Biological origin of human values

[edwest2]

I have already mentioned the petrified trees. I get a sense you are not really reading what I write. Another example is non-distance related Red Shift phenomena.

Here is my theory based on the Bible. I will preface this by saying the Bible is not a science book but it does record things God actually did. Did Jesus grab a crash cart to raise Lazarus or the young man being carried in the funeral procession? Did he use cloud seeding when he calmed the wind and water? Science breaks down when confronted by God. It is only in the atheist inspired attempt to make Genesis say something other than what was actually said, and done, that I have a problem.

God created the Universe out of nothing. The Church has infallibly declared that the Universe has a finite age. No such declaration has been made about the earth. The earth was made by God, cooled from its molten state, and animals were placed on it. Adam, the first man, was able to communicate with God directly. He was essentially immortal. Eve, all Catholics believe, was created by God from his side.

All living things had to be designed to interact with their environment. Animals had to be successful in determining what was food and what was not. Birds, for example, are able to build nests using native raw materials. This is quite an engineering feat. The nest must be placed in a position where predators are less likely to reach it and where the wind is less likely to knock it down. It also has to be the right size and shape to insure incubation of the eggs.

It appears all creatures had a limited ability to react to their environment. If you look at the facial features of Australian aborigines and compare them to “primitive” men, there are many similarities. If you look at fair skinned Caucasians and compare then to Oriental peoples, it becomes apparent that man was affected by his native climate, food and exposure to the sun.

The dating issue is a sticking point with me because man-made artifacts have been discovered in coal, for example. So, in summary, all macro creatures have a limited, built-in ability to change slightly depending on their geographic location.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

I have already mentioned the petrified trees. I get a sense you are not really reading what I write. Another example is non-distance related Red Shift phenomena.

Here is my theory based on the Bible. I will preface this by saying the Bible is not a science book but it does record things God actually did.

Can you prove that? Or is it more likely that it records things the the authors would have liked to think that God would have done.

Did Jesus grab a crash cart to raise Lazarus or the young man being carried in the funeral procession? Did he use cloud seeding when he calmed the wind and water? Science breaks down when confronted by God.

I think you have this the wrong way around.

It is only in the atheist inspired attempt to make Genesis say something other than what was actually said, and done, that I have a problem.

Again, you’ll need to provide proof that Genesis is a factual record of events if you want credence here.

God created the Universe out of nothing.

You proof of this is what?

The Church has infallibly declared that the Universe has a finite age.

Infallibly? How would you prove that the Church is infallible? Although common opinion is that the Universe does have a finite age. About 14 billion years or so. It wasn’t the Church that made this discovery though.

No such declaration has been made about the earth. The earth was made by God, cooled from its molten state, and animals were placed on it. Adam, the first man, was able to communicate with God directly. He was essentially immortal. Eve, all Catholics believe, was created by God from his side.

You have proof of all this? Proof that contradicts the overwhelming amount of evidence that what you have just said is nonsense?

All living things had to be designed to interact with their environment.

And your evidence for intelligent design is…?

Animals had to be successful in determining what was food and what was not. Birds, for example, are able to build nests using native raw materials. This is quite an engineering feat. The nest must be placed in a position where predators are less likely to reach it and where the wind is less likely to knock it down. It also has to be the right size and shape to insure incubation of the eggs.

At last, some facts!

It appears all creatures had a limited ability to react to their environment. If you look at the facial features of Australian aborigines and compare them to “primitive” men, there are many similarities. If you look at fair skinned Caucasians and compare then to Oriental peoples, it becomes apparent that man was affected by his native climate, food and exposure to the sun.

So far, so good.

The dating issue is a sticking point with me because man-made artifacts have been discovered in coal, for example.

And this is the only example, and it’s highly unreliable. There’s no evidence that it’s true, other than the word of the two guys who claimed the find. No independent documentation to support the validity of the claim. I think we can discount this. Dating methods are reliable and consistent.

So, in summary, all macro creatures have a limited, built-in ability to change slightly depending on their geographic location.

That’s correct, in short timescales. In longer timescales, there’s an abundance of evidence to support evolution by natural selection.

 

[edwest2]

“natural” selection. And we’re right back to the non-goal oriented, unintelligent engine that runs itself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

It appears all creatures had a limited ability to react to their environment.

One important work ID has done is to explore the limits to what biological processes can produce.

