/etc who believe in God but think design can’t be scientifically demonstrated is misplaced. We can have disagreement without the anger, or the sneering. We don’t regard baptists, hindus, or mormons with contempt (or we shouldn’t, at least) - and we shouldn’t regards ID proponents the same way, even if we disagree with them.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No ‘unnatural zap’. Go read Michael Behe - he’s said that he believes every example of “irreducible complexity” seen in nature could be the result of natural mechanisms and events that God had ‘front-loaded’ into the unfolding of the universe.

It’s simply a failure of faith on his part. He can’t accept that God is big enough or capable enough to produce a universe in which such things can evolve. Incidentally, he now grudgingly admits that it is possible for IC to evolve, but insists it’s just too unlikely.

His argument is whether some of the popular mechanisms of evolution (mutation in particular) are sufficient, on their own and operating as we understand them, to result in certain things we see in nature.

Strawman, that is. Science says that it’s mutation and natural selection. That was Darwin’s great discovery.

He’s also said that he would be entirely at home with a God who operated according to TE principles - he just doesn’t believe it himself.

He’s at home with astrology as a scientific theory, too. What he actually thinks is a mystery sometimes. It seems to change.

Barbarian observes:
“Design” is what limited creatures do. And there is no evidence for design in nature. Which makes sense. God has no need to figure things out. And it also makes sense that He would have created nature to develop as He intended.

You’re playing with definitions too much.

Words mean things. ID depends on sloppy usage.

The Catholic Church believes the universe is the result of design - a conscious, omnipotent being intentionally created and/or sustains and has orchestrated the universe we live in.

Good example. If you weaken “design” to mere “intent,” then it could include God creating the universe to simply work as He wants. And then ID is just a sort of “me too” hiding behind legitimate science. But they have larger agenda than that.

Did God need to learn via trial and error? No, of course not.

So He didn’t actually “design” in the proper sense. But if all ID means is intent, it’s just window dressing.

Again, I stress - I don’t accept ID claims to science. But the idea that the natural universe can be explored, observed, and that some of God’s thoughts and intention can be discerned through reason is the stuff of mainstream and classic Catholicism.

Indeed. But it’s not science. Which is O.K. It’s all right to be unscientific at times like that. In fact, you have to be.

Barbarian observes:
Other than theism, I can’t think of any. And since ID is the official doctrine of the Unification Church, I’m not too enthused about their theism, either.

‘Theism’ is very broad. And ‘feeding the poor is good’ is an official teaching of the UC.

Odd then, that they don’t do much of it.

Who cares what they think?

Other than the objective to “destroy evolution?” Luddites are always a concern.

That’s as strong a condemnation as ‘neo-darwinism is a strong and personal belief of many atheists’.

Except that almost all of them will admit that the existence of evolution has nothing to say about whether or not God exists. On the other hand, ID is determined to bring science to heel under the control of their unusual sort of theism.

Not only that, but ID has had some important secondary accomplishments.

Sounds interesting. What have they done for science?

Theistic evolutionists have, frankly, been extremely lax in addressing a lot of the abuses of science - pointing out where the science ends and philosophy begins in many renditions of evolution or natural science in general,

For which theory do you think that’s a problem, and why? Examples are a good thing.

or talking about how the view developments in everything from neurology to biology to cosmology.

Uniformitarianism is the only thing like that, and it merely supposes that the rules have been the same since the beginning. And that’s perfectly compatible with our faith. Indeed, it’s hard to see how anything else could be compatible with Christian faith.

ID as a ‘group’, at the very least, takes those developments seriously.

Some people take the Loch Ness monster seriously, too. But reality still matters.

This hostility between ID-proponents and Catholics/Christians/etc who believe in God but think design can’t be scientifically demonstrated is misplaced.

Perhaps you could end it by showing us how design can be demonstrated in nature.

We can have disagreement without the anger, or the sneering. We don’t regard baptists, hindus, or mormons with contempt (or we shouldn’t, at least) - and we shouldn’t regards ID proponents the same way, even if we disagree with them.

I regard Raelians, Scientologists, and IDers with contempt, because they want to draft science to shore up their religious beliefs. My thinking is that if it won’t stand by itself, it isn’t much of a religion.

 

[Nullasalus]

It’s simply a failure of faith on his part. He can’t accept that God is big enough or capable enough to produce a universe in which such things can evolve. Incidentally, he now grudgingly admits that it is possible for IC to evolve, but insists it’s just too unlikely.

