Creation or Evolution

[The_Barbarian]

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.”

Good. Of course, this does not mean planning. As the Pope says, even contingency can be used by God to His purposes.

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."

A quote-mining Cardinal. That’s discouraging. Hopefully, someone fed him that edited “quote” and he isn’t aware of what Simpson actually said…

"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."
George Gaylord Simpson The Meaning of Evolution

Simpson is right; nature is unknowing, unthinking, pitilessly indifferent. So is a hammer. But a hammer can be used by a caring individual to achieve a laudable result. So it is with nature.

I’m guessing that the good Cardinal was deceived by the IDers on that one. Miller was apparently right; Schoenborn was used by the IDers, who seem to have fed him that dishonesty, which he repeated. IDer Phillip Johnson has referred to such people as “useful fools.”

Hence, the later “clarification” by the Cardinal, in which he backpedaled on these issues.

It is quite clear exactly where the Church and science stand.

In complementary positions. Both assert that common descent is virtually certain.

Ideology has polluted science to a great degree.

They’ve tried. But so far, not much progress on that. As Phillip Johnson admitted, recent events have been a “train wreck” for ID.

Cardinal Schoenborn is right.

Now he is. It’s unfortunate he had to go through that to get to the truth.

 

[edwest2]

So you think the Cardinal was deceived? I don’t think so.

“Popular and scientific texts about evolution often say ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ has done this or that.”

“Just who is this ‘nature’ or ‘evolution’ as (an active) subject? It doesn’t exist at all!” – Pope Benedict

thetablet.co.uk/articles/9640/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

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

Don’t even respond to what I wrote about Miller. Typical.

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Organisms themselves show no evidence of design.

Since evolutionary biology supposedly does not study the origin of life then this is a non-sequitur.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So you think the Cardinal was deceived?

Either he was deceived, or he thought up that doctored “quote” by himself. Since I’ve seen IDers try it before, I suspect it’s the former.

He’s honest, but too trusting.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Organisms themselves show no evidence of design.

Since evolutionary biology supposedly does not study the origin of life then this is a non-sequitur.

Evolutionary theory can’t test that assertion, but other sciences can.

 

[edwest2]

Either he was deceived, or he thought up that doctored “quote” by himself. Since I’ve seen IDers try it before, I suspect it’s the former.

He’s honest, but too trusting.

I don’t think the Cardinal is that way, especially since he and Pope Benedict have discussed this subject before. As an editor for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think he understands the subject of evolution enough to say what he means. And this even before the whole political ID movement, which is all it is. Pope John Paul II did speak of design in nature, something you reject. I suspect, in your case, it involves making sure the other team cannot use the concept for political ends. Too bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

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

On the contrary, it was a pretty dumb thing to say, because neither he nor you can point to a single scientific paper in which ideology takes precedence over science. I have challenged you to produce one, Ed, and you have failed to do so.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Hi Alec,

If you have an argument with the Cardinal, send him a letter. Inform him, if you think you need to. I work in the media and I monitor the media. Currently, the primary theme on all media platforms is anti-religion, particularly anti-Christianity. It is being marketed 24/7. It has become customary around certain Holy Days to present farcical and unscientific programming to the masses. It is part of what I call the Bible Explanation Industry. There are two threads on this forum that mentions the latest attempt to explain things on PBS.

It is all part of the current marketing campaign to legitimize secular humanism and to legalize sin. Pope Benedict is aware of how some simply wish to attribute human origins to purely ‘natural’ non-God means. But as the previous quotes I’ve posted show: ‘nature’ is not an active force. It doesn’t guide anything anywhere. It has no intelligence.

Nihilism and self-indulgence are too prevalent in Western society. Things I refer to as who-knows-ism, who-can-say-ism and maybe-ism. It is against this vague backdrop of vagueness that some live in, trying to confuse the faithful. It won’t work.

Meanwhile, I only trust the Church in this matter.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian suggests that Cardinal Schoenborn was duped into citing the dishonestly quotemined Simpson statement)

I don’t think the Cardinal is that way,

Me too. That’s why I think he was fooled, and meant no dishonesty.

especially since he and Pope Benedict have discussed this subject before.

I’d be surprised if he knew enough about Simpson to catch that one.

As an editor for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I think he understands the subject of evolution enough to say what he means. And this even before the whole political ID movement, which is all it is. Pope John Paul II did speak of design in nature, something you reject.

It has since been shown that the Pope’s words made it clear he meant it as a synonym for “intent”, not to suggest that God was imperfect and needed to figure things out.

So theologically, there is no problem. And none scientifically. How could it be otherwise?

 

[edwest2]

You seem to view this debate in a non-dynamic manner. Every available secular voice is harping on evolution, including some people here. It it about truth or education? I’ve seen no evidence that it is either. Scientists, well aware of their standing not only among their peers, but with the public at large, speak against God. hecd2 claims to be a scientist and his whole purpose is what? To tell Catholics that the evidence, or, more precisely, the interpretation of the evidence, does not support beliefs handed down from the Catholic Church.

