Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[minkymurph]

I give up.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but welcome to the real world. The reality is is people are not just going to agree with you irrespective of how good you believe you’re argument is.

Perhaps it is more important to consider why they do not agree rather than the fact they don’t. Doing so enables us to see things from another’s point of view, which does not mean you have to agree with them, and not just our own which is an essential element of handing on faith.

Sorry, that sounds really preachy but the ability to consider any matter from someone else’s perspective is something I feel very strongly about.

 

[ricmat]

Of course there is a Catholic scientific approach(s) to human origin.

Besides posts, I have three threads, two of them closed due to the ban on evolution discussion. I now have a huge stack of notes from CAF posts and links and see no reason to give up on the reality of two, real, sole parents of the human species as some Catholics are doing.

Whoa! I didn’t say give up on the reality of Adam/Eve as the sole parents.

I’m just saying that the science community defines science as having nothing to do with God, therefore there is no such thing as “Catholic science”. I believe in Adam/Eve as our sole parents.

Neo-Darwinian scientific explanations are definitely not going to go there. They CAN’T go there even if the evidence proves otherwise.

As one who believes in Catholicism, this explanation is not helpful to my work.

Evidence of a designer is not a good thing?

Denying the existence of a designer, or “proving” that there is no designer is certainly NOT good for Catholics.

As long as ID is interested in a designer rather than THE Personal God, I am no longer interested.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

Some things people design. Some things are obviously (to me) beyond human capabilities.

You are no longer interested in God the designer?

Is:4510 For thus says the LORD, The creator of the heavens, who is God, The designer and maker of the earth who established it, Not creating it to be a waste, but designing it to be lived in: I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Granny, you still have me confused here

 

[ricmat]

I go with this. In addition I would say that ID is a slide into the prevalent notion today that scientific evidence is the most valid form of evidence, the notion that belief should be rejected unless there is empirical evidence to support the belief, and failing to recognize the limitations of scientific discovery. I know failing is a strong word to use and IDer’s I’m sure would say they do recognize the limitations of science. However, perhaps what they do not fully recognize is their methods of scientific discovery are subject to the same limitations and fallibilities as any other method of scientific discovery. Meaning, it cannot be considered any more valid than others.

I would argue that scientific discovery does not validate creation, the existence of God, or the necessity to respond to God. There are other reasons that are more valid from a faith perspective and I feel these should be promoted to nurture faith rather than empirical evidence.

God gave humans many capabilities - amongst them the ability to appreciate beautiful art, beautiful music, and so forth. God also gave us the capability to understand the beauty of “order” in the form of mathematics, and scientific principles.

We are called, in everything we do, to give praise and glory to God. It was traditionally the role of the artist and musician to create beautiful things in anticipation of heaven, to elevate our souls to a higher plane where we could better appreciate God’s glory. It is no different for scientists.

To deny God’s handiwork in the cosmos is to deny his glory and majesty.

That being said, some will tell you that they see his glory in the design of the cosmos. How perfectly tuned are his laws, how wonderfully orchestrated, etc. After all, Gen1 is the story of taking chaos and making order out of it.

Some will tell you that they see God’s glory reflected in the process of evolution. Indeed, if that is actually how the world works then it is glorious too.

Science can and should be used, as is art, music, literature, etc. to elevate our souls (for the scientifically inclined) closer to God.

Indeed, every work of our hands, every word from our mouths should be offered up to God.

We don’t need science to validate God (although that might turn some atheists around). Science cannot prove God, nor can it disprove God. And science (ID included) does not invalidate faith. Science can and should be used, however, to make manifest God’s glory.

IMHO.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Blessings,
granny

Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

I love it! Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. I’d never run across that before!! Thank you for presenting it.

And my fold is doing just fine.

 

[LittleSoldier]

God gave humans many capabilities - amongst them the ability to appreciate beautiful art, beautiful music, and so forth. God also gave us the capability to understand the beauty of “order” in the form of mathematics, and scientific principles.

We are called, in everything we do, to give praise and glory to God. It was traditionally the role of the artist and musician to create beautiful things in anticipation of heaven, to elevate our souls to a higher plane where we could better appreciate God’s glory. It is no different for scientists.