Ray Bohlin’s The Natural Limits to Biological Change

There is a biological limit on change built into organisms. If there wasn’t they would simply destroy themselves by ruining the ecology that supports their existence. There is no way that an organism can know what is best for survival – so Darwinian processes would merely advance reproduction rates and physical changes which would cause species to kill each other off entirely (with each getting smarter, bigger, faster) by destroying competitors.

What happens instead is that biological systems reach certain limits of change and they don’t proceed beyond that.

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
— Pierre-Paul Grasse

 

[itinerant1]

I have already mentioned the petrified trees. I get a sense you are not really reading what I write.

The dating issue is a sticking point with me because man-made artifacts have been discovered in coal, for example. So, in summary, all macro creatures have a limited, built-in ability to change slightly depending on their geographic location.

Peace,
Ed

Actually, I read everything you wrote, but to respond to each and every point makes a post toooo long. I was looking for your example of dinosaur pics on metal and pottery. If there is such a find that indicates man lived among the dinosaurs, you should be deeply determined to present that evidence. However, you have not offered anything at all to support your opinions. For myself, the Flintstones were just cartoons.

If there is a good case of artifacts found in coal, you should be able to provide links and analysis to this most unusual discovery. Again, what evidence can you present to support your view?

What is it about the red-shift phenomena that you think supports your view? Do you have some links or quotes?

It takes a pretty solid counter-example for scientists to overthrow an entire theory. You seem to think a petrified tree found across strata is more than just an anomaly requiring deeper research to explain. Can you present evidence that this tree disproves the very ancient age of the earth?

While I await your presentation of evidence that supports your views, you might reflect on these words by Cardinal Ratzinger, a view he reaffirmed as Pope:

"The Christian picture of the world is this, that the world in its details is the product of a long process of evolution but that at the most profound level it comes from the Logos. Thus it carries rationality within itself."

 

[wanstronian]

“natural” selection. And we’re right back to the non-goal oriented, unintelligent engine that runs itself.

A greatly simplified and misleading view. For example, you say, “non-goal oriented.” This is not true - the reproduction and propagation of the species is the primary goal. What you should have said, to be accurate, was, “non-external-purpose oriented.” Which is bang on.
You then go on to say it’s an “unintelligent engine which runs itself.” This just sounds like an attempt at belittling an incredible - and proven - process, without actually providing any reason why it’s wrong. The fact that evolution is not intent-driven does not in any way reduce its validity. Why must it be guided by an external entity? And of course, it doesn’t run itself - it is ultimately fuelled by the Sun.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, I read everything you wrote, but to respond to each and every point makes a post toooo long. I was looking for your example of dinosaur pics on metal and pottery. If there is such a find that indicates man lived among the dinosaurs, you should be deeply determined to present that evidence. However, you have not offered anything at all to support your opinions. For myself, the Flintstones were just cartoons.

If there is a good case of artifacts found in coal, you should be able to provide links and analysis to this most unusual discovery. Again, what evidence can you present to support your view?

What is it about the red-shift phenomena that you think supports your view? Do you have some links or quotes?

It takes a pretty solid counter-example for scientists to overthrow an entire theory. You seem to think a petrified tree found across strata is more than just an anomaly requiring deeper research to explain. Can you present evidence that this tree disproves the very ancient age of the earth?

While I await your presentation of evidence that supports your views, you might reflect on these words by Cardinal Ratzinger, a view he reaffirmed as Pope:

"The Christian picture of the world is this, that the world in its details is the product of a long process of evolution but that at the most profound level it comes from the Logos. Thus it carries rationality within itself."

You are obviously a follower of a particular idea. I doubt that whatever I presented would convince you. I once had a degree of trust for science. Lately, I have lost that trust since the god of evolution is constantly being praised here and elsewhere.

I know what Pope Benedict has said about this subject. The evolution described in the biology textbook would literally not occur without God’s infallible guidance. The secular deity Stephen Gould has said that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. This is man presuming that the unintelligent, non-goal oriented, self-starting engine called evolution would spit out different results. This denies the direct causal work of God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A greatly simplified and misleading view. For example, you say, “non-goal oriented.” This is not true - the reproduction and propagation of the species is the primary goal. What you should have said, to be accurate, was, “non-external-purpose oriented.” Which is bang on.
You then go on to say it’s an “unintelligent engine which runs itself.” This just sounds like an attempt at belittling an incredible - and proven - process, without actually providing any reason why it’s wrong. The fact that evolution is not intent-driven does not in any way reduce its validity. Why must it be guided by an external entity? And of course, it doesn’t run itself - it is ultimately fuelled by the Sun.

