Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[samiam1611]

Buffalo, I apologize for making you post something you already have, and thank you for the more in depth explanation. I still find fault in its claim to be a legitimate scientific theory based on the so-called “observation” that intelligent beings create CSI. Oh well.

---

The Church has made its position fairly clear on the matter:

From Wikipedia (sources given there):

“…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis”
“…the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is **virtually certain **that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth.”

I know these aren’t infallible teachings, but they seem definitive enough that I don’t understand why there are still some Catholics that do not accept it. What is standing in the way?

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict has been clear:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

I know these aren’t infallible teachings, but they seem definitive enough that I don’t understand why there are still some Catholics that do not accept it. What is standing in the way?

Speaking as one who is currently studying evolution theories in the 21st century, the answer to your question “What is standing in the way?” is very simple. It is human nature, yours and mine, which is standing in the way.

 

[rossum]

OK, Let’s look at my car example…
Yes, a red car is a ifferent car from a blue one. But the color is really meaningless relative to the fact that they run.

But it is not meaningless relative to the fact that I own a blue car, and I will be committing a crime if I drive away in the red car.

So how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that the DNA is material to the life itself.

RNA is more material than DNA, but DNA covers everything except a few RNA-only retroviruses. However, for the great majority of living organisms, their makeup is defined in their DNA.

How do you know that what makes something alive is different with every different sequence of DNA?

I know that my life is separate from, say, Winston Churchill’s life. At one point we were both alive. Now he is dead while I am still alive. To me that shows that there is something different about my life compared to Winston Churchill’s life. If it were the same life then I would be dead or he would still be alive. Since one life cannot be both dead and alive, I conclude that we are dealing with two separate lives.

rossum

 

[rossum]

No response! I take it that excessive carbon would disastrous for life.

You are phrasing your question very incorrectly. The amount of carbon on Earth has not changed appreciably since the Late Heavy Bombardment billions of years ago. What you are talking about is the distribution of that fixed amount of carbon between different compounds in the Earth and its atmosphere. Excess of many elements, arsenic say, can be disastrous for life. Life on Earth has evolved in a particular set of environments and it is not suited to living outside those environments. You cannot live underwater the way a fish can. A fish cannot (usually) live in air as you can. We all agree that there are environments that will kill some, or all, life.

I disagree but the OP’s trilemma is the topic - with Evolution of the physicalist variety.

You are not the OP. It is perfectly possible to accept all three, as Ken Miller does.

At the outset you made no mention of Buddhism but introduced it only when you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life…

I mention Buddhism in every post I make. Look at the top right, where it says, “Religion:”.

What is the alternative to God or physical necessity?

Vishnu, chance, “we don’t know”, aliens from planet Zorg in a nearby universe. Do you want more?

WE are concerned with the probability of life as we know it.

Then we are constrained to the set of universes which can support life as we know it. That automatically puts constraints on the values of some constants.

There is an unlimited range in any possible universe!

Reference please. You cannot just assert this. What is your scientific evidence for the range of possible values of the Fine Structure Constant? With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut.

Our existence is irrelevant. We are concerned with the (im)probability of life in any possible universe.

Do you not understand the Anthropic Principle? Because we are here, we are in a biased sample of universes.

It is absurd to deduce that I believe there are only two…

You appeared to believe that there was only one. You seemed to be questioning my use of the plural.

rossum

 

[balt_orioles54]

The ultimate truth is there is no ultimate truth. - rossum

The starting point of the central thesis is:

1. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2. All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled the proof. All you need is one.

And DNA doesn’t count as a choice, friends, because we are trying to identify one known code or language that occurs naturally to prove that DNA fits logically in that set of objects.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, I apologize for making you post something you already have, and thank you for the more in depth explanation. I still find fault in its claim to be a legitimate scientific theory based on the so-called “observation” that intelligent beings create CSI. Oh well.

---

The Church has made its position fairly clear on the matter:

From Wikipedia (sources given there):

“…new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis”
“…the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is **virtually certain **that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth.”

I know these aren’t infallible teachings, but they seem definitive enough that I don’t understand why there are still some Catholics that do not accept it. What is standing in the way?

Note the distinction…

IDvolution -
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is ** **consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[rossum]

The starting point of the central thesis is:

1. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

DNA is a molecule. It has some similarities to codes and can be used as an information storage mechanism.

1. All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

All known codes have been created by human minds.

1. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Therefore DNA was designed by a human mind. At this point we can see the false step in your argument. I know plenty of codes designed by humans. What examples do you have of non-human codes designed by an intelligent mind?

