Creationism and life in general

[Al_Moritz]

May I respectfully add the necessary conditions for this to be true.

… there cannot be a true conflict between faith and science, between religious truth and scientific truth PROVIDED that Catholic dogma is understood correctly and science is pursued correctly.

Yes, good nuance, thank you.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Oh wow, I didn’t realise you wrote the overview of ‘The Origin of Life’ on the Talk Origins website - fantastic site, I’ve read a few of the FAQs and ‘The Introduction to Evolutionary Biology’ and have ‘The Origin of Life’ on my to do list.

Yes, the name Talk Origins has a lot of weight; if you google for “origin of life” the article should pop up on the first page (I am not complaining

The research on the origin of life has just been spectacular in the last decade, and tremendous progress has been made. If you would have asked me 10 years ago about an origin of life by natural causes I would have found it a ludicrous proposition, now I think it is a virtual certainty. I am very enthusiastic about this field of research.

That’s a great article of the problem of naturalism - the lack of free will really does lead to an impossibilty of proving any statement is true or not. I will be sure to read the other articles on your site when I have time.

One issue I have with the new atheists is that they really seem to completely ignore or are unaware of the free will problem and make it seem that you can live a normal life while rejecting the idea of God and accepting a purely materialistic worldview - which is simply a grand delusion, equivalent to their ‘God delusion’

I agree about the free will problem. More and more I think that the Argument from Reason is a central argument for the existence of God, and even though I still like the classical metaphysical arguments, they carry somewhat less weight for me now than this argument and the fine-tuning argument (even though I now understand them better than before, after having read Feser’s excellent Aquinas; I have planned a second read though). I think there simply is in principle no solution to the free-will dilemma when it comes to rationality. Many people argue that moral responsibility and our judicial system make no sense with free will either. While I think this is correct, just from those perspectives free will might still be an illusion, and I could envision that illusion as true. Yet the free-will-as-illusion argument collapses like a house of cards when it comes to rationality.

There is a tremendous article by C.S. Lewis, “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism”, which I think is rock solid and hard to refute:

philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Intro/csl3.html

It took me some time though to fully understand it, and I have seen attempts at rebuttal of it on the web that did not understand what they tried to refute.

Luke Muehlhauser over at commonsenseatheism.com recommended Gary Drescher’s Good and Real as the best book on naturalism that he knew. While I agree with him that it is an impressive intellectual tour de force (far more impressive than Dawkins et al.) that really tries to establish a consistent worldview under physical determinism, it only appears convincing to a reader who does not realize that it only works because the most fundamental problems for naturalism are not addressed. He tries to brush aside the problem of the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature with a half-hearted solution, but the worst thing is that, while he always emphasizes that you have to get to the bottom of the truth of things (the word “truth” must occur in the book a gazillion times), he never explains how something like truth could even be possible under naturalism!

As impressive as Drescher’s Good and Real is, compared to Stephen Barr’s excellent Modern Physics and Ancient Faith *) it simply collapses in argumentative power. Barr’s writings at First Things (I am pleased to see that you also quote him) perhaps have been a crucial factor in saving me from falling into atheism after a crisis in 2006, started by my discovery that an origin of life by natural causes is highly likely (now, a few years later, it is even more likely). He introduced me to the fine-tuning argument and he is still one of its best defenders, and in his book he develops an impressive array of arguments from abstract thinking, the recognition of absolute truth (for example certain mathematical truths), and comparison of the human mind with computers (all falling under the larger umbrella of the Argument from Reason, which has several forms).

*) amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268021988/

Atheist thinking simply does not offer anything that can compare to the depth of the best theist thinkers and to the tremendous sophistication and nuance of something like the Church document “Communion and Stewardship” from which we both love to cite. I simply feel intellectually much more at home and empowered with the best theist thinking (and there is quite a lot of it) than with even the best atheist thinking that I know, which really lacks the all-encompassing consistency, the sophistication and the nuance that I crave for. Yes, the atheist view is on the surface attractively simple, but I am afraid, upon closer inspection it is not just simple but simplistic.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Unfortunately, it seems that most religious people are not exactly intellectually honest either - i’m sure you’ve seen there threads on here militantly defending creationism, monogenism and even geocentrism!

Yes, discussions here have been exasperating at times. I had hoped that you can discuss more reasonably with theists than with atheists, especially when they are not of the fundamentalist variety, but overall I have been rather disappointed so far, with a few exceptions. Just like I rarely find truly open-minded atheists, the same holds for believers.

Most people really just talk to themselves and prefer debating over actual study of the issues and learning something new. I admit that I have been guilty in the past of this as well. Years ago I defended the Intelligent Design position (in terms of biological “irreducible complexity”) in a long discussion, which I actually won, given my superior knowledge of biochemistry over my opponents. However, instead I should have studied the issues, which finally I did.