It’s fueled by the sun?

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

It’s fueled by the sun?

Yes. At least, on this planet it is. Without the sun all life on earth would cease. No life = no evolution.

Did you not know this?

Or is this not what you meant when you talked about the “…engine that runs itself?”

 

[reggieM]

The absence of transitional forms presents a genuine problem for the Darwinian version of gradual transmutation.

Can you point me to some peer-reviewed literature that says that?

Evolutionist Lynn Margolis has taken the Darwinians to task on macro-evolution.

As above – is there a specific paper you’re referring to (I’m not arguing or challenging, but am interested in knowing about this).

The question hinges on the evidence supporting the inference of macro mutations.

That’s a very good point, as I see it. Very often, evidence for macro-evolution is presented merely as micro-evolutionary adaptations. The assumption is that micro-changes inevitably increase and build over time and thus result in macro-changes. But as I mentioned above, if micro-changes occured without limits, then we’d continue to see macro evolution occuring widely and there would be no stasis or “harmony of nature”. Certain species would eventually dominate and wipe out all of the rest. There is no advanced knowledge that species tap into to forsee their future state. So, “advanced” predators would develop which could consume and destroy anything and everything – faster, stronger, bigger and impervious to any attacks.

This doesn’t happen though. Darwinian theory does not explain the variety in nature. If nature was dominated by a few species with super-evolved powers, it might explain that. Instead, what we see are species that adapt within limits and we don’t see macro-evolution at work (it’s not visible in the Cambrian fossils either).

The true ground for evolution in not Darwinian natural selection, but the instrumentality of species in the production of new forms.

I don’t think an assertion of instrumentality is enough to replace Darwinian natural selection (as false as it is), since Darwinism claimed to be an explanation of the origins of species through that mechanism.

What evidence, scientific, Biblical, or theological can you offer for the direct creation of each new species?

There are several references here that might be helpful in answering the question from Biblical theological terms:

DESIGN IN THE BIBLE & THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM,

Here is an article that I think will interest you:

normantranscript.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_026113348.html

Since this person was involved in the development of the Mercury space capsule and lived through the time period, I think his views are especially worth noting.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

You are obviously a follower of a particular idea. I doubt that whatever I presented would convince you. I once had a degree of trust for science. Lately, I have lost that trust since the god of evolution is constantly being praised here and elsewhere.

I know what Pope Benedict has said about this subject. The evolution described in the biology textbook would literally not occur without God’s infallible guidance. The secular deity Stephen Gould has said that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently. This is man presuming that the unintelligent, non-goal oriented, self-starting engine called evolution would spit out different results. This denies the direct causal work of God.

Peace,
Ed

As much as I hate cliches, I will use one here. I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most people take evolution to mean *Darwinism. *However, the terms are not synonymous or co-extensive. Pope John Paul II said that rather than a theory of evolution we should speak of theories.

Extreme Darwininst have grafted a materialist ideology onto evolutionary science, and then take their ideology for science. Dennett and Dawkins are irritating with their militant atheism. But this does not mean we should reject whatever may be good science in evolution theory. Catholics should use their reason and separate the gold from the straw in evolution theory. The wholesale rejection of evolution cannot be justified since so many different sciences provide evidence for descent with modification, or evolution in its broad strokes.

Despite what many Darwinists claim, evolution is very poorly understood at this point in the history of science. However, I think there are some real truths in the theory. It’s a powerful theory, but it has been co-opted by extreme Darwinists.

 

[reggieM]

To reggieM,

Here is an article that I think will interest you:

normantranscript.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_026113348.html

Since this person was involved in the development of the Mercury space capsule and lived through the time period, I think his views are especially worth noting.

Ed – That was worthwhile. Thanks for pointing it out. He’s an intelligent and accomplished academic so that does say much.

He mentions Haeckel – I’ve been reading some of his crackpot ideas and they’re truly amazing. I’m tempted to think that he was insane – and Darwinian theory fit his mindset very well.