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled the proof. All you need is one.

The language of the bees’ dance.

And DNA doesn’t count as a choice, friends, because we are trying to identify one known code or language that occurs naturally to prove that DNA fits logically in that set of objects.

The bees’ dance is not DNA.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

DNA is a molecule. It has some similarities to codes and can be used as an information storage mechanism.

Please, what code is DNA similar to?

All known codes have been created by human minds.

Please name all the known codes which have been created by human minds. Or at the least, give some examples.

Pig Latin code comes to my mind. While it was created by a human mind, it does not have the power of human DNA.

Therefore DNA was designed by a human mind.

Let’s go back to all known codes and similarities and confirm or vaidate them as sufficient evidence which will warrant the conclusion that DNA was designed by a human mind.

When we have appropriate examples of known codes which have been created by human minds, we can add that known codes can be comprehended most likely in their entirety. Or am I extrapolating the word known beyond the reasonable?

At this point we can see the false step in your argument. I know plenty of codes designed by humans. What examples do you have of non-human codes designed by an intelligent mind?

Does my assumption that non-human codes do exist in some form appear as possible regardless of their designer or creator?

The language of the bees’ dance.

Is that an example of a non-human code that was not created by a human mind? Would the mating ritual of elks be consided a code?
Is language the only thing which can be a code?

The bees’ dance is not DNA.

rossum

Thus, somethings exist which are not DNA in themselves; but are more like functions that are possible because of the unique capabilites–maybe the code–of an individual living organism.

I would not consider that my comments are false steps; rather they impact the validity
of the evidence used to arrive at the conclusion --“Therefore DNA was designed by a human mind.”

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[vz71]

RNA is more material than DNA, but DNA covers everything except a few RNA-only retroviruses. However, for the great majority of living organisms, their makeup is defined in their DNA.

But you still have not answered for how you know that what is making these organisms alive is in the DNA.
Of course, you now also claim that RNA is more material then DNA…but you still have no idea what makes an organism alive. So what is the scientific basis for deciding this about RNA??

I know that my life is separate from, say, Winston Churchill’s life. At one point we were both alive. Now he is dead while I am still alive. To me that shows that there is something different about my life compared to Winston Churchill’s life. If it were the same life then I would be dead or he would still be alive. Since one life cannot be both dead and alive, I conclude that we are dealing with two separate lives.

rossum

You have proven that you are different organisms. But you have not proven that what is making either of you alive is differerent for either of you. Nor have you given any scientific basis for believing that what makes an organism alive is contained within the DNA.

 

[rossum]

Please, what code is DNA similar to?

The most obvious is the short naming code for amino acids:

• ALA → Alanine
• ARG → Arginine
• ASN → Asparagine
• ASP → Aspartic acid
• CYS → Cysteine
• GLU → Glutamic acid
• etc.

Please name all the known codes which have been created by human minds. Or at the least, give some examples.

There is a limit on the size of posts here. Any set of abbreviations is a code: C → Carbon, Au → Gold etc. There are many others.

Let’s go back to all known codes and similarities and confirm or vaidate them as sufficient evidence which will warrant the conclusion that DNA was designed by a human mind.

DNA was not designed by a human mind; there were no humans when DNA originated. I was merely pointing out the absurdity in extending our experience of human design to cover alleged non-human design as well.

Does my assumption that non-human codes do exist in some form appear as possible regardless of their designer or creator?

You have to show both that such non-human codes do exist and the existence of the non-humans alleged to have created them.

Is that an example of a non-human code that was not created by a human mind?

Not a code, the bees’ dance is closer to a language, albeit one with a limited vocabulary. I am inclined to believe that it evolved; there are obvious advantages to developing such a language and it is easy to envisage simpler versions transferring less information.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But you still have not answered for how you know that what is making these organisms alive is in the DNA.

Material life is a complex set of chemical reactions. In very early life the set would have been less complex and probably using just RNA in place of the current DNA/RNA/protein system.

Scientists studying abiogenesis are working towards determining what is the minimal set of chemical reactions required for life. They do not have the full answer yet.

If you want to discuss the non-material aspects of life then I can give you explanation of gandhabba theory, but I don’t think that is what you are looking for.

You have proven that you are different organisms. But you have not proven that what is making either of you alive is differerent for either of you.

