Creation or Evolution

[hecd2]

Cardinal Schoenborn has made it clear that most science today is ideology, not science. Are you aware of this?

hecd2:

No, I am not aware of this. Could you give me a direct link or quotation that demonstrates that Schoenborn actually claimed that most science today is ideology. Because either you are wrong or Schoenborn has been incredibly dumb. Which is it, Ed?

Finding Design in Nature

CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHöNBORN

“Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

Well Ed claimed that Schoenborn had said that “most science today is ideology”. I am still waiting for a reference that supports this assertion because this one doesn’t come anywhere close to doing it.

Also, as I have noted elsewhere, Schoenborn has back-pedalled furiously from this very unwise, ignorant and foolish support for the Discovery Institute. He did this when he found out that he had been very badly advised, that there is in fact no evidence for design in biology and that his remarks here and in the First Things article displayed a very poor understanding of the philosophy of science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

there is in fact no evidence for design in biology

Where do you think evidence of design can be found, if anywhere?

 

[edwest2]

Well that might well be because you are not reading Schoenborn’s articles with discernment. In his NYT and particularly his First Things articles he made a direct attack on the foundations of modern biology. Subsequently, in his Catechetical lectures and other pronouncements, he considerably softened his stance, accepting the scientific theory of evolution and downplaying or contradicting his unwise attempts to undermine the foundations of modern biology. Someone advised him not to set the church on a collision course with science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Why do you care about this? You wrote: “But you see, what the Catholic Church says carries no special weight for me or the majority of people in the world.” So, which is it?

I have the same question for anyone else here who posts along the same lines - Why do you care? The answer appears to be to promote a secular humanist worldview. Anything else would not appear to be worth the time and effort being expended.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A direct quote or reference supporting your contention that the Cardinal claims that “most science today is ideology” needed. I am pretty sure that he never said anything like that, because if he did it was an incredibly dumb thing to say.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

“incredibly dumb thing to say” What qualifies you to make this statement? It seems as if you are saying the Cardinal could not, ever, be qualified to criticize science. Here is the quote from the January, 2006 First Things article:

“Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’”

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Why do you care about this? You wrote: “But you see, what the Catholic Church says carries no special weight for me or the majority of people in the world.” So, which is it?

Which is it what? I care about the truth, but the Church has no special authority to determine the truth. Where is the dichotomy?

I have the same question for anyone else here who posts along the same lines - Why do you care? The answer appears to be to promote a secular humanist worldview. Anything else would not appear to be worth the time and effort being expended.

Of course I wish to defend my viewpoint and of course I care. Don’t these things matter?. Don’t you defend yours? Of course you do. Don’t you think that the sharing of different points of view will help us all to get closer to the truth? Oh no, I forgot - you imagine you already have the entire truth in spite of the fact that your conception of what is true is at irreconcilable odds with facts. Ah well.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Sharing different viewpoints presumes one of them is true. That is what real debate is about. As Catholics, we have truth beyond what science, at this time, can provide. That you do not acknowledge it is not our fault.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

“incredibly dumb thing to say” What qualifies you to make this statement? It seems as if you are saying the Cardinal could not, ever, be qualified to criticize science. Here is the quote from the January, 2006 First Things article:

What qualifies me is that I am a scientist who is familiar with the content of science. If the good Cardinal had actually said that (in your words) “most of science today is ideology not science” (which he didn’t say), then that would have been a patently absurd thing to say.

What he actually said was, as you now admit:
“Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’”
That’s pretty dumb too, but not quite as dumb as the statement you erroneously stuffed into his mouth. It’s dumb,. because neither you nor he know very much about the content of modern science and neither you nor he can point to specific examples in journal papers that assert things that are ideology (ie what the author would like to be) rather than science (what the authors concludes was, based on evidence). Go on, Ed, show us just one case of ideology trumping science in a journal paper. If you can do that, you’ll still be a long way from showing us that “modern science is often ideology not science”, which is, fundamentally, the unsupportable assertion of a person who basically doesn’t know what they are talking about.

And yes, the Cardinal is not qualified to criticise science, being neither a scientist nor a philosopher of science, which failing is painfully obvious from errors he falls into in both the NYT and the First Things papers.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Where do you think evidence of design can be found, if anywhere?

Paleontology. There is a discipline, dedicated to identifying primitive stone tools.

It turns out that it is an entire science, in which design can be identified.