And intellectual honesty can be a though thing. Openness to the truth has caused my brief crisis of faith in 2006, but eventually it has also provided me with new insights that now have made my faith stronger and far more meaningful and knowledgeable than before.

 

[tonyrey]

1. As Rossum said, NeoDarwinism is not a theory about the origin of life.

NeoDarwinism is generally associated with abiogenesis. Can you find a NeoDarwinist who doesn’t believe in abiogenesis?

BTW Are you a Christian NeoDarwinist?

1. The term “fortuitous” is not a scientific term. If a scientist uses it to describe processes, he does not use scientific language.

Google gives many examples of the scientific use of the term, e.g. “fortuitous distortion”. How about
"The** Fortuitous** Establishment of Rhyzobius lophanthae (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Aphytis lingnanesis (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae)? digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=entomologyother&sei-redir=1#search=“fortuitous+scientific”

For the difference between “random” and “unguided”, see Stephen Barr’s excellent article that Razredge linked to in his first post on this page of the thread. I have also extensively discussed this in previous debates, but apparently you have not paid attention.

You still don’t understand points 1, 2 and 3 from the post of mine you responded to.

You still don’t understand points 1, 2 and 3 from the post of mine you responded to.

With equal facility I can say you still don’t understand my points!

One final question: Do you believe God ever intervenes **miraculously **to guide the development of life on earth?

 

[tonyrey]

“Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality,” the document observes. “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 purely contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan. 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.’ "

This paragraph should amply address Tonyrey’s complaints – if he chooses to pay attention to what it says, that is.

Nowhere is it stated that **God does not intervene miraculously **if it should prove necessary…

 

[tonyrey]

Your first error is to say “NeoDarwinism holds that life originated due to”. Please look at the title of Darwin’s book: “On the Origin of Species”. Darwinism, in whatever version, deals with speciation and related matters. The origin of life is a separate study, called abiogenesis. Just as chemistry studies the chemical elements without explaining their origin in the physics of stars, so Darwinism studies evolution.

NeoDarwinists associate natural selection with abiogenesis and Richard Dawkins even attributes the development of matter to what he calls “natural selection”! Don’t forget the topic is Creationism not evolution…

Your second error is to set up a false dichotomy between God and natural causes. Al can explain that error to you better than I can.

Suffice it to say that you reject God because you believe natural causes are a sufficient and adequate explanation of the universe. Occam’s Razor! For you God is redundant …

 

[Al_Moritz]

Nowhere is it stated that **God does not intervene miraculously **if it should prove necessary…

Of course God intervenes miraculously at some points – when there is reason to. But these reasons mostly relate to His interaction with humans and giving them certain signs. The greatest miracles of course relate to His incarnation in Jesus Christ, which continue to this day, see the Holy Eucharist.

And of course if you want to categorize His special intervention by creating a rational soul for each human being as a miracle that is your choice.

 

[razredge]

Yes, the name Talk Origins has a lot of weight; if you google for “origin of life” the article should pop up on the first page (I am not complaining

I agree about the free will problem. More and more I think that the Argument from Reason is a central argument for the existence of God, and even though I still like the classical metaphysical arguments, they carry somewhat less weight for me now than this argument and the fine-tuning argument (even though I now understand them better than before, after having read Feser’s excellent Aquinas; I have planned a second read though). I think there simply is in principle no solution to the free-will dilemma when it comes to rationality. Many people argue that moral responsibility and our judicial system make no sense with free will either. While I think this is correct, just from those perspectives free will might still be an illusion, and I could envision that illusion as true. Yet the free-will-as-illusion argument collapses like a house of cards when it comes to rationality.

There is a tremendous article by C.S. Lewis, “The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism”, which I think is rock solid and hard to refute:

philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Intro/csl3.html

. He introduced me to the fine-tuning argument and he is still one of its best defenders, and in his book he develops an impressive array of arguments from abstract thinking, the recognition of absolute truth (for example certain mathematical truths), and comparison of the human mind with computers (all falling under the larger umbrella of the Argument from Reason, which has several forms).

*) amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268021988/

I have not encountered the Argument from Reason before, will spend some time reading that CS Lewis article.

Is it similar to the Problem of Induction? Which is a basic belief assumed by all of logic and science (basically you cannot say that what was oberved in past will necessarily hold true in the future)

Actually, I must say that I don’t really have many reasons for believing that God exists - it’s more a case of I believe in God as if I don’t there’s no free will, morality and life and existence makes no sense - if I went out to a school and shot a dozen children it would be any different at all to just living a normal life.

I did think that the cosmological argument was quite good but now it seems that it may be explained by brane theory and multiverses (which would also answer the fine tuning argument).

I do also find it strange that the basic physical equations are so simple and elegant and how the sense of natural order to the universe. However quantum physics does pose a problem to this as it seems to be completely the opposite case, undeterminate and complex.

