Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design has become a villain because, supposedly, it has a hidden agenda. Creationists have an agenda as well, and, according to some, are publishing lies to support not science but a worldview.

I think a few words need to be said about another worldview:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/

I think all we have here is a clash of orthodoxies. That’s it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Which is classic God of the gaps, or in this case “Designer of the gaps”. Be very careful of fitting your designer into a gap in scientific knowledge; science has a way of closing such gaps. Remember that there used to be a whole set of “Thunder designers” called Zeus, Thor, Indra etc. Look what happened to them when science closed the thunder gap. Do you really want your designer to end up in the same position as Zeus or Thor?

rossum

You speak from my heart. The god-of-the-gaps becomes smaller and smaller until he becomes a midget. Sad affair then that many believers still bet on the God-of-the-gaps. That the God-of-the-gaps does not work has recently (in the past decade) also been shown with the origin of homochirality (the virtually exclusive left-handedness of biological amino acids, and the right-handedness of DNA and RNA).

Creationists have always insisted that a miracle by God was necessary for the origin of homochirality. Now guess what, this is not so, see chapter 7 of my article:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

Whatever the precise sequence of events at the origin of life may have been, the cumulative strength of all of the data indicates that the ‘mystery’ of the origin of life’s chirality can now well be explained after all by simple natural causes (which are created by God, thus are not ‘godless causes’ or in competition with God).

 

[Al_Moritz]

I think all we have here is a clash of orthodoxies. That’s it.

Rather, we have a clash between reality and those who refuse to inform themselves sufficiently to see it.

 

[rossum]

You speak from my heart. The god-of-the-gaps becomes smaller and smaller until he becomes a midget. Sad affair then that many believers still bet on the God-of-the-gaps.

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison”
  rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison”
  rossum

Very good. Along similar lines, here is Ken Miller:

"As an outspoken defender of evolution, I am often challenged by those who assume that if science can demonstrate the natural origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be abandoned. But the Deity they reject so easily is not the one I know. To be threatened by science, God would have to be nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for faith. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it also suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else—in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

“And what a light that is. Science places us in an extraordinary universe, a place where stars and even galaxies continue to be born, where matter itself comes alive, evolves, and rises to each new challenge of its richly changing environment. We live in a world literally bursting with creative evolutionary potential, and it is quite reasonable to ask why that is so. To a person of faith, the answer to that question is God.”

Source:

templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf

 

[ricmat]

Very good. Along similar lines, here is Ken Miller:

"As an outspoken defender of evolution, I am often challenged by those who assume that if science can demonstrate the natural origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be abandoned. But the Deity they reject so easily is not the one I know. To be threatened by science, God would have to be nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for faith. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it also suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else—in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

“And what a light that is. Science places us in an extraordinary universe, a place where stars and even galaxies continue to be born, where matter itself comes alive, evolves, and rises to each new challenge of its richly changing environment. We live in a world literally bursting with creative evolutionary potential, and it is quite reasonable to ask why that is so. To a person of faith, the answer to that question is God.”

Source:

templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf

You guys seem to having a group nightmare - Attack of the Straw Men. Time to wake up now.

 

[tonyrey]

The magical power of RNA has not been established as an adequate

Therefore science is necessarily an inadequate explanation.

And if you mean with “purposeful activity” that of humans: of course not. Humans have souls whose creation stands outside the mechanisms of evolution.

Unconscious, purposeful activity occurs in all living organisms.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Therefore science is necessarily an inadequate explanation.

Of course. Did I ever suggest otherwise?

To be more specific: science can explain the mechanism of evolution, but science cannot explain why the laws of nature are such that evolution exists in the first place.

 

[donsnow]

Back on page 28, there was an exchange between samian and niel about copyright.

As soon as you write something, it’s copyrighted.

You may annotate this legal copyright by writing beneath the text, "Copyright 2011 by [your name].

However, to make it stick, it would be wise to register your copyright with the Library of Congress. That costs money.

I know, I have two different booklets with my registered by Library of Congress copyright.

Just my two cents worth.

God loves all of you,
Don

 

[edwest2]

Very good. Along similar lines, here is Ken Miller:

"As an outspoken defender of evolution, I am often challenged by those who assume that if science can demonstrate the natural origins of our species, which it surely has, then God should be abandoned. But the Deity they reject so easily is not the one I know. To be threatened by science, God would have to be nothing more than a placeholder for human ignorance. This is the God of the creationists, of the “intelligent design” movement, of those who seek their God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best—indeed their only—evidence for faith. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it also suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else—in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

“And what a light that is. Science places us in an extraordinary universe, a place where stars and even galaxies continue to be born, where matter itself comes alive, evolves, and rises to each new challenge of its richly changing environment. We live in a world literally bursting with creative evolutionary potential, and it is quite reasonable to ask why that is so. To a person of faith, the answer to that question is God.”