 

[edwest2]

snip

And this is my primary problem with the science itself. Here, look at these textbook quotes. Tell me if you would want your kids or relative’s kids exposed to the following:

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

As far as I am concerned, the baby is floating in a tub the size of Hoover Dam, filled with atheist dirt.

Powerful theory? Really? I am less and less convinced of that. To the point where it seems ludicrous.

First, microevolution:

Viruses obviously have the built-in ability to modify themselves. Evolution is change over time? Viruses always remain viruses.

Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria. It is built in. And no matter how much change occurs, they always remain bacteria.

Lately, some posters have been pointing to the breeding of dogs by man as some kind of evolution. You breed dogs and what do you get? Dogs.

Do you see my point?

Here is a quote from the Catholic newspaper, Our Sunday Visitor, from April 19, 2009. “Any view of evolution that assumes on principle that biological nature is entirely governed by chance and blind laws must be in error.” Benjamin Wiker.

I think you should realize that there are two types of evolution being discussed here; present, living things evolution, and old dead things evolution.

One poster here goes on and on about how scientists “are using evolution every day.” Really? How? Mapping the human genome is not evolution. Bioinformatics is not evolution. On atheist forums, and here, I keep hearing about how evolution is helping to create new drugs. Not so, according to this gentleman:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/

Today, right now, the value of the theory of evolution as an ideological weapon is its primary driving force.

As far as I can see, it is mentioned so often to convince people it is true by weight of repetition - and little else.

For years, I just took it for granted when scientists speaking on TV talked about finding other planets with water and the “building blocks of life.” Really? And how does that work in the real world? They don’t know but they want you to assume it is possible, to the point of it being a certainty. They are scientists and they say that this is the case. Right? No.

They have no way of knowing, today, right now, how life begins.

And it’s invaded politics as well, showing, once again, that an atheist, materialist ideology is being promoted no matter how often the word science is associated with it:

youtube.com/watch?v=F5QzQtwBseQ

The Catholic Church tells us that there is actual design in nature. Did you know that? Pope John Paul II recognized it. But to recognize design in nature brings up the dreaded - contentless - Intelligent Design theory which is immediately attacked on sight.

Rally for Reason, a primarily atheist sponsored group, protested outside of the Creation Museum. Why? Because they were afraid people might go in and believe what they saw – and, gasp!, bring it into the public school. One Rally protestor said, “I’ll sue if they bring that into schools.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Ed – That was worthwhile. Thanks for pointing it out. He’s an intelligent and accomplished academic so that does say much.

He mentions Haeckel – I’ve been reading some of his crackpot ideas and they’re truly amazing. I’m tempted to think that he was insane – and Darwinian theory fit his mindset very well.

I don’t think Haeckel was insane but an oppotunist. The drawings were falsified to make evolutionary theory appear correct even though that was not the case.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

The Catholic Church tells us that there is actual design in nature. Did you know that? Pope John Paul II recognized it. But to recognize design in nature brings up the dreaded - contentless - Intelligent Design theory which is immediately attacked on sight.
Peace,
Ed

Rational design in nature has been spoken about by Aristotle, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, and so on. But Intelligent Design is something altogether different. It’s bad philosophy because it conflates ultimate and second causes. That’s why Catholic Thomists, Cardinal Shonborn, and others are not going to jump on board. Behe’s book does not contain anything in the way a descriptions of complex systems that is not better described by graduate level science texts. Irreducible Complexity is an unproven hypothesis. Behe has admitted in a debate that systems he said were IC are not IC and that he needs to redfine his concept. So far he has not redefined Irreducible Complexity but keeps teaching systems as IC that he has admitted are not IC. That does not seem very intellectually honest.

 

[edwest2]

Rational design in nature has been spoken about by Aristotle, St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, and so on. But Intelligent Design is something altogether different. It’s bad philosophy because it conflates ultimate and second causes. That’s why Catholic Thomists, Cardinal Shonborn, and others are not going to jump on board. Behe’s book does not contain anything in the way a descriptions of complex systems that is not better described by graduate level science texts. Irreducible Complexity is an unproven hypothesis. Behe has admitted in a debate that systems he said were IC are not IC and that he needs to redfine his concept. So far he has not redefined Irreducible Complexity but keeps teaching systems as IC that he has admitted are not IC. That does not seem very intellectually honest.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

Intelligent Design is number one on the Ideological list for ideas slated for destruction.

