Creationism and life in general

[grannymh]

Nor it it charitable for you and Granny and Tonrey constantly to be throwing around charges that people who accept modern science are “not Catholic” or are “not Catholic enough.” Perhaps you yourselves are provoking the “blasphemy” charge. It cuts both ways, you know.
Let’s eliminate all uncharitable language and stick with intellectual discussion.

StAnastasia

“Not Catholic” is an excellent response to secular theology and some of other Christians’ theology. In fact, those words “not catholic”, or similar, were applied to the teachings of the well known author Matthew Fox.

 

[ricmat]

Christians funded "Expelled.’

I’ve heard from others that it is a good movie. I’ve never seen it. So what does your post about the bankruptcy of the movie company have to do with anything?

 

[ricmat]

Let’s eliminate all uncharitable language and stick with intellectual discussion.

StAnastasia

Speaking of Christian misrepresentation:
…
“The high bidder will become the owner of the movie that The New York Times (2008 Apr 18) described as “[o]ne of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time … a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry … an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike” and that was denounced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for its “profound dishonesty” and condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its “outrageous” misuse of the Holocaust to “tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution.” (NCSE’s Expelled Exposed provides a collection of reviews, commentary, and resources documenting the extensive problems with Expelled.) Caveat emptor!”

Oh, I get it. Never mind my last post. The NYT description above is “intellectual discussion.” Looks to me like “uncharitableness by proxy.”

Or is that the Christian misrepresentation you were talking about?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Not every word written by St. Thomas Aquinas has been automatically turned into Catholic Dogma. In fact, some of his writings are now being debated six ways to Sunday.

A typical strategy to dismiss inconvenient Catholic teaching that does not correspond to one’s personal prejuduces and congnitive biases. Never mind that this Aquinas quote was used in an official Church document.

 

[grannymh]

A typical strategy to dismiss inconvenient Catholic teaching that does not correspond to one’s personal prejuduces and congnitive biases. Never mind that this Aquinas quote was used in an official Church document.

I respect you-- you can do better than that.
Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Not every word written by St. Thomas Aquinas has been automatically turned into Catholic Dogma. In fact, some of his writings are now being debated six ways to Sunday.

This is an obvious general statement regarding Catholic dogma which is not automatic in a major Church Council. What inconvenient teaching referring to Church dogma protocol are you referring to? The power of the Holy Spirit to protect Divine Revelation? From what I gather, the guidance of the Holy Spirit can cause a problem.

Do notice that I said “In fact, some of his [Aquinas] writings are now being debated six ways to Sunday.” My source for that, besides CAF, is an older article in This Rock magazine.

Silly, granny. I don’t want to look like I am using another strategy to dismiss inconvenient Catholic teaching that does not correspond to one’s personal prejudices and cognitive biases. ( please refer to post 638) Seems to me you are referring to one of the many evolution theories. If that is so, my strategy is to present correct Catholic teaching at the appropriate time. I also believe that non-Catholic theology should be confronted at the appropriate time. I say appropriate, because sometimes it is best to let the other person have the last word.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[Protector]

It appears that for some, this is also about power and control. I think Intelligent Design is watched so closely and ridiculed not because it makes no valuable observations, which it does, but **because if it should enter the public mind as a valid idea then it might upset the current balance of power.**Peace,
Ed

This is also true of the hydrogen car!

Protector.

 

[StAnastasia]

[But] it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, ] even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

Yes, Al, I think that could be an effective restatement, particularly if interpreted in light of a panentheist ontology.

 

[inocente]

A false deduction. Scientific testability does not entail scientific explicability. Science does not recognise the existence of Design but Design is a reality nevertheless.

Of course it does. You have to have a hypothesis to test before you can run a test. And capitalizing words doesn’t magically make them real.

1. Precisely how was intelligence produced by particles which lack intelligence?
2. Is reasoning a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, insight, understanding or creativity?
3. Will scientists succeeded in eliminating themselves?

1. You’re trying to get from quanta to snow leopards in one leap. Can’t be done, try baby steps instead.
2. Making a rough, poor analogy with computers, we have a general purpose unit (rational thought) and high speed custom units (intuitive, emotional thought). The custom units evolved first to make rapid decisions to aid survival. The general purpose unit is a comparative nicety. Creativity is basically throwing random concepts together, I can program a computer to do that. Young people are more creative because they’ve not yet learned to be sensible - being sensible is creativity’s nemesis. And so on.
3. No, the more we learn the more we find we don’t know[SIGN][/SIGN].

*4. Is increased complexity necessarily a sign of progress? (A unicellular organism outlasts far more “advanced” organisms.)

1. How do you define “progress”?

1. Precisely how probable is the development of an eye?

1. Was it necessary?

1. Are colour and the recognition of colour essential for survival?

1. Will the mind ever be fully explained by neuroscience?*

4 and 5: Evolution is undirected, there are progressions through time but certainly no goals to advance towards. Imagined goals are a major fault with ID - a designer must know the function before making a design, and so ID requires every living thing to have an objectively assigned function, which plainly they don’t have.