I suggest you read “Making Silent Stones Speak”
Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth
Simon and Schuster 1993

Humans are actually very good at distinguishing designed objects from natural ones.

But there is no evidence of design, other than from man or a few other animals.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Sharing different viewpoints presumes one of them is true. That is what real debate is about. As Catholics, we have truth beyond what science, at this time, can provide. That you do not acknowledge it is not our fault.

But what you are expressing here, is not Catholicism. It is not the Church’s teachings, but your own ideas.

It should also be noted that the Cardinal’s goofs were not merely criticized by non-Catholics, but also by scientifically literate Catholics.

**But the Cardinal is wrong in asserting that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the “meaning” on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the “mainstream biologists” of which the Cardinal speaks?

Not at all. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.” **
Kenneth Miller
beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17123_1.html

I had forgotten this statement (it is in The Meaning of Evolution), but it clearly and decisively refutes the Cardinal’s unfortunate assumption as to what Neo-Darwinians think.

 

[edwest2]

That is not true. I think you know that. What Cardinal Schoenbrn wrote I agree with 100%. My view all along is that science has become corrupted. The Cardinal in the New York Times piece writes about finding design in nature, something you reject.

My experience working in the media means I watch the ebb and flow of ideas. Currently, the noise is over the new atheism. This is simply the old atheism with different clothes and a different hair style. Christianity is being bashed daily on all platforms: radio, TV, the internet, etc. The goal is not the truth, it never has been. The goal has been always to look at the landscape and rush in with whatever ideology seems fertile for planting at the moment. The problem is, the truth, though it may be partially buried, always rises back up. This is due to the action of the Holy Spirit of God and a binding covenant.

I suggest you read The Creation of the Media by Pulitzer Prize winning author Paul Starr. The noise level on the Meaningless Opinion Superhighway needs to be identified for what it is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Sharing different viewpoints presumes one of them is true. That is what real debate is about. As Catholics, we have truth beyond what science, at this time, can provide. That you do not acknowledge it is not our fault.

Indeed one of them is true, and others are false, as I have already pointed out, but your premature declaration of victory is based on a logical fallacy particularly favoured by the religious - it’s called “begging the question” - ie assuming the conclusion in the premises. It seems ironic that your basis for a “real debate” is acknowledgement that you have the whole source of truth. Tee hee.

Your particular position is refuted by facts - that you do not acknowledge it is not my fault (but it is yours).

Alec

 

[edwest2]

But what you are expressing here, is not Catholicism. It is not the Church’s teachings, but your own ideas.

It should also be noted that the Cardinal’s goofs were not merely criticized by non-Catholics, but also by scientifically literate Catholics.

**But the Cardinal is wrong in asserting that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is inherently atheistic. Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an “unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species. To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the “meaning” on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the “mainstream biologists” of which the Cardinal speaks?

Not at all. Consider these words from George Gaylord Simpson, widely recognized as one of the principal architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: “The process [of evolution] is wholly natural in its operation. This natural process achieves the aspect of purpose without the intervention of a purposer; and it has produced a vast plan without the concurrent action of a planner. It may be that the initiation of the process and the physical laws under which it functions had a purpose and that this mechanistic way of achieving a plan is the instrument of a Planner - of this still deeper problem the scientist, as scientist, cannot speak.” **
Kenneth Miller
beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17123_1.html

I had forgotten this statement (it is in The Meaning of Evolution), but it clearly and decisively refutes the Cardinal’s unfortunate assumption as to what Neo-Darwinians think.

I do not regard Kenneth Miller as an authority. Pope Benedict clearly identifies God as the Planner. Cardinal Schoenborn is clearly aware, as is Pope Benedict, of scientists who step outside of their work and make assertions that cannot be demonstrated by science. Since Nature magazine has determined that most scientists do not believe in God, I think the Cardinal is right to warn Catholics of the problem.

Your argument about scientists has no meaning when scientists go on television, for example, and speak clearly, based on their scientific work, that there is no Planner. The public, hearing this, and recognizing the status and authority of the speaker, is inclined to accept their statements. To say otherwise is nonsense. Fortunately, many people still see God in a process of creation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

I do not regard Kenneth Miller as an authority.

Sure. Let’s make a cardinal who isn’t a scientist an authority on science while denying that a Ph.D biologist who is Catholic is not.

Pope Benedict clearly identifies God as the Planner.

Miller agrees with this.

