Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[Al_Moritz]

In contrast, it is the logic of evolution that I myself find a little bit depressing - to believe that we were formed through ages and ages of simple, natural processes, and then we started thinking, and growing, and then God just decided that we had evolved enough so He gave us souls and called us to be His people. No miracle whatsoever but the birth of some uniting proteins? No grandeur until our bodies were fit enough?
But I digress.

On the contrary. A God who can plan out everything as a single process from the tiny seed of the Big Bang up to the development of all life in the resulting vast universe, now that is grandeur!

Mindboggling. Much more impressive than the tinkering engineer alternative. No comparison, hands down.

The process created by God is an incredible miracle if you think about it.

 

[buffalo]

(Edited)

Human reasoning and the actual derivation of the data can be in error.

Consider this:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

The weakness is in human reasoning.

 

[ricmat]

On the contrary. A God who can plan out everything as a single process from the tiny seed of the Big Bang up to the development of all life in the resulting vast universe, now that is grandeur!

And those pesky musical composers who insist on conducting their works as well - you should probably inform them that their grandeur is diminished when they do that.

Mindboggling. Much more impressive than the tinkering engineer alternative. No comparison, hands down.

The process created by God is an incredible miracle if you think about it.

Yes, the process(es) designed by God are incredible miracles. All the more incredible if you understand the details.

Your disdain for engineering is starting to emerge. “tinkering engineering alternative” --Engineers don’t tinker, tinkerers tinker. Engineers envision outcomes / purposes (goals), then plan processes involving people and things, from the big picture to the minor details (collectively called “designing”) to get there. God of course doesn’t make mistakes whereas we engineers sometimes do. He’s a much better engineer than we are. Just as he is a much better artist, and much better biologist.

Something I’ve come to understand on these forums is that many of the posters - ESPECIALLY the “pure science” folks have absolutely no knowledge of what engineers do, or what “design” really means.

Fr. George Coyne, Darwinist extraordinare, compared the fine tuning arguments for the laws of nature to making soup - add a pinch of salt here and there until it’s “just right.” That was his vision of engineering=tinkering. A stupid process of trial and error that God could certainly get right the first time.

The irony of that sort of thinking is that it’s actually the TOE itself that is a trial and error process (mostly error as all will agree). WHAT? God couldn’t get it right the first time?

So in “grandeur measurement” business, it seems to me that the 6 day creationists (BTW - I’m not one) have it right. Certainly “poof - there it is” is much more grand than a tinkering God who needed billions of years, and mostly wrong mutations to create his children.

BTW - my point above is that “grandeur” scale is hardly the thing we should be looking at.

 

[edwest2]

Engineers work to solve specific problems. For example, designing an engine for a spacecraft that is smaller but offers the same performance as larger, older engines.

Human beings were created on purpose. That is the issue here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your disdain for engineering is starting to emerge. “tinkering engineering alternative” --Engineers don’t tinker, tinkerers tinker. Engineers envision outcomes / purposes (goals), then plan processes involving people and things, from the big picture to the minor details (collectively called “designing”) to get there. God of course doesn’t make mistakes whereas we engineers sometimes do. He’s a much better engineer than we are. Just as he is a much better artist, and much better biologist.

Fine, you have a point.

So in “grandeur measurement” business, it seems to me that the 6 day creationists (BTW - I’m not one) have it right. Certainly “poof - there it is” is much more grand than a tinkering God who needed billions of years,

God doesn’t need billions of years. God is outside space and time, so He already knew how it would turn out. God doesn’t need to ‘wait’.

More and more I get the idea that those opposed to evolution would benefit from studying some classical Thomistic metaphysics.

And the Big Bang with all its already built-in consequences is the greatest “poof - there it is” imaginable.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Human beings were created on purpose. That is the issue here.

Of course they were. What makes you think I would not subscribe to that notion?

So if this is the issue for you, it really is a non-issue.

 

[buffalo]

Of course they were. What makes you think I would not subscribe to that notion?

So if this is the issue for you, it really is a non-issue.

What are your thoughts on theses two questions?

1. Did God know what Adam would look like?
2. Did Adam look like God planned?

 

[ricmat]

God doesn’t need billions of years.

I never said that he did. I agree with you on this.

But it seems he actually used that amount of time, whether he needed to or not. Perhaps he was hamstrung by needing to use evolution.

God is outside space and time, so He already knew how it would turn out. God doesn’t need to ‘wait’.

Yes, he is outside space and time, and knew how it would turn out. But it took billions of years.

More and more I get the idea that those opposed to evolution would benefit from studying some classical Thomistic metaphysics.

I’m not opposed to evolution (from the theological perspective), so it probably wouldn’t help. Although there have been several articles recently involving Thomistic metaphysics and ID. Perhaps those would be beneficial for you to read since you already understand Thomastic metaphysics. Oh wait…they are pro-ID so they are by definition wrong in advance.

And the Big Bang with all its already built-in consequences is the greatest “poof - there it is” imaginable.

By analogy, if Henry Ford took me to see his car factory, and told me the entire process of his making cars from the iron ore to the coat of paint at the end (a process taking many years), I would be impressed. On the other hand, if Henry Ford took me out in an open field, snapped his fingers - poof, and thousands of cars appeared, I’d be more impressed.

