Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[samiam1611]

I am open to the truth but science should know its place. It is only a tool for finding some answers to some questions. It cannot be regarded as the only source of knowledge. Otherwise, who do we believe in and who do we pray to? Why was Jesus Christ born? Why are we told in Scripture, by one man sin entered the world?

I am interested primarily in what the Church teaches

If science was able to prove these things to be false, would you accept the truth?
(hypothetical)

 

[minkymurph]

I am open to the truth but science should know its place. It is only a tool for finding some answers to some questions. It cannot be regarded as the only source of knowledge. Otherwise, who do we believe in and who do we pray to? Why was Jesus Christ born? Why are we told in Scripture, by one man sin entered the world?

I am interested primarily in what the Church teaches.

Peace,
Ed

I understand that. The Church accepts evolution.

 

[edwest2]

If science was able to prove these things to be false, would you accept the truth?
(hypothetical)

That is not the issue. I am open to what science has to say but I must rely on Church teaching to ensure that science does not cross the line from neutral to activist for being the one and only truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I understand that. The Church accepts evolution.

Your thinking is a common misconception. Please read the document Communion and Stewardship, part 64, carefully. It does not allow for all versions of the theory.

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Re-phrase:
“With this caveat - the philosophical interpretation of the results of science must be reasoned correctly illuminated by the truth (God).”

Science (the natural sciences) uses methodological naturalism, the search for natural causes for effects in nature, as method (not to be confused with the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism). If it does not, it is not science, period.

Science proper is neither theistic not atheistic. Science is neutral in worldview, it is simply a tool to investigate the natural world. It is indifferent to the worldviews of its practitioners (the scientists).

As a scientist, I try to do my work for the glory of God. However, the method that I use, methodological naturalism, is the same as my atheist colleagues use. That method, by the way, has been developed by the scientists who started the scientific revolution, and who were all believers – the method is not an ‘atheistic invention’.

Of course, when it comes to the philosophical interpretation of the results of science I part ways with my atheist colleagues. But this has nothing to do with science proper.

No problem with most of this. But adding the word philosophical to my statement I take issue with. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It cannot and does not address the supernatural. It leaves a void in reasoning because it is reductionist by definition. To properly reason science it must be illuminated by truth otherwise it will be ripe with error. That truth is offered by Revelation. Anything less is suspect.

 

[buffalo]

I understand that. The Church accepts evolution.

Actually, the church has been defending itself against materialistic evolution since the beginning. The Church has always accepted adaptation since it was obvious.

 

[rossum]

The Church has always accepted adaptation since it was obvious.

Adaptation is evolution: “A change in allele frequencies in an interbreeding population over time.”

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

Your thinking is a common misconception. Please read the document Communion and Stewardship, part 64, carefully. It does not allow for all versions of the theory.

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

Peace,
Ed

I appreciate what your saying. No, the Church does not allow for all versions of the theory. It does not allow for atheistic interpretations of evolution. That does not mean the Church does not allow for evolution at all.

I agree with what you said in another post. As Catholics we consider science from a faith perspective. A ‘marriage’ between evolution and Catholicism can exist. What cannot exist is a ‘marriage’ between atheism and Catholicism. I feel that is often misunderstood.

 

[buffalo]

Adaptation is evolution: “A change in allele frequencies in an interbreeding population over time.”

rossum

How does epigenetics fit into this change?

 

[Barbkw]

159 Faith and science:

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.

Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."

"Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.

The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Catechism of the Catholic Church

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/159.htm

P.S. Sorry if this was posted previously, I’m not reading through 10 pages of posts.

 

[edwest2]

I appreciate what your saying. No, the Church does not allow for all versions of the theory. It does not allow for atheistic interpretations of evolution. That does not mean the Church does not allow for evolution at all.

I agree with what you said in another post. As Catholics we consider science from a faith perspective. A ‘marriage’ between evolution and Catholicism can exist. What cannot exist is a ‘marriage’ between atheism and Catholicism. I feel that is often misunderstood.

It would be appropriate then if some comments were made by the scientific community regardings things said and written by scientists like Richard Dawkins who use their standing and credentials to claim God did nothing, it all happened by itself. If the scientific community does not address this then the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science Education will continue to ignore the obvious reason why some choose to reject certain aspects of science since some working in the field use the same mountains of evidence to promote their ideology.

How can science claim one thing, while claiming to be neutral, and scientists another? This causes suspicion at the least and rejection by some. It’s not like those rejecting this have no reasons.

As I wrote, I am open to what science has to say but under the guidance of the Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

It would be appropriate then if some comments were made by the scientific community regardings things said and written by scientists like Richard Dawkins who use their standing and credentials to claim God did nothing, it all happened by itself. If the scientific community does not address this then the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science Education will continue to ignore the obvious reason why some choose to reject certain aspects of science since some working in the field use the same mountains of evidence to promote their ideology.