I think you see that your argument is without foundation. Instead of invoking a conspiracy from “them,” you should be reading what the Cardinal wrote, since he not only relies on his own thinking but quotes Pope John Paul II as well.

If you enjoy writing about science so much, why don’t you start a science forum somewhere? There are certain settled Catholic beliefs that are inviolate. But, as identified in Humani Generis, those who know little about the Catholic Church and the deposit of faith, and who seek after novelty, are running around with “we got new, new, new.” It was a problem in 1950 and it’s a problem again today. Cardinal Schoenborn wrote against scientism, and how a separation is needed between Neo-Darwinian theory and Neo-Darwinism. He is, once again, clearly identifying the problem.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Hi Alec,

If you have an argument with the Cardinal, send him a letter. Inform him, if you think you need to.

Why should I do that? I have a closely argued essay criticising
Schoenborn’s article in First Things on my website here:
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

It receives a good number of hits, it’s referenced on the Wikipedia article on the Cardinal, and is appreciated by many people including a number of practising Catholics. What would writing a letter to him achieve? - I can’t remediate the lack of knowledge of someone who does not understand biology or the various concepts of randomness in a letter.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[edwest2]

Why do you post here? I would like to point out, that for Catholics, science is not all there is.

Unfortunately, you would lead people to believe that you are little more than an animated bag of chemicals whose primary purpose is to reproduce successfully. You would consign the mind to little more than what your genes have preprogrammed you to do, with some variation due to environmental sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

There may be some truth in there but, for Catholics, there is a living God with which we have a relationship and who has conveyed actual knowledge to us. If you don’t accept that, fine. But your facts, as you call them, will always fall short of informing people of all they need to know.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Why do you post here?

Why do you?

Unfortunately, you would lead people to believe that you are little more than an animated bag of chemicals whose primary purpose is to reproduce successfully. You would consign the mind to little more than what your genes have preprogrammed you to do, with some variation due to environmental sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

These particular fallacies are called “attacking a strawman” and “poisoning the well”. Look them up.

But your facts, as you call them, will always fall short of informing people of all they need to know.

So you say, but the facts still persist. E pur si muove.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

No, the only thing that persists is your atheism and telling people the Church is wrong. God made you and loves you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

No, the only thing that persists is your atheism and telling people the Church is wrong. God made you and loves you.

Peace,
Ed

When one is locked into science (as their complete god) it is most difficult to see much more. They are looking at the universe through a tube with a narrow field of vision. I cannot understand why they would limit themselves so. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. Talking about putting your faith in something so limited, further limited by man’s power of reason.

 

[hecd2]

No, the only thing that persists is your atheism and telling people the Church is wrong.

That’s the ONLY thing that persists? Not facts, not evidence, not the underlying laws of nature?

You really need to do better than that.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[anthony022071]

[The Barbarian]

See above. He says it’s virtually certain. And he doesn’t say it’s the scientific account. He relates the scientific account of the Big Bang. But he says that common descent is virtually certain.

Both the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution belong to the scientific account of natural history. The pope does not suggest that the theory of evolution is not part of the “scientific account”. If it isn’t,then your position is really in trouble.

And he explains why. I restored the context in the quote you edited, below:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Not exactly what you wanted us to think, um?

And in that same paragraph,the scientific account of evolution follows the Big Bang theory.

Barbarian observes:
Common descent of all living things is as macro as you can get in evolution. And the Cardinal says it’s “virtually certain.”

See above. Nice try. BTW, if you want to disagree with the Pope on this matter, you can do it;it’s science, not a matter of faith or morals.

According to you,it’s not a scientific account,but the opinion of the pope.

Barbarian chuckles:
Looks like someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them.

Whoever told you that nonsense.

What you quoted was from the article by Jon Allen,who works for the National Catholic Reporter. Again,who has taken advantage of my trust in them,and what evidence do you have for this?

See above; the Pope has said common descent is virtually certain.

And you say it is not a scientific account,but the opinion of the pope.

The Pope’s own statement.

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Sorry, no. Methodological naturalism is unable to deny the supernatural. Remember, they must explicitly deny the role of divine providence. “Explicitly” means they say it.

Methodological naturalism explicitly denies natural causes.
That’s where the word “naturalism” comes in. Otherwise,it would just be called a method.

No. The origin of life is not part of his theory.

I didn’t say it was. Unless you use “life” to mean living species.

It merely reinforces what the Pope said; evolution is consistent with our faith, so long as the theory does not explicitly deny divine providence.

Evolution theorists speak for the theory of evolution.
They deny supernatural causes and intelligent design in nature.
So the theory is not consistent with Catholic faith.

(Francisco Ayala, “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5,

Yep. It means that science can investigate natural phenomena without using God as an explanation. It does not mean that it denies divine providence.

Science does deny divine providence,which is why it denies supernatural causes and intelligent design.