To deny God’s handiwork in the cosmos is to deny his glory and majesty.

That being said, some will tell you that they see his glory in the design of the cosmos. How perfectly tuned are his laws, how wonderfully orchestrated, etc. After all, Gen1 is the story of taking chaos and making order out of it.

Some will tell you that they see God’s glory reflected in the process of evolution. Indeed, if that is actually how the world works then it is glorious too.

Science can and should be used, as is art, music, literature, etc. to elevate our souls (for the scientifically inclined) closer to God.

Indeed, every work of our hands, every word from our mouths should be offered up to God.

We don’t need science to validate God (although that might turn some atheists around). Science cannot prove God, nor can it disprove God. And science (ID included) does not invalidate faith. Science can and should be used, however, to make manifest God’s glory.

IMHO.

Very well put! Hear hear!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Whoa! I didn’t say give up on the reality of Adam/Eve as the sole parents.

I’m just saying that the science community defines science as having nothing to do with God, therefore there is no such thing as “Catholic science”. I believe in Adam/Eve as our sole parents.

Whoa! Wait a minute. That just is not true. I’m a scientist and I believe in Adam and Eve as our sole parents, too. There are theistic scientific theories. Certainly God plays a role in those theories. In fact, though my experience is definitely limited, I’ve never heard any scientist say that God does not exist nor have I ever read any study that states God does not exist. Science certainly cannot prove that God exists but why should it? There are many, many Catholic scientists. I’m one of them and I see no problem with believing in God and being able to study His works using scientific method.

Neo-Darwinian scientific explanations are definitely not going to go there. They CAN’T go there even if the evidence proves otherwise.

The evidence cannot *prove *otherwise. There is no proof using scientific method.

So now *I’m *confused because I gave a bravo to one post and now I’m disagreeing with another and that’s why I can only stay in these threads for a short time. :whacky:

 

[grannymh]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but welcome to the real world.

You are right. After being out of the intellectual loop for decades, I have had to do a lot of catching up.

The reality is people are not just going to agree with you irrespective of how good you believe you’re argument is.

You are right again. The real reality is that I had to spend time researching the sources for people’s disagreements. Then I had to study their pros and cons to comprehend their position.

Evolution was somewhat easy and very enjoyable. Though I still have a lot more to learn especially in anthropology. Regardless, evolution cannot account for the fully complete human person. Divine Revelation trumps.

ID was difficult.

Perhaps it is more important to consider why they do not agree rather than the fact they don’t. Doing so enables us to see things from another’s point of view, which does not mean you have to agree with them, and not just our own which is an essential element of handing on faith.

I learned this from the early books of Franklin Covey; however, he was not talking about faith. Regarding the Catholic Faith, I believe that Catholic apologetics needs updating in the science arena.

Sorry, that sounds really preachy but the ability to consider any matter from someone else’s perspective is something I feel very strongly about.

From what I have observed, there are some obvious obstacles to this. No, I am not going to list them.

As a former writer/editor before Google, there are some things I feel strongly about, e.g., accurate reporting and research. First hand, hands on research is the best. Working with my sources. etc., etc. I also believe that it is important to give correct information about Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Whoa! I didn’t say give up on the reality of Adam/Eve as the sole parents.

I’m just saying that the science community defines science as having nothing to do with God, therefore there is no such thing as “Catholic science”. I believe in Adam/Eve as our sole parents.

Misquoting is one of the obstacles to a good discussion. I did not say “'Catholic science.”

 

[minkymurph]

We don’t need science to validate God (although that might turn some atheists around). Science cannot prove God, nor can it disprove God. And science (ID included) does not invalidate faith. Science can and should be used, however, to make manifest God’s glory.

IMHO.

It is true that science can and should be used to manifest God’s glory. It cannot and should not be used to manifest our own glory, as in; ‘I’m right,’ ‘I’ve got the right religion,’ or I’ve got the right interpretation of scripture. Such cannot be ‘proven’ by empirical evidence and I think it is an error to do so. Empirical evidence may develop faith in those who need no convincing of creation in the first place. However, if it fails to convince those who have lack faith, or who have no faith, what purpose is it serving other than preaching to the converted? In my opinon if the objective of ID is to develop faith in those who lack faith or who do not have faith, it fails to meet it’s objective. If that is not the objective of ID, then what is it’s objective?