How can science claim one thing, while claiming to be neutral, and scientists another? This causes suspicion at the least and rejection by some. It’s not like those rejecting this have no reasons.

As I wrote, I am open to what science has to say but under the guidance of the Church.

Peace,
Ed

Well, Richard Dawkins seems to be on his own personal crusade. In my part of the world, people tend to just ignore Richard Dawkins, and let him get with whatever crusade he’s on, if that’s how he wants to go through life. He spoke on a chat show in my part of the world recently and I had to ask myself why someone like him would want to bother with a local radio station in Belfast. Lots of people rang in to argue with him. I personally wouldn’t bother. My life ticks along just fine without Richard Dawkins and he wouldn’t listen to anything I would say anyway.

You can speak to closed mind.

 

[edwest2]

Your reply ignores the trust placed in people by the public. When a scientist or expert speaks, especially in public, odds are more will hear him than read a science book. Ignoring Mr. Dawkins or Sam Harris and others is not an option.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

I appreciate what your saying. No, the Church does not allow for all versions of the theory. It does not allow for atheistic interpretations of evolution. That does not mean the Church does not allow for evolution at all.

I agree with what you said in another post. As Catholics we consider science from a faith perspective. A ‘marriage’ between evolution and Catholicism can exist. What cannot exist is a ‘marriage’ between atheism and Catholicism. I feel that is often misunderstood.

Well said. It is clear that the Church has no problem with the mere science of evolution, only with certain philosophical interpretations thereof. 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).

 

[Al_Moritz]

It would be appropriate then if some comments were made by the scientific community regardings things said and written by scientists like Richard Dawkins who use their standing and credentials to claim God did nothing, it all happened by itself. If the scientific community does not address this

Here is a statement by the American National Academy of Sciences:

nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063647&page=58

which is quite clear.

then the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Science Education will continue to ignore the obvious reason why some choose to reject certain aspects of science since some working in the field use the same mountains of evidence to promote their ideology.

The National Center for Science Education has been quite clear about these issues and the overstepping by atheist scientists and teachers as well.

What did not happen is that someone with the same visibility as Dawkins came on TV. What would you expect? However, for example Ken Miller has appeared on several TV shows, even the Colbert report (!) and has clearly come out as a theistic evolutionist.

How can science claim one thing, while claiming to be neutral, and scientists another? This causes suspicion at the least and rejection by some. It’s not like those rejecting this have no reasons.

Radical voices are always louder. What do people pay more attention to, the radical Islam of Al Quaeda or the common peaceful Islam of ordinary, also American and European, people?

As I wrote, I am open to what science has to say but under the guidance of the Church.

I applaud you for that.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for taking the time to provide the link. Not long ago, a parent sued the National Science Foundation for using religion to promote evolution.

evolutionnews.org/2005/10/national_science_foundation_sued_for_usi_1001078.html

Once again, it is appropriate to be concerned when the NSF uses such a method to promote science. It is obviously not neutral when something like this is done.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I put intelligent design, largely because it covers ‘creationism’ and ‘evolutionism’, although none of these terms are technically neccesarily oppositional.

As far as I’m concerned, even if evolution is true, it is in itself an argument for intelligent design, rather than a system of chance, not least as a result of the unlikelihood of it’s success in resulting in us

Incidentally, is there actually even a working model for how abiogenesis could occur at the moment? I have a sneaking suspicion there isn’t, after the failure at the LHC, and that this has been obscured by the phoney imitation ‘creation of life’ that was the DNA programming success, and Hawkings recent bit of hard Sci-Fi. Anybody know?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Incidentally, is there actually even a working model for how abiogenesis could occur at the moment? I have a sneaking suspicion there isn’t, after the failure at the LHC, and that this has been obscured by the phoney imitation ‘creation of life’ that was the DNA programming success, and Hawkings recent bit of hard Sci-Fi. Anybody know?

Science is getting quite close to solving the riddle, in my view. Here is an overview on abiogenesis research that I wrote (if that’s too technical, see also the link in the right hand corner on top to Szostak’s Scientific American article):

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

[vz71]

There are two pool players. The first player lines up her shot and strikes the cue ball. Her shot is perfectly set up and all the balls end up exactly where she planned for them to end up.

The second player lines up his shot and strikes the cue ball. While the balls are still moving he can see that things are not going quite as he had wanted, so he nudges the cue ball back onto the correct track. Again, all the balls end up exactly where he wanted.

Which one is the better player, the first or the second?

rossum

A false analogy.
You are assuming the desires of the creator.

 

[rossum]

A false analogy.
You are assuming the desires of the creator.

An Intelligent Design is assuming the desires of the Designer.

rossum