1. There is no 6 - superstitious?
2. I don’t know if anyone has calculated the detailed odds, it doesn’t seem very useful but you could work it out if you’d like a new hobby.

8 and 9: Detecting the presence of light can aid survival, detecting shapes and colors can better aid survival, it’s quite interesting to trace the progression of the mechanisms through different species.

1. I’m not a prophet but I’d guess yes indeed because I can’t think of any show stoppers.

11. What caused self-organization?
12. What is its mechanism?
13. Is it superior to the power of the mind?

1. Not what, Who - God.
2. Starting conditions and the laws of physics.
3. The human mind is one of its children.

 

[inocente]

Precisely! That is the point I’m making. Is nature aware that it has produced rational beings?

It you are part of nature and are rational and are aware, aren’t you are led by the nose to say yes?

Stephen Hawking believes that one of the major factors in the possible scarcity of intelligent life in our galaxy is the high probability of an asteroid or comet colliding with inhabited planets.

Then Señor Hawking is piling speculation on speculation. It isn’t necessary to think of God as a mother hen, God knows what He’s doing.

If you believe development has occurred without divine direction it must be due to physical necessity. What else?

God created a physical universe.

 

[inocente]

Divine Revelation trumps

Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures. - CCC 108

I’d take it this obvious truth isn’t contradicted by:

The Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not - Lawrence Krauss

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely! That is the point I’m making. Is nature aware that it has produced rational beings?

Nature is not a part of nature.

Stephen Hawking believes that one of the major factors in the possible scarcity of intelligent life in our galaxy is the high probability of an asteroid or comet colliding with inhabited planets.

Then Señor Hawking is piling speculation on speculation.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist with no vested interest in promoting the scarcity of life.
Can you refute his argument?

It isn’t necessary to think of God as a mother hen, God knows what He’s doing.

It is necessary to think of God as a loving Father - if you are a Christian…

If you believe development has occurred without divine direction it must be due to physical necessity. What else?

God created a physical universe.

God created this physical universe with its existing laws of nature out of many possible universes . Why? For no reason or purpose whatsoever?

 

[tonyrey]

A false deduction. Scientific testability does not entail scientific explicability.

The hypothesis is that purposeful activity is not accidental but has a rational origin.
Science does not recognise the existence of design but design is a reality nevertheless!

1. Precisely how was intelligence produced by particles which lack intelligence?

You’re trying to get from quanta to snow leopards in one leap. Can’t be done, try baby steps instead.

Only baby minds can derive intelligence from that which lacks intelligence!

1. Is reasoning a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, insight, understanding or creativity?

Making a rough, poor analogy with computers, we have a general purpose unit (rational thought) and high speed custom units (intuitive, emotional thought). The custom units evolved first to make rapid decisions to aid survival. The general purpose unit is a comparative nicety. Creativity is basically throwing random concepts together, I can program a computer to do that. Young people are more creative because they’ve not yet learned to be sensible - being sensible is creativity’s nemesis. And so on.

So reasoning is a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, insight, understanding or creativity?

1. Will scientists succeed in eliminating themselves?

No, the more we learn the more we find we don’t know.

1. So science is an inadequate explanation of reality?

1. Is increased complexity necessarily a sign of progress? (A unicellular organism outlasts far more “advanced” organisms.)

1. How do you define “progress”?

Evolution is undirected, there are progressions through time but certainly no goals to advance towards.

So God created the universe with no goals?

Imagined goals are a major fault with ID - a designer must know the function before making a design, and so ID requires every living thing to have an objectively assigned function, which plainly they don’t have.

So God had no idea of what He was creating or why?

Precisely how probable is the development of an eye?

1. I don’t know if anyone has calculated the detailed odds, it doesn’t seem very useful but you could work it out if you’d like a new hobby.

So you have no idea of the probability of the development of an eye?

8. Was it necessary?
9. Are colour and the recognition of colour essential for survival?

Detecting the presence of light can aid survival, detecting shapes and colors can better aid survival, it’s quite interesting to trace the progression of the mechanisms through different species.

Colour is not necessary for survival nor is it a necessary feature of the universe.

1. Will the mind ever be fully explained by neuroscience?

I’m not a prophet but I’d guess yes indeed because I can’t think of any show stoppers.

Then you don’t have free will, you can’t choose what to think and all your conclusions are of dubious value. A biological computer doesn’t know it exists and has no insight or knowledge of reality.

1. What caused self-organization?

1. What is its mechanism?

Starting conditions and the laws of physics.
Not what, Who - God.

So God created the starting conditions and the laws of physics?

1. Is it superior to the power of the mind?

The human mind is one of its children.

So the human mind is one of God’s children created by the starting conditions and the laws of physics?

