Creationism and life in general

[ricmat]

“Intelligent selection” is what some people claim when they deny the reality of two sole parents of humankind. Intelligent naming is when they refer to the reality of Adam & Eve as granny’s magical mystery tour. On the other hand, maybe some of these people have analyzed the data … and now realize that God the Creator can create.

Granny, I wasn’t aware of the use of “intelligent selection” as related to the denying the reality of two sole parents of humankind. I don’t know about other posters, but that wasn’t what I meant when I referred to it.

 

[ricmat]

You might get a better response if you used the standard scientific term. What you are talking about is Artificial Selection. Darwin devoted the opening chapters of Origin to the subject.

rossum

Thanks for the hint.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

“Darwinism” is an outdated term; it’s like referring to modern physics as “Newtonism.” If you mean the “Neo-Darwinian synthesis,” that might work.

Be careful with the usage of “Darwinism” since it is still being used today. Here is one example from the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health:

Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2011 Mar;42(1):82-8. Epub 2011 Jan 22.
**The Mastodon in the room: how Darwinian is neo-Darwinism?**Brooks DR.
SourceDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract

Failing to acknowledge substantial differences between Darwinism and neo-Darwinism impedes evolutionary biology. Darwin described evolution as the outcome of interactions between the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions, each relatively autonomous but both historically and spatially intertwined. Furthermore, he postulated that the nature of the organism was more important than the nature of the conditions, leading to natural selection as an inevitable emergent product of biological systems. The neo-Darwinian tradition assumed a creative rather than selective view of natural selection, with the nature of the organism determined by the nature of the conditions, rendering the nature of the organism and temporal contingency unnecessary. Contemporary advances in biology, specifically the phylogenetics revolution and evo-devo, underscore the significance of history and the nature of the organism in biology. Darwinism explains more biology better, and better resolves apparent anomalies between living systems and more general natural laws, than does neo-Darwinism. The “extended” or “expanded” synthesis currently called for by neo-Darwinians is Darwinism.*
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=21300319&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I should also mention that I’m not a creationist.

 

[ricmat]

Infinite. God is almighty creator of the universe. I don’t see God as a tinkerer who needs to take a coffee break from the angelic poker game (does God even play dice?) to hang around earth every few minutes nudging this or that species to evolve, or pushing the North American and European continents apart.

Tinker, no. That implies a trial and error sort of experimentation (like evolution?).

You obviously bias any meaningful discussion of the subject with your ridiculous straw man argument. And you seem to be placing limitations on how God acts or what he can do, based on the mind of StA.

Rather than imply that I know exactly how God works (which is what you do above), I’ll take the position that I don’t know, but I’ll leave the door open.

So I’ll ask the following: Why is it that composers of new music sometimes wish to be conductors when their music is played? Certainly, they don’t need to. The orchestra is there, the conductor is there, it is the conductor’s job to see that the music is played out from beginning to end. Does the composer’s decision to conduct have something, perhaps, to do with the love for his composition / creation? Not doing it of necessity, or because the conductor is incompetent, but because he loves his music?

I’ll make the rash assumption that you believe that God holds the universe in existence. If that is true, then it is true that God is, in fact, constantly interacting with his creation. Be careful what you mock. It is not beyond God. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t de-facto make it false.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Even Pope Benedict referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” God can and has intervened in history. Jesus Christ being one example.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I wasn’t aware of the use of “intelligent selection” as related to the denying the reality of two sole parents of humankind. I don’t know about other posters, but that wasn’t what I meant when I referred to it.

I know. Thank you.

I was replying to the creative thinking of post 527.

Originally Posted by StAnastasia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Yes - when ordering at restaurants “intelligent selection” is useful.

Did you know that some restaurants cater to cafeteria catholics?

Sorry about that.

 

[rossum]

Sorry about that.

Naughty granny. Go and stand at the back of the class.

Where’s that picture the mods sometimes use of the nun with the ruler?

Ah, found it:





rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Infinite. God is almighty creator of the universe. I don’t see God as a tinkerer who needs to take a coffee break from the angelic poker game (does God even play dice?) to hang around earth every few minutes nudging this or that species to evolve, or pushing the North American and European continents apart.

1. Do you think there is an element of chance in the course of events?
2. Was it an accident that life survived on each occasion of mass extinction?
3. Are random combinations of molecules the** sole** explanation of the origin of life?
4. Are fortuitous mutations, natural selection and survival value the **sole **explanation of the development of living organisms?
5. Are random combinations of molecules, fortuitous mutations, natural selection and survival value the sole explanation of the emergence of human beings on earth?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes - when ordering at restaurants “intelligent selection” is useful.