Source:

templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf

Mr. Miller is not a credible defender of faith and his science is tenuous. It is not enough to say “God did this” or He developed some mechanism. There is a clear line being drawn between anti-theists and believers where purely mechanistic explanations are the end of the story. That is why, in some cases, so much time and effort is being expended here and elsewhere to gain universal acceptance.

It appears to me that some wish to staple the Biology textbook to the Bible or failing that, simply removing the word God from the explanation.

Normally, people discuss things and they are done, agree or disagree, but not this. The ongoing crusade must continue. Too bad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Normally, people discuss things and they are done, agree or disagree, but not this. The ongoing crusade must continue. Too bad.

Aah, now I understand why reasoning is not possible. It’s a crusade.

 

[edwest2]

I have watched the defenders for a long time now. At one point, I wanted to be a chemist but God had other plans. At one time, I took it for granted that what scientists told me was true. Today, I have lost confidence for a number of reasons. A careful look back tells me that what appeared factual amounted only to a series of assumptions in some cases. I accept what the Church has to say about this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is not enough to say “God did this” or He developed some mechanism. There is a clear line being drawn between anti-theists and believers where purely mechanistic explanations are the end of the story.

…] Normally, people discuss things and they are done, agree or disagree, but not this. The ongoing crusade must continue. Too bad.

Aah, now I understand why reasoning is not possible here. It’s a crusade.

Fortunately, the Catholic Church does not think a crusade is necessary.

Part 69 of “Communion and Stewardship” reads (emphasis added, please note the connection between all the emphasized parts):

1. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. 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. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. **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).

 

[shoe]

It is indeed dead, but it is closer to being alive than anything the ID side has shown their designer to be capable of doing. Where is the ID experiment showing the ID designer assembling a strand of RNA? ID has nothing, not even a single strand, while science is making slow but steady progress. ID is being left further and further behind.

I don’t think that it’s logically necessary that the Designer of the universe has to show His creatures how He designs things. But we can observe things, such as phones, computers, Catholic Answers Forums, etc., and be certain that a mind made these things to happen; and we can examine and analyze the features of these things to get evidence that a mind indeed caused them. Likewise, we can examine and analyze nature to search for similar or identical features. And when we do study nature, we discover that our cup of knowledge runs over with evidence that a great Mind had to cause the effects of the physical world.

In reality, the basic scientific principle, the law of Biogenesis, that life can come only from life (Intelligent Designer) is the only truth that makes our physical universe comprehensible. King David shows us that God uses the entire universe as one big schoolroom to provide us knowledge of Himself and His creation: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declared the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).

 

[vz71]

It is indeed dead, but it is closer to being alive than anything the ID side has shown their designer to be capable of doing.

“Closer to being alive”
Really? I would think life and death to be fairly binary.
Are you proposing there is a pseudo-living organism out there that science has built for us?

We are definitely closer. Szostak’s work is just one of the reasons we can know we are closer.

Until you know precisely how something is done, you cannot claim the guesswork that the scientists are doing is any closer then anything else.

And there is your mistake: “the target”. It is not “the target” but “one of the many possible targets”. There is more than one way to make a primitive living organism, and abiogenesis only has to hit on one of them.

I am sure I have made more then one mistake in my life, but this is not one of them.
The target is life. There are not multiples there, just the two possibilities, life or death.
Science seems fairly good at the death part.

Which is classic God of the gaps, or in this case “Designer of the gaps”.

I am simply showing that the probabilities you would have us believe in are unrealistic.
I believe we are up to 3 decks. How’s that order coming?

 

[vz71]

Which is classic God of the gaps, or in this case “Designer of the gaps”. Be very careful of fitting your designer into a gap in scientific knowledge; science has a way of closing such gaps.

You speak from my heart. The god-of-the-gaps becomes smaller and smaller until he becomes a midget. Sad affair then that many believers still bet on the God-of-the-gaps.

Learning how God does something does not detract from God.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that it’s logically necessary that the Designer of the universe has to show His creatures how He designs things. But we can observe things, such as phones, computers, Catholic Answers Forums, etc., and be certain that a mind made these things to happen; and we can examine and analyze the features of these things to get evidence that a mind indeed caused them. Likewise, we can examine and analyze nature to search for similar or identical features. And when we do study nature, we discover that our cup of knowledge runs over with evidence that a great Mind had to cause the effects of the physical world.

In reality, the basic scientific principle, the law of Biogenesis, that life can come only from life (Intelligent Designer) is the only truth that makes our physical universe comprehensible. King David shows us that God uses the entire universe as one big schoolroom to provide us knowledge of Himself and His creation: “The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declared the work of his hands. Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

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…

The question is **how **it is guided. By blind processes such as natural selection??

 

[tonyrey]

Of course. Did I ever suggest otherwise?

To be more specific: science can explain the mechanism of evolution, but science cannot explain why the laws of nature are such that evolution exists in the first place.

Are the laws of nature the sole facts about the universe that science cannot explain?

 

[tonyrey]

The target is life. There are not multiples there, just the two possibilities, life or death.
Science seems fairly good at the death part.

A truer word never has been spoken! The odds against life, survival and development are overwhelming from every point of view…