 

[tonyrey]

In the UK the secular society is becoming increasingly intolerant of Christian beliefs and values under the pretext of human rights! The pseudo-scientific propaganda of Richard Dawkins gives you a good idea of its pernicious influence on the majority who now regard religion as outdated superstition.

 

[tonyrey]

Ed, to remain silent in the presence of false claims about the origin and nature of life is undoubtedly a sin of omission. To mislead children in the classroom is abominable.

In the name of tolerance society has mandated removing millions of babies from their mothers’ wombs for the sake of convenience.

Ironically, since the consecration of Russia in 1984(?), communism has fallen, Eastern Europe is free, and Christianity is officially taught in Russian schools.

A number of people (St. Athanasius? Dostoyevsky?) have made the comment “Without God anything is possible.” Indeed it is. “Without God” - the original sin. THAT decision sure opened a lot of doors didn’t it?the Christian God from the curriculum

If only matter exists nothing matters - except having a “good” time. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you will disappear forever and ever…

 

[Al_Moritz]

I respect you-- you can do better than that.

My apologies. I just became frustrated.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Yes, Al, I think that could be an effective restatement, particularly if interpreted in light of a panentheist ontology.

What does panentheism have to do with this Catholic teaching?

 

[inocente]

Nature is not a part of nature.

If you’re personalizing nature, as in Mother Nature, then I guess not. But if nature is the collection of all natural things, and some of those things are aware, such as your good self, then set theory says nature is aware.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist with no vested interest in promoting the scarcity of life.
Can you refute his argument?

Be delighted, point me to Hawking’s probability calculations.

It is necessary to think of God as a loving Father - if you are a Christian…

Good, we’re agreed God is not a mother hen.

God created this physical universe with its existing laws of nature out of many possible universes . Why? For no reason or purpose whatsoever?

You can’t appeal to the laws of nature as either purposeless or as indicating any given purpose. They are as they are however you wish to interpret them.

I don’t know whether there’s a purpose outside of our own lives. People have never agreed, even Christians don’t agree. I don’t know the mind of God so for me it’s not something to fret over.

 

[inocente]

The hypothesis is that purposeful activity is not accidental but has a rational origin.

That’s not a scientific hypothesis unless you come up with a way to test it. Bet you can’t.

Only baby minds can derive intelligence from that which lacks intelligence!

Yes, babies don’t have much intelligence at conception. Thanks for pointing that out even though it kills off your idea that intelligence doesn’t arise out of complexity.

So reasoning is a purely impersonal, mechanical process with no element of intuition, insight, understanding or creativity?

You’d need to restate that, for example is reasoning even possible without understanding? But if you mean the act of reasoning requires complicated underlying mechanisms then yes.

So science is an inadequate explanation of reality?

Inadequate as in ridding the world of smallpox and putting a man of the moon? I admire your impossibly perfectionist standards.

So God created the universe with no goals?

I said evolution has no goals, which it doesn’t. The question would then be about God’s goals in creating a universe which provides the conditions for evolution. Through Christ we can be fairly clear that our goals must ultimately be common (we are one humanity), but trying to state either individual goals for each of seven billion of us or for the entire universe would surely just be speculation.

So God had no idea of what He was creating or why?

I pointed out that a designer must know the function before making a design, and so ID requires every living thing to have an objectively assigned function, which plainly they don’t have (outside of survival if you wanted to put it that way). What does ID say about God’s purpose in creating the smallpox virus?

So you have no idea of the probability of the development of an eye?

You asked for a precise probability, and I’ve no idea except it must be much higher than a snow leopard suddenly popping into existence, because it happened in many stages each of which had a high probability.

Colour is not necessary for survival nor is it a necessary feature of the universe.

Color is a sensation, it doesn’t exist objectively. You don’t think camouflage is important to survival? Or flowers aren’t colored to attract insects? When you next jump a red light and get slam dunked by a big rig, come back and tell me color isn’t necessary for survival.

Then you don’t have free will, you can’t choose what to think and all your conclusions are of dubious value. A biological computer doesn’t know it exists and has no insight or knowledge of reality.

That’s not an argument tony, it’s just a bunch of words.

Didn’t we go round this one before? Chaos theory, etc?

So God created the starting conditions and the laws of physics?

Who else was around?

So the human mind is one of God’s children created by the starting conditions and the laws of physics?

Perfecto.

 

[StAnastasia]

It isnecessary to think of God as a loving Father - if you are a Christian…

Tonrey, I thought you guys had promised yesterday that you would stop saying who was Christian and who wasn’t. Your side wanted the “blasphemy” charge dropped.

 

[ricmat]

Tonrey, I thought you guys had promised yesterday that you would stop saying who was Christian and who wasn’t. Your side wanted the “blasphemy” charge dropped.

Just out of curiosity (and independently of the above exchange), do you believe that there are any boundaries on what people must, and must not believe and still be “Christian?” Is it sufficient to just declare that one is a Christian?