Where do you obtain your power of intelligent selection? From inanimate particles?

 

[grannymh]

Naughty granny. Go and stand at the back of the class.

Where’s that picture the mods sometimes use of the nun with the ruler?

Ah, found it:

http://www.abbagrace.com/webpics/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr.gif



rossum

P.S. I just saw the toe tapping. I better hide quick.:takeoff:

 

[StAnastasia]

Where do you obtain your power of intelligent selection? From inanimate particles?

Interesting question. There is some fascinating work being done in both philosophy and neuropsychology on the experience of “free will.” I’ll have to read up on that. Prima facie I’d have to go with the philosophy of James Reichmann, S.J., articulated in Philosophy of the Human Person, Ch, 9, "Willing and Choosing, (149-170). He argues for limited self-determination.

 

[tonyrey]

             *Where do you obtain your power of intelligent selection? From inanimate particles?*

Even limited self-determination doesn’t fit into the scientific scheme of things… 1% is sufficient for a modicum of responsibility.

 

[StAnastasia]

1. Do you think there is an element of chance in the course of events?

Yes.

1. Was it an accident that life survived on each occasion of mass extinction?

Define “accident.”

1. Are random combinations of molecules the sole explanation of the origin of life?

I don’t know. How would you test for or measure another explanation?

1. Are fortuitous mutations, natural selection and survival value the sole explanation of the development of living organisms?

I don’t know. How would you test for or measure another explanation?

1. Are random combinations of molecules, fortuitous mutations, natural selection and survival value the sole explanation of the emergence of human beings on earth?

I don’t know. How would you test for or measure another explanation?

 

[StAnastasia]

Even limited self-determination doesn’t fit into the scientific scheme of things… 1% is sufficient for a modicum of responsibility.

Sure it does.

 

[StAnastasia]

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,

What valuable observations does it make? “Irreducible complexity” has been shown to be a vacuous hypothesis. CSI is ignored as fruitless.

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.

“Intelligent Design” has had nearly a quarter century to show that it has any meaningful content, and to date it has not shown that. I’m sure we can wait another century. When it offers results that can be tested and are fruitful of further hypotheses, no doubt it will come to be accepted. We’re waiting, and can wait some more.

Even Pope Benedict referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” God can and has intervened in history. Jesus Christ being one example.

Quite true.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Interesting question. There is some fascinating work being done in both philosophy and neuropsychology on the experience of “free will.” I’ll have to read up on that. Prima facie I’d have to go with the philosophy of James Reichmann, S.J., articulated in Philosophy of the Human Person, Ch, 9, "Willing and Choosing, (149-170). He argues for limited self-determination.

Ah, the experience of "free will’. In some circles that is code for an unnecessary and useless soul that isn’t needed since the end of human life is the end of any kind of life.

Catholicisn teaches about the reality of choice and self-determination. Catholicism can giuide one to blissful eternal life through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

 

[StAnastasia]

Ah, the experience of "free will’. In some circles that is code for an unnecessary and useless soul that isn’t needed since the end of human life is the end of any kind of life.

Is that what you think it is? How sad.

 

[StAnastasia]

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.

"Q: Does intelligent design have a scientific basis?

A: No. In December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled, in Kitzmiller versus the Dover School District, that intelligent design (ID) is based on religion and not science. “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,” he concluded. Moreover, many scientists have noted that the concept necessarily presupposes that there is an “intelligent designer” outside of nature who, from the beginning or from time to time, inserts design into the world around us. But whether there is an intelligent designer is a matter of religious faith. It is not a scientifically testable question."

aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/pdf/QA_Evolution.pdf

 

[grannymh]

Is that what you think it is? How sad.

From post 546 by StAnastasia: Interesting question. There is some fascinating work being done in both philosophy and neuropsychology on the experience of “free will.” I’ll have to read up on that. Prima facie I’d have to go with the philosophy of James Reichmann, S.J., articulated in Philosophy of the Human Person, Ch, 9, "Willing and Choosing, (149-170). He argues for limited self-determination.

Reply from grannymh, post 551. Ah, the experience of "free will’. In some circles that is code for an unnecessary and useless soul that isn’t needed since the end of human life is the end of any kind of life.

Catholicisn teaches about the reality of choice and self-determination. Catholicism can giuide one to blissful eternal life through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Yes. The non-theist expression of the experience of “free will” (see post 546) can be considered sad especially compared with Catholicism. (see post 551) It is also sad that some Catholic philosophers and theologians have left their roots.

 

[tonyrey]

Even limited self-determination doesn’t fit into the scientific scheme of things… 1% is sufficient for a modicum of responsibility.

And it requires a non-scientific explanation because science does not recognise the existence of the self, let alone self-determination!