But I have noted here how selective Catholics are when it comes to choosing the Church documents that appear to support their prejudicial thinking and how easily they neglect those that do not. It is rather exasperating, I must say.

Yes, discussions here have been exasperating at times. I had hoped that you can discuss more reasonably with theists than with atheists, especially when they are not of the fundamentalist variety, but overall I have been rather disappointed so far, with a few exceptions. Just like I rarely find truly open-minded atheists, the same holds for believers.

Yes, it is frustrating and is exactly what St Augustine warned about back in the 400s about believers appearing ridiculous to non-believers by commenting ignorantly on scientific matters.
I tend to agree with Richard Dawkins in this video - some people will believe simply what they want to believe.
youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=player_embedded

Thankfully I think it is mainly an issue related to the nature of internet debate (which seems to always end like this on any forum) as in real life Catholics I find are much more ready to accept a differing view to their own if the arguments are strong enough.

 

[razredge]

With equal facility I can say you still don’t understand my points!

One final question: Do you believe God ever intervenes **miraculously **to guide the development of life on earth?

And by the same token I can say he does understand your points and that you don’t understand his! 2 against 1!

This kind of reasoning gets us nowhere.

As Christians we would have to believe that God intervened miraculously to have Jesus Christ incarnated here on Earth.

The problem with believing in a God who constantly intervenes to ‘touch up’ creation is that the evidence would not support it due to the amount of suffering and death going on in the world.

 

[wed2catholic]

Um, that there is no physical evidence to back it up? What could you put in the history/biology book?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe the world was created in 6 days by the God of Abraham, based upon a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

I mean what else?

Fossils being a different levels, carbon dating, and science in general point to evolution. Yes, at the current time it is a theory, but then again, so was every scientific fact at one point or another.

I do not know if the 6 days in th Bible refers to 6 days literally or figuratively. (It may mean days or thousands of years.) But I think we have to be careful not to stray too far from that. I don’t think God would have bothered to include creation in the Bible, if he did not want us to have some clue about how the world was formed. As for fossils, I have read that carbon dating is only accurate up to about 14,000 years and then it is just an estimated guess. (I do not know for sure; just saying what I have heard; could anyone verify?) Also, I have heard that there are fossilized trees found vertically through the supposed geographical time layers of the earth. (If I can find evidence to support this, I will post it; I have just seen it somewhere before.) Could this not possibly be evidence of a world-wide flood? If we believe that Jesus can feed 5,000+ people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes and that He can change the bread and wine into His body and blood, can He not create the world as He said? From what I understand about evolution, it is man’s attempt to explain the world apart from God. I am not trying to sound hostile or ignorant, but if I am a Christian, I would rather exercise faith in what God said than exercise faith in what man said, believing of course, that science and God will never contradict and that one day we will see that one way or the other.

 

[tonyrey]

• With equal facility I can say you still don’t understand my points!

Unfortunately for you the truth is not determined by a majority!

As Christians we would have to believe that God intervened miraculously to have Jesus Christ incarnated here on Earth.

A false distinction between Jesus and God incarnate!

The problem with believing in a God who constantly intervenes to ‘touch up’ creation is that the evidence would not support it due to the amount of suffering and death going on in the world.

It is highly presumptuous to think you **know **how much suffering and death in the world is necessary given the existence of free will, the laws of nature and the element of chance. The onus is on you to explain which suffering and which deaths are unnecessary - **and **how they can be avoided…

The question remains: Do you believe God ever intervenes **miraculously **to guide the development of life on earth?

 

[razredge]

Unfortunately for you the truth is not determined by a majority!

A false distinction between Jesus and God incarnate!
It is highly presumptuous to think you **know **how much suffering and death in the world is necessary given the existence of free will, the laws of nature and the element of chance. The onus is on you to explain which suffering and which deaths are unnecessary - **and **how they can be avoided…

The question remains: Do you believe God ever intervenes **miraculously **to guide the development of life on earth?

I did not mean to be taken seriously, I was just reusing your "So, I can say that you don’t understand my points either’ line.

Sorry, I meant to say God coming into the world as Jesus Christ

I never said that the world could be created better - my point was that God allows suffering due to free will or the operation of free processes and the fact that this suffering exists would rule out God constantly intervening in the world.

Unless you believe in the ‘just world phenomenon’ where bad things only happen to people who deserved them.

As for your question - it’s possible, we don’t have any evidence that he does though. He probably had to intervene to create the soul though.

There is some curious evidence in anthropology though which might be an example of divine intervention.

While anatomically modern humans evolved around 150,000 years ago, it was only around 50,000 years ago that modern human behaviours arose such as burial of the dead, making advanced tools and clothing out of hides, utilising more sophiscticated hunting techniques and the first signs of arts & crafts in cave painting, jewellery etc.