First, the Church declares actual design in nature. Second, regardless of the vast storytelling capabilities of imaginitive scientists, there are specific, complex and interelated machinery in a cell far beyond any hope of occurring by chance. That is my 100% belief based on looking at hundreds of years of man-made technology.

Graduate level science texts give the student a “just trust me when I tell you this is how it is,” but the reality is that they do not know. Their discussions of possible pathways and so on are indicative of an infinite explanation principle that any good science fiction writer can explain. Speaking as a professional writer myself, I have been involved, and am currently involved, in helping to build large, highly plausible, internally consistent but fictional worlds right now. I know how it’s done.

Peace,
Ed

 

[itinerant1]

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

Intelligent Design is number one on the Ideological list for ideas slated for destruction.

First, the Church declares actual design in nature. Second, regardless of the vast storytelling capabilities of imaginitive scientists, there are specific, complex and interelated machinery in a cell far beyond any hope of occurring by chance. That is my 100% belief based on looking at hundreds of years of man-made technology.

Graduate level science texts give the student a “just trust me when I tell you this is how it is,” but the reality is that they do not know. Their discussions of possible pathways and so on are indicative of an infinite explanation principle that any good science fiction writer can explain. Speaking as a professional writer myself, I have been involved, and am currently involved, in helping to build large, highly plausible, internally consistent but fictional worlds right now. I know how it’s done.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t think I ignored anything you said, though I did not respond to everything. The idea that complex systems arose by irreducible chance and randomness is part of the ideology grafted onto Darwinism. It not a part of evolution science itself. In other words, it is evolution philosophy intermixed with evolution science.

We counter Darwinian ideology only with sound philosophy, maintaining purpose or final causes in nature. ID does not oppose materialist evolution with sound philosophical concepts or sound science. Error must be opposed with truth, not with another set of errors. I’m sure you must have heard of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki, physicist, theologian, philosopher, and historian of science. Here are a few quotes from him on Intelligent Design. Now it is your turn to read a post entirely and carefully. There will be a short online quiz afterward to test your reading.

“Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, betrays philosophical poverty and less than modest familiarity with scientific history. Worse, the author’s script seems to have been heavily rewritten by an editor to make it as salable as possible. Intellectual rigor once more sorely suffered.”
—Fr. Stanley L. Jaki

“Intelligent Design theory as science is basically faulty because it implies that the “intelligence” which drives and directs evolution can be measured and observed. It is surely bad philosophy.” —S. L. Jaki

“Equivocation, which underlies this vitalization of nature, is again noticeable in Behe’s third claim on behalf of Intelligent Design, namely, that “we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that does not involve intelligence.” Had Behe considered the point made earlier about the impossibility of absolute randomness, he could have taken Darwinists to task on their poor philosophizing. But like so many other well intentioned people before him, Behe too tried to fight a battle which is philosophical by using scientific tools. The bad philosophizing which is everywhere in Darwinian ideology can only be fought philosophically.” —S.L. Jaki

“As to the fourth or final point in Behe’s presentation, it also smacks of equivocation. The point deals with the origin of life that has to the work of an intelligent design. Well, as has been noted before, there is no convincing evidence that purely biological life would involve anything more than mere matter. The crucial point relates to the pre-biological origin of evolution called nucleosynthesis or the formation of elements, and indeed to the formation of subnuclear particles. In all theories about them one finds not a nondescript matter but a matter with most specific properties as can be seen in any handbook of elementary particles.” The specificity or suchness of matter involves a choice and is also a design. “This is what makes science possible. It needs no assumption about an intelligence which is to be measured with the tools of science, let alone in reference to the formation of each and every species and cell as well. What a scientist will make of his seeing design depends not on his science but entirely on his philosophical acumen, which, judging by the publications on Intelligent Design, seems to be in short supply among its champions. No wonder. They come mostly from the ranks of half-reconstructed fundamentalists and carry the heavy baggage of the Reformer’ disdain of, indeed contempt for philosophy.” —S.L. Jaki

 

[reggieM]

We counter Darwinian ideology only with sound philosophy, maintaining purpose or final causes in nature.

We must counter the false claims of Darwinian theory by exposing the fautly science as well.

ID does not oppose materialist evolution with sound philosophical concepts or sound science.

I’d consider Dr. Behe to be a much more sound micro-biologist than Fr. Jaki is.

"Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, betrays philosophical poverty and less than modest familiarity with scientific history.