Note: I’m not equating Henry Ford to God, or the cosmos to cars. Poor Henry is just an innocent bystander in this analogy

ANYHOW - as I said previously, the grandeur factor is not actually an indicator of correctness, so the only reason I’m arguing this is…well, I guess I like to argue!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Although there have been several articles recently involving Thomistic metaphysics and ID. Perhaps those would be beneficial for you to read since you already understand Thomastic metaphysics. Oh wait…they are pro-ID so they are by definition wrong in advance.

My version:
Although there have been several articles recently involving Thomistic metaphysics and ID. Oh wait…they are anti-ID so they are by definition wrong in advance.

No kidding. Edward Feser, one of the best proponents and defenders of Thomistic philosophy today, is anti-ID, for metaphysical reasons:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html

ANYHOW - as I said previously, the grandeur factor is not actually an indicator of correctness, so the only reason I’m arguing this is…well, I guess I like to argue!

Fair enough

 

[Al_Moritz]

What are your thoughts on theses two questions?

1. Did God know what Adam would look like?
2. Did Adam look like God planned?

Possibly. Depends on how stringently God guides quantum processes, which is something that only He knows. One thing seems clear: God would have known that He would get precisely what He wanted, a creature on whom He could bestow a rational soul and which would then be in His image.

Question to you: what does it matter how Adam exactly looked like? Aren’t all human beings of all races, colors, shapes and sizes made in the image of God? Doesn’t this shed a different light on the question of “looking like God planned”?

 

[Militus_Sanctus]

Oh wait…they are pro-ID so they are by definition wrong in advance.

There is nothing wrong with fiction, it just has no place in science.

 

[rossum]

I don’t think so. :nope:

Neither do I, but those were the only numbers that vz71 was giving me. With some more realistic numbers we could arrive at a more realistic answer.

There is more than one way to be alive. Without some estimate of the number of different ways there are to be alive then it is difficult to make a realistic estimate of the probabilities.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Possibly. Depends on how stringently God guides quantum processes, which is something that only He knows. One thing seems clear: God would have known that He would get precisely what He wanted, a creature on whom He could bestow a rational soul and which would then be in His image.

Question to you: what does it matter how Adam exactly looked like? Aren’t all human beings of all races, colors, shapes and sizes made in the image of God? Doesn’t this shed a different light on the question of “looking like God planned”?

The question is not what he looked like, it is - did Adam look as God planned?

 

[rossum]

You either hit the target or you do not.

Again you make the mistake of a single target. I am alive, so I am one way to hit the target. You are alive and, since you do not have the same DNA as me, you are a different way to hit the target. Every single living organism on Earth is yet another way to hit the target. Every single living organism that could have been, but isn’t, is yet another way to hit the target.

Reducing that immense variety to 1 is where you are making your error, and why your numbers gives such obviously incorrect results.

No, I reduced the problem to its least complex form.
Live or dead.

Then the chances are 50%.

Do some more work on how many ways there are to be alive, and how many ways there are to be dead and we can refine the result.

rossum

 

[Al_Moritz]

The question is not what he looked like, it is - did Adam look as God planned?

I already gave the answer.

 

[ricmat]

God is outside space and time, so He already knew how it would turn out.

What are your thoughts on theses two questions?

1. Did God know what Adam would look like?
2. Did Adam look like God planned?

Possibly.

So God knew how the universe would turn out, but only “possibly” knew what Adam would look like? Perhaps Thomistic metaphysics is telling you that sometimes God is outside of time, but sometimes he is not. Is that it?

 

[buffalo]

I already gave the answer.

Then the implications are obvious.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So God knew how the universe would turn out, but only “possibly” knew what Adam would look like? Perhaps Thomistic metaphysics is telling you that sometimes God is outside of time, but sometimes he is not. Is that it?

False. God is outside of time, period. At the moment the Big Bang was actualized, God knew the outcome. Yet if God allows for some relaxed stringency in the guidance of quantum processes (something that may not be the case, only God knows if it is), the planning of the Big Bang would have allowed for some variation in outcome.

Yet it is inconceivable that God would not have obtained what He wanted, since the outcome of His plan would already have factored in any such relaxed stringency, if it exists.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Then the implications are obvious.

Which are?

 

[Al_Moritz]

False. God is outside of time, period. At the moment the Big Bang was actualized, God knew the outcome. Yet if God allows for some relaxed stringency in the guidance of quantum processes (something that may not be the case, only God knows if it is), the planning of the Big Bang would have allowed for some variation in outcome.

Yet it is inconceivable that God would not have obtained what He wanted, since the outcome of His plan would already have factored in any such relaxed stringency, if it exists.

All this relates, by the way, to what the document of the Catholic Church, Communion and Stewardship, says (paragraph 69):

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

(Read carefully, please, every single sentence is meaningful and important.)

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).

---

Note that Communion and Stewardship is not some new-fangled theology.

See how central the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas is, one of greatest theologians and teachers of the Catholic Church, who lived in the 13th century.