This could be interpreted as the rise of the soul among humanity - though I don’t know much about anthropology so could be wrong and there might be a perfectly natural explanation for this - what do you think Al?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course God intervenes miraculously at some points – when there is reason to. But these reasons mostly relate to His interaction with humans and giving them certain signs. The greatest miracles of course relate to His incarnation in Jesus Christ, which continue to this day, see the Holy Eucharist.

And of course if you want to categorize His special intervention by creating a rational soul for each human being as a miracle that is your choice.

So you do agree that life did not originate and develop** solely **as the result of natural causes? The fact that it has nearly become extinct on several occasions is evidence that God’s intervention is essential for survival on a highly dangerous planet in the face of overwhelming odds.

Complexity is a disadvantage when it comes to survival. Simplicity is an asset in this respect. Monocellular organisms have outlasted dinosaurs by millions of years…

Christ’s teaching about Providence is not restricted to the laws of nature. It is impossible to know to what extent God intervenes to prevent suffering and death but if we believe in His infinite love it must be far more frequently than we realise. The immense complexity of the universe entails a constant need to offset the vicissitudes of life caused by coincidences. As Kant remarked:

“For it is always thinkable that a natural cause is not by itself sufficient to produce a certain effect. In such a case, God might give it a complementum ad sufficientiam. . . .”

Lectures on Philosophical Theology, p. 147

 

[tonyrey]

I never said that the world could be created better - my point was that God allows suffering due to free will or the operation of free processes and the fact that this suffering exists would rule out God constantly intervening in the world.

Only if you believe God is indifferent or impotent!

As for your question - it’s possible, we don’t have any evidence that he does though. He probably had to intervene to create the soul though.

Probably? It is the teaching of the Church!

There is some curious evidence in anthropology though which might be an example of divine intervention.

While anatomically modern humans evolved around 150,000 years ago, it was only around 50,000 years ago that modern human behaviours arose such as burial of the dead, making advanced tools and clothing out of hides, utilising more sophisticated hunting techniques and the first signs of arts & crafts in cave painting, jewellery etc.

This could be interpreted as the rise of the soul among humanity - though I don’t know much about anthropology so could be wrong and there might be a perfectly natural explanation for this - what do you think Al?

Your insistence on **natural **explanations implies that God’s role is severely restricted yet you don’t explain how this is consistent with His infinite power and love…

 

[rossum]

NeoDarwinists associate natural selection with abiogenesis

Agreed, but that does not contradict the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are separate processes with different explanations.

Suffice it to say that you reject God because you believe natural causes are a sufficient and adequate explanation of the universe. Occam’s Razor! For you God is redundant …

Your mind reading powers have failed you. I do have my reasons for not accepting the Abrahamic God, but not the reasons you state.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your insistence on **natural **explanations implies that God’s role is severely restricted yet you don’t explain how this is consistent with His infinite power and love…

You are setting up a false dichotomy. To a Christian, how can anything that exists be inconsistent with God? If God sustains everything then everything is consistent with God. A natural explanation is merely an examination of how God is acting through nature: “Let the earth bring forth …”

It appears to be you that is restricting God to using solely miraculous means.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

You are setting up a false dichotomy. To a Christian, how can anything that exists be inconsistent with God? If God sustains everything then everything is consistent with God. A natural explanation is merely an examination of how God is acting through nature: “Let the earth bring forth …”

It appears to be you that is restricting God to using solely miraculous means.

rossum

(Emphasis on last sentence mine.)

I think you perfectly nailed the problem here, Rossum.

As i said earlier in the thread:

it is actually ID people who appear to have a deistic view of God – they disregard the view of classical theology of God as the sustainer of everything and instead believe that God only “acts” when He demonstrably “intervenes”. Therefore, to escape the putative consequences of their false theology, they need to show for themselves that God “intervenes as much as possible”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, it may be no coincidence that one of the best promoters of classical A-T metaphysics (metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas *) today, Edward Feser, dismisses “irreducible complexity”-type Intelligent Design.

*) one of the greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church

 

[Al_Moritz]

By the way, it may be no coincidence that one of the best promoters of classical A-T metaphysics (metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas *) today, Edward Feser, dismisses “irreducible complexity”-type Intelligent Design.

*) one of the greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church

When I wrote this I didn’t think much. It is in fact precisely for the reason that I just mentioned (false deistic theology) that Feser dismisses interventionist Intelligent Design, apart from the fact that there are no scientific data to support it.

 

[grannymh]

But I have noted here how selective Catholics are when it comes to choosing the Church documents that appear to support their prejudicial thinking and how easily they neglect those that do not. It is rather exasperating, I must say.

Unfortunately, your comments cut across the board to the point that I no longer have to read posts favorable to polygenism because these posts use the same tactics as religious, non-scientific geocentrists.