Cardinal Schoenborn is clearly aware, as is Pope Benedict, of scientists who step outside of their work and make assertions that cannot be demonstrated by science. Since Nature magazine has determined that most scientists do not believe in God, I think the Cardinal is right to warn Catholics of the problem.

Pull your fingers out of your ears, Ed. No one is arguing that many or maybe even most scientists don’t believe in God. What has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over… is that an individual scientist may believe anything he/she wants but that doesn’t have any bearing on the truth of the science. Your pontificating otherwise doesn’t change that FACT.

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

I do not regard Kenneth Miller as an authority.

He’s a devout lifelong Catholic, who is also a highly regarded authority on biology. Of course you don’t agree with him.

Pope Benedict clearly identifies God as the Planner.

I hope not. It is blasphemous to attribute imperfection to God.

Cardinal Schoenborn is clearly aware, as is Pope Benedict, of scientists who step outside of their work and make assertions that cannot be demonstrated by science.

Every time we repeat the Apostle’s Creed, we do that. It’s a good thing, Ed. Science can’t affirm that, but scientists can.

Since Nature magazine has determined that most scientists do not believe in God, I think the Cardinal is right to warn Catholics of the problem.

Ironically, Ed finds it objectionable that Miller does believe in God and talks about it.

Your argument about scientists has no meaning when scientists go on television, for example, and speak clearly, based on their scientific work, that there is no Planner.

That would be wrong. But of course, there is no demiurge “planner.” Only an omnipotent Creator. Please give us a checkable source for this scientist who asserted, based on his work, that there was no God.

 

[onetimeposter]

Genesis is a metaphorical story…the story is true, but it is not literally true.

I don’t know how God created the world and universe…but it obviously was not created in such a manner as created in Genesis.

On that, the the geological and fossil record is clear.

What’s more important is what the metaphorical stories in the Bible are trying to tell us.

So really, it doesn’t matter if the Creation story is a metaphor…it is a story of how man in ancient society summarized Gods creation of the world.

 

[reggieM]

Humans are actually very good at distinguishing designed objects from natural ones.

But there is no evidence of design, other than from man or a few other animals.

Which animals do you think give evidence of design? How do you distinguish the design created by animals from that produced by “nature”?

I noted that hecd2 stated that:

“there is in fact no evidence for design in biology”

 

[edwest2]

Sure. Let’s make a cardinal who isn’t a scientist an authority on science while denying that a Ph.D biologist who is Catholic is not.Miller agrees with this.Pull your fingers out of your ears, Ed. No one is arguing that many or maybe even most scientists don’t believe in God. What has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over… is that an individual scientist may believe anything he/she wants but that doesn’t have any bearing on the truth of the science. Your pontificating otherwise doesn’t change that FACT.

Peace

Tim

Cardinal Schoenborn was correct in what he wrote. “Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, ‘ideology, not science.’”

It is a threat in that it goes beyong its own limits to spread an anti-God ideology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

He’s a devout lifelong Catholic, who is also a highly regarded authority on biology. Of course you don’t agree with him.

I hope not. It is blasphemous to attribute imperfection to God.

Every time we repeat the Apostle’s Creed, we do that. It’s a good thing, Ed. Science can’t affirm that, but scientists can.

Ironically, Ed finds it objectionable that Miller does believe in God and talks about it.

That would be wrong. But of course, there is no demiurge “planner.” Only an omnipotent Creator. Please give us a checkable source for this scientist who asserted, based on his work, that there was no God.

I agree with Cardinal Schoenborn 100%.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is more from Cardinal Schoenborn:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5464

Here he states: “This cognizing agent who steers all natural things toward their goal, we call God.”

He also quotes Paleontologist George C. Simpson who stated in his book, Meaning of Evolution: “Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that does not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

It is quite clear exactly where the Church and science stand. Ideology has polluted science to a great degree. Cardinal Schoenborn is right.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Which animals do you think give evidence of design?

No one’s ever found “design” in living things. Every time we find out why something is the way it is, it was by natural processes. But chimps, for example, take twigs, carefully strip them and fashion them, and then go find a termite mound where they use their tool to fish out termites. Savanna chimps also break off small limbs and fashion crude clubs from them when threatened.

To a lesser degree, some birds break off thorns or small sticks and use them to fish insect larvae out of holes.

How do you distinguish the design created by animals from that produced by “nature”?

Some planning and foresight is required for tool-making.

I noted that hecd2 stated that:

“there is in fact no evidence for design in biology”

Right. Organisms themselves show no evidence of design. But a few of them are capable of crude designing.