Creationism and life in general

[Al_Moritz]

Very well said. The threat of ID is that the public might accept it.

Your driverless vehicle analogy is excellent. This vehicle can turn right or left and by chance, avoid a large obstacle or, in other cases, simply crash into one.

Pope Benedict has referred to creation as an “intelligent project.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that God works infallibly. See Communion and Stewardship.

Peace,
Ed

Another post, Ed, that confirms your stubbornly selective reading of Church documents, only picking out what fits your prejudices and cognitive biases.

Here is what paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship, citing St.Thomas Aquinas, actually says. It and St.Thomas Aquinas in fact argue in favor of chance being part of God’s providence. The attentive reader will discover that you have it exactly backwards:

1. …] 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. 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” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

 

[Al_Moritz]

ID portrays God as quite stupid actually, creating a evolutionary process that is so ineffectual that he has to constantly prop it up by intervening to create flagellums and eyes.

Suggesting God is an incompetent creator as ID does, amounts to blasphemy.

Like StAnastasia, I agree.

Here is what ID guy Michael Behe says (The Edge of Evolution, p. 237):

“Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts.”

Now that may be viewed to confirm your blasphemy charge.

razredge, I would add to your list the many instances of dysteleology, such as horrible genetic diseases like Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva, which slowly turn a child’s muscles into a second skeleton, imprisoning her before she dies. A Catholic theology of evolution accounts for this in terms of God having given creation its own autonomy to unfold progressively, complete with volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tooth decay, and genetic diseases.

Intelligent Design has no choice but to see Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva as having been designed by an intelligent designer, perhaps to punish the parents of the child afflicted by it, or to purify the “soul” of the suffering child.

Precisely. The acceptance of evolution leads to a theologically much more acceptable position than forced by interventionist Intelligent Design, and your second paragraph shows how someone like Behe is coerced to see it, see above. This leaves interventionist people like Tonyrey in a very awkward position.

 

[grannymh]

As an advocate of Catholicism, I object to the unprofessional use of “Catholic” in the following statement from post 574: “A Catholic theology of evolution accounts for this in terms of God having given creation its own autonomy to unfold progressively, complete with volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tooth decay, and genetic diseases.”

 

[grannymh]

Precisely. The acceptance of evolution leads to a theologically much more acceptable position than forced by interventionist Intelligent Design, and your second paragraph shows how someone like Behe is coerced to see it, see above. This leaves interventionist people like Tonyrey in a very awkward position.

Obviously, this in reference to secular theology. For Catholics, Divine Revelation does not depend on the acceptance of evolution.

 

[grannymh]

Here is what paragraph 69 of Communion and Stewardship, citing St.Thomas Aquinas, actually says. It and St.Thomas Aquinas in fact argue in favor of chance being part of God’s providence. :

Say what?

 

[edwest2]

Is God an intelligent project? It is important to understand the difference between the Creator and the created.

No, not at all. And we are taught God created from nothing. I am simply saying that whatever happened, God was a causal agent, as taught by the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To Al Moritz,

Science is surrounded by an impenetrable barrier through which Divine Revelation cannot pass, or any other supernatural idea. The Father is the gateway to conversion, not science. The potential convert is then led to the Son and finally, the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Say what?

Read.

 

[rossum]

Precisely. The acceptance of evolution leads to a theologically much more acceptable position than forced by interventionist Intelligent Design, and your second paragraph shows how someone like Behe is coerced to see it, see above. This leaves interventionist people like Tonyrey in a very awkward position.

Three Gods each want to create bears with white fur:* The YEC God goes “Poof! Let there be white bears.” And there are white bears.

• The ID God fiddles with the DNA of some already existing Brown Bears so they have white fur.
• The TE God merely places some Brown Bears in a snowy environment and lets His process of evolution do the rest.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Obviously, this in reference to secular theology. For Catholics, Divine Revelation does not depend on the acceptance of evolution.

Granny, I’m curious: do you advocate Catholics simply abstaining from involvement with science? If not, how do you envision Catholics working in evolutionary biology? Should they avoid careers in the biological sciences?

 

[rossum]

Say what?

The first quote from Saint Thomas Aquinas was buried in the other text. Extracting it gives: 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” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).
In the language of Saint Thomas, “contingency” here means “chance” while “necessity” means “causation”.

God can work either through causation or through chance. He is God and things happen “infallibly” the way He wants them to happen.

HTH

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

/quote
A very enlightening but unphilosophical - and unscientific - response. Icons are not a valid substitute for reasons…

 

[tonyrey]

“It is precisely the inability of many scientists to trace the grandeur of the Creator in His works that Jaki opposes with great skill.”

Father Jaki was a brilliant philosopher and scientist but he was not - nor ever claimed to be - infallible. His argument remains valid and implies that science is deficient in its explanation of the grandeur of the Creator in His works, i.e. the physical universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

Father Jaki was a brilliant philosopher and scientist but he was not - nor ever claimed to be - infallible. His argument remains valid and implies that science is deficient in its explanation of the grandeur of the Creator in His works, i.e. the physical universe.

The fact remains that Jaki rejected “intelligent design,” a philosophy you are endorsing.

 

[tonyrey]

*ID does not presuppose the existence of anything except the reality of purpose which is evident in rational activity.

Thank you, Ed. The opponents of ID believe that nature works infallibly towards goals of which it is entirely ignorant! No doubt they regard the survival of life on earth in the face of overwhelming odds and narrow escapes from extinction as satisfactorily explained beyond any shadow of doubt by blind physical necessity. For them the fact that development has occurred means that it had to occur. But then scientists are often dogmatic in spite of their claim that all scientific conclusions are provisional…**
**

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you, Ed. The opponents of ID believe that nature

works infallibly towards goals of which it is entirely ignorant!

The above statement is not even coherent.

No doubt they regard the survival of life on earth in the face of overwhelming odds and narrow escapes from extinction as satisfactorily explained beyond any shadow of doubt by blind physical necessity.

 

[tonyrey]

razredge, I would add to your list the many instances of dysteleology, such as horrible genetic diseases like Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva

 

[Al_Moritz]

In the language of Saint Thomas, “contingency” here means “chance” while “necessity” means “causation”.

God can work either through causation or through chance. He is God and things happen “infallibly” the way He wants them to happen.

HTH

rossum

Thanks, Rossum, for support. “Necessity” means actually “necessity”. Chance events are caused as well. Quantum events are indeterminate “chance” events, but not uncaused. For example, the radioactive decay (a quantum event) of certain atomic nuclei is caused by their instability, i.e. it is not uncaused. It can, however, not be predicted if they will decay within 2 minutes or in 10 years. Only for a large number of nuclei statistical calculations are possible, e.g. 32-Phosphorus always decays with a half life of 14.28 days.

 

[StAnastasia]

It is those who believe Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva is directly created by God who are compelled to regard Him as **directly **responsible for all evil and suffering…

I did not say “directly created”; I said “designed.” So in your philosophy, is God or the intelligent designer only responsible for the felicitous things, and not the infelicitous ones? Did God design butterflies, eyeballs, mitochondria, and flagellae, but take a vacation when it comes to Lou Gehrig’s Disease or Fibrodisplaysia occificans progressiva? In other words, is there any intellectual consistency at all to your world view, or is it largely haphazard?

 

[ricmat]

I have a suggestion.

You folks who are throwing the “ID is blasphemy” charge around should stop.

I thought such a thing was banned in CAF, but I couldn’t find the sticky post. Regardless, it is not a charitable thing to do.

IMHO.