What is missing in this criticism is the focus of the book – the “biochemical challenge”.

“Intelligent Design theory as science is basically faulty because it implies that the “intelligence” which drives and directs evolution can be measured and observed. It is surely bad philosophy.”

Fr. Jaki is discarding 20 centuries of Catholic theology with his claim that God’s intelligent, creative design in the universe “cannot be observed”. He has decided to get rid of teleology, for whatever reason. There are many Catholics who do the same so we shouldn’t be that suprised.

Behe too tried to fight a battle which is philosophical by using scientific tools.

Fr. Jaki is incorrect to think that the battle is entirely philosophical. Dr. Behe is fighting against the faulty science by using scientific tools – just as he should. We might question how Fr. Jaki became an expert in micro-biology as well.

The bad philosophizing which is everywhere in Darwinian ideology can only be fought philosophically." —S.L. Jaki

How does Fr. Jaki propose to fight the bad science which is everywhere in Darwinian theory? With philosophy?

The specificity or suchness of matter involves a choice and is also a design.

I observe a contradiction here – just previously, Fr. Jaki claimed that design could not be observed – but now he claims that the “specificity” in nature is evidence of design.

What a scientist will make of his seeing design depends not on his science but entirely on his philosophical acumen …

As above, Fr. Jaki admits that he can observe design in nature – then he throws insults at Intelligent Design theorists who say the same thing. He’s probably upset because his version of theistic evolution (if he even admits God’s role in nature to that extent) has not been well-represented by Catholics like John Haught (essentially denies the supernatural) and Fr. Coyne (denies the omniscience of God).

 

[itinerant1]

I’d consider Dr. Behe to be a much more sound micro-biologist than Fr. Jaki is.

What is missing in this criticism is the focus of the book – the “biochemical challenge”.

Jaki does deal with the so-called bio-chemical challenge. But that is not something you would know because you are unfamiliar with Jaki’s works, or, if you have read any of them, which I doubt, you have not understood anything you read. Furthermore, there is nothing really exceptional or notable in Behe’s presentation of complex bio-chemical systems. My sister-in-law who teaches genetics can run circles around Behe. Besides, you are probably not aware Behe has admitted that the systems he once thought were irreducibly complex are not so after all. So, you are defending a theory Behe has since admitted is faulty.

Fr. Jaki is discarding 20 centuries of Catholic theology with his claim that God’s intelligent, creative design in the universe “cannot be observed”. He has decided to get rid of teleology, for whatever reason. There are many Catholics who do the same so we shouldn’t be that suprised.

Obviously you know nothing about Stanley Jaki. If you want to make such ridiculous and blatantly false claims about Jaki, I suggest to present your evidence from Jaki’s works.

Fr. Jaki is incorrect to think that the battle is entirely philosophical. Dr. Behe is fighting against the faulty science by using scientific tools – just as he should. We might question how Fr. Jaki became an expert in micro-biology as well.

Obviously, you do not have a clear idea of the nature of the controversy. Your comments are proof for Jaki’s observation about ID theorists having a disdain for reason and philosophy.

One does not have to be an authority in micro-biology to know that Dembski, Behe, et al. are philosophically confused by their conflation of ultimate and second causes. Do you know what this means?

How does Fr. Jaki propose to fight the bad science which is everywhere in Darwinian theory? With philosophy?

One of the things extreme Darwinists and ID creationists like yourself have in common is the profound inability to correctly distinguish what is science from what is ideology or philosophy. I doubt that you can distinguish bad science from Darwinian ideology grafted onto sound science. Behe would re-define science so as to include astrology. That is how desperate ID has gotten.

I observe a contradiction here – just previously, Fr. Jaki claimed that design could not be observed – but now he claims that the “specificity” in nature is evidence of design.

This is clear evidence again that you do not have a clue as to what Jaki is talking about. It does no good to argue against a position unless you have first taken the time to understand that position. You have committed several straw man fallacies in a very short space. Are you trying for a record?

As above, Fr. Jaki admits that he can observe design in nature – then he throws insults at Intelligent Design theorists who say the same thing. He’s probably upset because his version of theistic evolution (if he even admits God’s role in nature to that extent) has not been well-represented by Catholics like John Haught (essentially denies the supernatural) and Fr. Coyne (denies the omniscience of God).

One more time, you demonstrate that you are totally clueless regarding Jaki’s ideas.