Yes I have. What made Winston Churchill alive is no longer making him alive. What makes me alive is still making me alive. That is a difference. His life-maker is non-functional. My life-maker is functional. They differ in their functionality so they cannot be the same life-maker.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

I take it that excessive carbon would disastrous for life.

Whether the amount of carbon on Earth has changed is irrelevant. The issue is the **initial **suitability of the Earth for life.

I disagree but the OP’s trilemma is the topic - with Evolution of the physicalist variety.

You are not the OP. It is perfectly possible to accept all three, as Ken Miller does.

That is also irrelevant. I made that point in the sixth post of this thread and then proceeded to discuss the consequences of his view of evolution.

At the outset you made no mention of Buddhism but introduced it only when you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life

…I mention Buddhism in every post I make. Look at the top right, where it says, “Religion:”.

We are all aware that you are a Buddhist but you seem to have introduced it solely because you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life…

What is the alternative to God or physical necessity?

Vishnu, chance, “we don’t know”, aliens from planet Zorg in a nearby universe. Do you want more?

Vishnu is a god, “we don’t know” is not an explanation, chance and aliens ultimately presuppose God or physical necessity.

QUOTE]We are concerned with the probability of life as we know it.

Then we are constrained to the set of universes which can support life as we know it. That automatically puts constraints on the values of some constants.
Without any constraints whatsoever no philosophical or scientific argument would be possible!

There is an unlimited range in any possible universe!

Reference please. You cannot just assert this. What is your scientific evidence for the range of possible values of the Fine Structure Constant?
With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut.

Precisely! That reinforces the argument that the universe is fine tuned! No universe is one of the possibilities that should be taken into account.

Our existence is irrelevant. We are concerned with the (im)probability of life in any possible universe.

Do you not understand the Anthropic Principle? Because we are here, we are in a biased sample of universes.

Do you not understand that we are considering all possible universes? Whether we exist or not is irrelevant. Life exists on earth regardless of human beings. As I have pointed out, without any constraints whatsoever no philosophical or scientific argument is possible.

It is absurd to deduce that I believe there are only two…

You appeared to believe that there was only one. You seemed to be questioning my use of the plural.

Appearances are often deceptive.

 

[minkymurph]

Pope Benedict has been clear:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece
Peace,
Ed

Not according to the author of this article.

Evolution has not been “scientifically” proven and science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation, Pope Benedict has said in his first reflections on the origins of life.

There is no doubt that in terms of humanities view of creation science is unnecessarily narrowed. Science does not take into account anthropological, philosophical or theological perceptions. Science has it’s limitations and modern thinking does not take this into account because it considers science to be ‘it.’

In comments to students, published yesterday in German, the Pope – who took office in April 2005 – stopped short of endorsing intelligent design and said “faith alone” could not “explain the whole picture”.]

According to this author, the Pope stopped short of intelligent design. Therefore, according to the author, he is not endorsing it. The author also states he said ‘faith alone’ cannot explain the whole picture. Therefore, scientific developments are not infallible, but cannot be ignored,

But, he said: “We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory.”

Quite right. Humanity is much more than an X + Y = equation. Therefore, we do not look on the origins of man in terms of an X + Y = equation.

*He advised the students not to choose between creationism and evolutionary theory but to adopt “an interaction of various dimensions of reason”.
*

Is the Pope saying evolution and creation?

 

[minkymurph]

*He said: “I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science.”
*

Quite right.

*Benedict reflected on comments of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that theories of evolution were sound as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis."
*

Is the Pope saying here we should be open to evolution as long as they take into account the work creation? In other words, yes evolution, but not without God?

*He said: “The pope [John Paul] had his reasons for saying this. But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”
*

Quite right. Evolution is an exploration of biological mechanism which is not the whole story.

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to verify or disprove the theory.

Great point. It’s all very well to examine life from a 21st scientific western culture. Is that the whole story?

Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents – mostly conservative Protestants – of “intelligent design,” who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher power.

Now what was Pope Benedict saying? Don’t follow the reasoning of fundamentalist Protestants?

In the United States, supporters of both camps have often clashed over what students should be taught in state schools. New attention has been focused on Roman Catholic views of the issue since Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna said in a speech that restricting debate on Darwin’s theories amounted to censorship.

The Pope’s comments, recorded in the new book Creation and Evolution, appear alongside the reflections of Cardinal Schönborn and others who attended a meeting of students at the papal summer estate at Castelgandolfo outside Rome in September.

His remarks were consistent with one of his most repeated themes, that faith and reason are interdependent and that science, however vital, should not rule out God.