Ayala, BTW, is a devout Catholic, who accepts evolution in the same way the Pope does.

The pope doesn’t accept the theory of evolution the way that Ayala does. The pope doesn’t believe in macro-evolution.

You might as well denounce plumbers, because plumbing manuals exclude God as a cause of hydraulics.

Hydraulics doesn’t deal with the origin of species,so it’s no problem.

You won’t, because you don’t feel threatened by hydraulics.

Since that is the case,why would you make a silly comparison between hydraulics and the theory of evolution? You must be aware of the fact that methodological naturalism is a threat to belief in Creation and divine providence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on the Pope’s stand on evolution:
See above. He says it’s virtually certain. And he doesn’t say it’s the scientific account. He relates the scientific account of the Big Bang. But he says that common descent is virtually certain.

Both the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution belong to the scientific account of natural history. The pope does not suggest that the theory of evolution is not part of the “scientific account”.

In fact, he says this:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Barbarian observes:
And he explains why. I restored the context in the quote you edited, below:

**
**
Not exactly what you wanted us to think, um?
And in that same paragraph,the scientific account of evolution follows the Big Bang theory.

Barbarian observes:
Common descent of all living things is as macro as you can get in evolution. And the Cardinal says it’s “virtually certain.”

See above. Nice try. BTW, if you want to disagree with the Pope on this matter, you can do it;it’s science, not a matter of faith or morals.

According to you,it’s not a scientific account,but the opinion of the pope.

It is a scientific account. Do you think the Pope can’t be scientific?

Barbarian chuckles:
Looks like someone’s taken advantage of your trust in them.

Whoever told you that nonsense.

What you quoted was from the article by Jon Allen,who works for the National Catholic Reporter.

Too bad for him, then. He could take a clue from the Pope, who bothered to learn about the subject before writing about it.

Again,who has taken advantage of my trust in them,and what evidence do you have for this?

Whoever told you that, and the evidence is the same as that to which the Pope referred.

Barbarian observes:
See above; the Pope has said common descent is virtually certain.

And you say it is not a scientific account,but the opinion of the pope.

Of course I didn’t say that. The Pope can make a scientific statement. If (as he did) the Pope learns about it, he can even make an accurate scientific statement.

The Pope’s own statement.

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution…

It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."**

The Pope has it exactly right. Evolutionary theory is correct about the common descent of all living things, but anyone who tries to extend science to deny God is expecting science to do something it cannot.

Barbarian observes:
Sorry, no. Methodological naturalism is unable to deny the supernatural. Remember, they must explicitly deny the role of divine providence. “Explicitly” means they say it.

Methodological naturalism explicitly denies natural causes.

C’mon Anthony; it does you no good to insist on something everyone can see is false. Methodological naturalism has never said that, explicitly or otherwise. You really, really, want it to be so, but the truth counts.

Barbarian observes:
No. The origin of life is not part of his theory.

I didn’t say it was.

Not now. But you will again, if history is a guide.

Barbarian observes:
It merely reinforces what the Pope said; evolution is consistent with our faith, so long as the theory does not explicitly deny divine providence.

Evolution theorists speak for the theory of evolution.
They deny supernatural causes and intelligent design in nature.
So the theory is not consistent with Catholic faith.

If so, neither is the Pope. Looks like you’re between a rock and a hard place.

(Francisco Ayala, “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5,

Science does deny divine providence

Not according to the Pope.

which is why it denies supernatural causes and intelligent design.

It can’t deny either. Science can’t address religious ideas.

Barbarian observes:
Ayala, BTW, is a devout Catholic, who accepts evolution in the same way the Pope does.

The pope doesn’t accept the theory of evolution the way that Ayala does.

They have described it in the same way.

The pope doesn’t believe in macro-evolution.

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
** Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

Can’t get any more macro than that.

Barbarian observes:
You might as well denounce plumbers, because plumbing manuals exclude God as a cause of hydraulics.

Hydraulics doesn’t deal with the origin of species,so it’s no problem.

That’s because you aren’t threatened by God’s naturalistic use of hydraulics. But you don’t approve of the way He did living things.

Since that is the case,why would you make a silly comparison between hydraulics and the theory of evolution?

Pointing out that it’s your emotional reaction to his creation of life and diversity, not science that’s the problem.

You must be aware of the fact that methodological naturalism is a threat to belief in Creation and divine providence.

Doesn’t seem to be a problem for the Pope. I don’t see any problem, either. But then I’m Catholic, as he is. And like the Pope, I learned a bit about the science. So I’m not personally threatened by the way God did it.

 

[edwest2]

The way God did it? How do you know?

You put science first and then tack God on? You write about the way God did it as if the matter was settled. It’s not. Check out the similar threads running on this forum. Most of the time the point is never “this is what God did,” it’s “this is the evidence so you can forget about your Bible mythology.” “The Church is wrong.”

That is what comes across loud and clear.

The mind of man is exalted, not God.

Peace,
Ed