 

[ricmat]

Misquoting is one of the obstacles to a good discussion. I did not say “'Catholic science.”

Sorry. You said “Catholic scientific approach” which I shortened to “Catholic science.” It didn’t make any difference in my mind, but it does to you so please accept my apology.

 

[ricmat]

It is true that science can and should be used to manifest God’s glory. It cannot and should not be used to manifest our own glory, as in; ‘I’m right,’ ‘I’ve got the right religion,’ or I’ve got the right interpretation of scripture. Such cannot be ‘proven’ by empirical evidence and I think it is an error to do so.

I agree.

Empirical evidence may develop faith in those who need no convincing of creation in the first place. However, if it fails to convince those who have lack faith, or who have no faith, what purpose is it serving other than preaching to the converted?

Manifesting God’s glory, to the converted.

In my opinon if the objective of ID is to develop faith in those who lack faith or who do not have faith, it fails to meet it’s objective. If that is not the objective of ID, then what is it’s objective?

The objective of ID is to search for design in nature. What you do with it is up to you.

 

[buffalo]

It is true that science can and should be used to manifest God’s glory. It cannot and should not be used to manifest our own glory, as in; ‘I’m right,’ ‘I’ve got the right religion,’ or I’ve got the right interpretation of scripture. Such cannot be ‘proven’ by empirical evidence and I think it is an error to do so. Empirical evidence may develop faith in those who need no convincing of creation in the first place. However, if it fails to convince those who have lack faith, or who have no faith, what purpose is it serving other than preaching to the converted? In my opinon if the objective of ID is to develop faith in those who lack faith or who do not have faith, it fails to meet it’s objective. If that is not the objective of ID, then what is it’s objective?

To empirically formulize design. That is the type of pursuit science does.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Manifesting God’s glory, to the converted.

And at the same time, by promoting pseudoscience and losing credibility in the process, believers turn away from the faith those who still need to be converted. Great strategy, congratulations.

 

[buffalo]

And at the same time, by promoting pseudoscience and losing credibility in the process, believers turn away from the faith those who still need to be converted. Great strategy, congratulations.

Questions:

1. Does design exist?
2. Is it detectable?
3. What is the problem with science pursuing it?

 

[grannymh]

Sorry. You said “Catholic scientific approach” which I shortened to “Catholic science.” It didn’t make any difference in my mind, but it does to you so please accept my apology.

Accepted, thank you.

For those who read published scientific papers, the approach to a project is one of the keys to understanding. Approach is often found in the abstract or introduction. Approach can be in the form of a purpose or a goal. Sometimes the approach is limited by the methods or the availability of materials, e.g., samples, data.

As is often said, the realm of science is material/physical. It used to be that Catholics would be confident enough in their skills that they could consider other realms of information, such as a spiritual or non-material source, when dealing with a project. I said information not evidence. But as I think about the current real world, I am not sure if that is true. In the old days, science undergrads took philosophy courses, which would provide analytical skills as well as a broader perspective of life.
Life changes and sometimes wisdom is lost.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[ricmat]

And at the same time, by promoting pseudoscience and losing credibility in the process, believers turn away from the faith those who still need to be converted. Great strategy, congratulations.

When you read “Signature in the Cell”, tell me what in it is pseudo-science. Then we can talk. (And I don’t mean to read the negative comments on Amazon.com by people who actually haven’t read the book - if you don’t know what I’m referring to, google it.) That was a great strategy too by the anti-ID folks.

How you doing with that explanation you were going to provide me last week? If, as you say, life on Earth was “inevitable”, then why don’t we have lots of independent trees of life? I can look up the post for you if you wish.

 

[grannymh]

You are no longer interested in God the designer?

I have no problem with people who use God the Designer.

I am no longer interested in the ID movement with these exceptions – I would be interested in actual research on human origin and there is one more ID leader that I want to contact. I will try to stay out of ID discussions, but I won’t make that a promise.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[razredge]

And at the same time, by promoting pseudoscience and losing credibility in the process, believers turn away from the faith those who still need to be converted. Great strategy, congratulations.