He asserts that his change of heart - he believed in orthodox evolution far before he believed in ID, according to himself - is bsaed on the evidence. And sure - if he admits as much with IC structures, that just backs up the point I’m making here.

He could be wrong, but ‘magic’ is not what Behe relies on, or even suggests.

Strawman, that is. Science says that it’s mutation and natural selection. That was Darwin’s great discovery.

You are vastly oversimplifying this.

evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html

There’s an ID opponent and denier. He lists 47 different sources of variation. It’s not just ‘mutation and natural selection’ even in the most orthodox cases. (Neither is it just ‘genes’ - don’t get me started on that view.)

He’s at home with astrology as a scientific theory, too. What he actually thinks is a mystery sometimes. It seems to change.

He’s at home with astrology as a subject that can be investigated scientifically.

Words mean things. ID depends on sloppy usage.

Frankly, I see everyone getting sloppy when it comes to the subject of ID in particular, and evolution in general. That ‘words mean things’ is why I objected to your use.

But they have larger agenda than that.

So does Dawkins. So does Ken Miller. As far as their scientific claims go, so what? I don’t believe ID is science, but this reaction is just out of whack.

So He didn’t actually “design” in the proper sense. But if all ID means is intent, it’s just window dressing.

It’s intent and action. If you believe that you can intent to create/sustain something in particular, then do so, and it’s not ‘design’… well, then it hardly even matters in this context. ID proponents would argue that the universe shows intention. TEs would too. They would part ways on whether that could be known via the scientific method (ID), or only through reason and philosophy (TE).

Odd then, that they don’t do much of it.

Not nearly as much as the Catholic Church, but they still do. So did Ted Haggard’s ministry. Give your opponents their due.

Other than the objective to “destroy evolution?” Luddites are always a concern.

Destroy evolution? Where? I won’t deny that there are ID proponents who are YECs (which I strongly disagree with), or that ID proponents deny what evolution as they understand it (random mutation + natural selection, as they so often state) can supposedly accomplish. But if they want to ‘destroy’ anything, it’s atheistic and materialistic views in science.

Except that almost all of them will admit that the existence of evolution has nothing to say about whether or not God exists. On the other hand, ID is determined to bring science to heel under the control of their unusual sort of theism.

Almost all of them? What about Richard Dawkins? How about Victor Stenger? Steven Weinberg? Daniel Dennett? EO Wilson? This list can go on, and would include both evolutionary biologists and atheists outside the field. If you honestly believe that the number of atheists who point to evolution as proof that God does not exist or that Christianity is false is small, you aren’t reading this very forum. It’s common.

Sounds interesting. What have they done for science?

I think promoting interest in science and intellectual engagement with science on theological grounds IS ‘for science’. I respect how their movement shows the importance of considering and discussing science in general, even if I disagree with their scientific conclusions.

For which theory do you think that’s a problem, and why? Examples are a good thing.

It’s not just theories, but interpretations of science and explanations that aren’t well grounded. You want examples? Evolutionary psychology in general. Gene-centric models of viewing life/evolution. Reductionism. Assertions that advances in neurology disprove the soul. The list goes on. You don’t think these things need to be engaged and discussed from a theistic point of view?

Some people take the Loch Ness monster seriously, too. But reality still matters.

Fine, but I’m talking about scientific issues. Are you saying these issues don’t exist?

Perhaps you could end it by showing us how design can be demonstrated in nature.

I don’t buy into the scientific claims of ID. I’m simply asking that when it comes to ID proponents, we treat them with greater respect - because ultimately, we have too much in common to let what is (unless you hysterically believe that ID ‘will destroy science’) a minor point of argument divide us like this.

I regard Raelians, Scientologists, and IDers with contempt, because they want to draft science to shore up their religious beliefs. My thinking is that if it won’t stand by itself, it isn’t much of a religion.

‘ID’ is not a religion. Michael Behe is Catholic. So are other ID proponents, just as there are Catholic ID opponents. It’s one facet of their faith. They could be wrong about it - I believe, as they argue currently, they ARE wrong about it. But I also believe that even if I think someone is incorrect, to still afford them respect. What’s gained by regarding them with contempt? Does it feel good? Because I don’t see why you can’t argue the disagreements without that.