Indeed - though frankly I think it’s impossible to change the minds of these people - they aren’t genuinely interested in following the evidence to its logical conclusion.

I was watching this interview between Richard Dawkins and some creationist, and it made me realise how futile it is to try and change their views, they already know what they want to believe and will simply ignore any evidence to the contrary or misrepresent it to further their own views
youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

When you read “Signature in the Cell”, tell me what in it is pseudo-science. Then we can talk. (And I don’t mean to read the negative comments on Amazon.com by people who actually haven’t read the book - if you don’t know what I’m referring to, google it.) That was a great strategy too by the anti-ID folks.

Please, Signature in the Cell seems hardly worth reading - firstly it is written by a philosopher, not a biologist and the responses (other than from the choir) are hardly favourable.

Here’s a response to the book from Ayala:
biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-cells-signature/

The Guardian also analysed it from a philosophical perspective:
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/may/05/intelligent-design-theology

I agree with their statement that ID is ‘bad science, bad theology and blasphemy’

God is something else again, which Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian, explored in the notion that creation is “out of nothing”. The “ex nihilo” is not supposed to be a demonstration of God as a scientific whizz-kid, so amazing that he doesn’t even need matter to make the cosmos. Rather, it’s to say that the universe was created with no instrumental cause. It is the original free lunch, offered purely out of God’s love. You can argue about whether you’d have picked what’s on the menu. But to insert God into the causal chain is a category mistake and, in fact, technically a blasphemy. It implies that God is one more thing along with all the other things in the universe. You’re not dealing with divinity there, but an idol.

If all that seems too philosophical, then you can turn to William Blake. He mocked Newton’s God in the famous image portraying Newton, sitting on some slimy rocks, bending over rolls of diagrams and wielding a compass. The God of ID might be mocked similarly, by portraying The Ancient of Days sniffing and seasoning the prebiotic soup

 

[Al_Moritz]

How you doing with that explanation you were going to provide me last week? If, as you say, life on Earth was “inevitable”, then why don’t we have lots of independent trees of life? I can look up the post for you if you wish.

Let’s suppose life had an average chance of 1 in 5 million, or 1 in 20 million years to arise, just to name some numbers. Even with the latter number, life would still have been statistically inevitable, i.e. in, let’s say, a billion years it would have been quasi a certainty. Remember that we are talking about geological deep time here; it is quite irrelevant for the development of life if it happened on an 800 million years old Earth or a 1800 million years old Earth (a billion years later). With the latter, our bodies would have developed at a time where the life expectancy of the sun would have been only 4 billion years from now instead of 5 billion years. That hardly would matter to us.

RNA probably was ubiquitous on the prebiotic Earth with its reducing conditions, so the only thing that was needed was a chance sequence of RNA nucleotides that was capable of reproducing itself, embedded in a fatty acid membrane and existing in environmental conditions that both sufficiently shielded it and were conducive to allowing that first fragile life to reproduce, which might have had to include hot-cold cycles for the first primitive RNA reproduction (the fatty acid membrane part is the easiest one in all of this).

Once life arose and sufficiently developed into a robust form, it could probably have spread quickly around the globe, or at least around the select places that would have constituted a shielding, favorable environment to the emergence of life. That this evolution and spreading happened in 5 million (or 20 million) years time is not inconceivable and it would have formed the basis for all life to arise from this first organism that conferred to everything its genetic code (the universal genetic code. the marker for descension from a single ancestor).

Now let’s say life arose a second time. In those very fragile early stages life would have been completely defenseless and might simply have been ‘eaten’ by the first life that had already been around since much earlier (with that first life we are talking still bacteria-like single-cell stages here). This process might even have repeated itself a few times in Earth’s history. Finally, the production of oxygen by life would have destroyed the reducing conditions on the early Earth necessary for the origin of life, and life could never again have arisen (it cannot today either).

So in this scenario life would have been both inevitable and guaranteed to appear to have arisen only once, even if in fact it could have arisen several times.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with their statement that ID is 'bad science, bad theology and blasphemy.

Produce just one of their reasons for inspection…