“Science has opened up large dimensions of reason… and thus brought us new insights,” he said. “But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.]

Absolutely! Just because something is scientific it doesn’t mean it is reasoned. There is a joy in science, but scientific inquiry lacks certain dimensions.

Since taking office, the Pope has sent mixed signals on evolution. In November 2005, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, told a press conference that the Genesis account of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible was read correctly.

The author is saying that he/she is of the opinion that evolution and the Genesis account are perfectly compatible and the Pope is sending mixed signals. If the author thinks the Pope is sending mixed signals, to the author the Pope is not being clear. I addition, the author is saying the Pope thinks evolution and Genesis is compatible meaning, the author does not think the Pope is not against evolution.

But last year, Benedict fired his chief astronomer, Father George Coyne, after the American Jesuit priest made similar comments in The Tablet. The sacking was interpreted by commentators as a clear endorsement for intelligent design.

Does this mean the author thinks the Pope is for intelligent design but won’t say it?

*The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution. This is accepted – openly or tacitly – by Roman Catholicism and the mainstream Protestant denominations.
*

The author is saying the Pope is adhering to theistic evolution. Is this what you mean by the Pope is clear? Catholics can accept theistic evolution, tacitly or otherwise? That’s what the author seems to think.

 

[grannymh]

The most obvious is the short naming code for amino acids:

• ALA → Alanine
• ARG → Arginine
• ASN → Asparagine
• ASP → Aspartic acid
• CYS → Cysteine
• GLU → Glutamic acid
• etc.

There is a limit on the size of posts here. Any set of abbreviations is a code: C → Carbon, Au → Gold etc. There are many others.

DNA was not designed by a human mind; there were no humans when DNA originated. I was merely pointing out the absurdity in extending our experience of human design to cover alleged non-human design as well.

You have to show both that such non-human codes do exist and the existence of the non-humans alleged to have created them.

Not a code, the bees’ dance is closer to a language, albeit one with a limited vocabulary. I am inclined to believe that it evolved; there are obvious advantages to developing such a language and it is easy to envisage simpler versions transferring less information.

rossum

Your reply stands.
However, in my humble opinion, the process I used is about the same which would be used to demonstrate that in certain kinds of research, extrapolated universal conclusions are not warranted by the evidence. In other words, Catholicism, which is not an option for the OP, can still point to the possibility of two, sole parents of humankind.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[vz71]

What made Winston Churchill alive is no longer making him alive. What makes me alive is still making me alive. That is a difference. His life-maker is non-functional. My life-maker is functional. They differ in their functionality so they cannot be the same life-maker.

rossum

The DNA is around long after life has ceased.

What is your scientific basis for determining that the DNA has anything at all to do with life?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Please, only vote if you’re Catholic.

I’m just trying to attain a statistic. Please be honest.

Not a catholic so take another vote off. Sorry about that.

Sounded like you were following the evidence. Made a mistake.

 

[rossum]

Whether the amount of carbon on Earth has changed is irrelevant. The issue is the **initial **suitability of the Earth for life.

If Earth had not been suitable for life then we would not be here. You have a biased sample of one; that is not a good basis for making statistical predictions.

We are all aware that you are a Buddhist but you seem to have introduced it solely because you were confronted with having to accept physical causality and necessity as the sole explanation of life…

Evolution is an explanation of the physical origin of species. We can extend it slightly to include abiogenesis as the explanation of the origin of physical life. Science deals with the material. While we both agree that life contains non-physical components I do not see it as useful to discuss them since our theologies differ so profoundly. Buddhism does not have souls and Christianity does not have gandhabbas.

Vishnu is a god,

But he is not your god. He is not the Christian God.

“we don’t know” is not an explanation,

It is the standard scientific answer to any question where that answer is currently unknown. There are things we do not currently know, and some of them are in the area of abiogenesis. It is precisely because there are unknown things that it is still a live research area.

chance and aliens ultimately presuppose God or physical necessity.

No. Chance is an alternative to necessity. What was Monod’s book called?

Precisely! That reinforces the argument that the universe is fine tuned! No universe is one of the possibilities that should be taken into account.

That still does not answer my question. Without knowing the full range of possible values we cannot calculate the probability of the value being within the sub-range that allows life. If you only have one of the two numbers then you cannot calculate their ratio.

Do you not understand that we are considering all possible universes?

I understand that. If we are to consider all possible universes then we also need to consider all possible forms of physical life. This is yet another unknown that muddies any conclusion. Humans could not survive in a completely water filled universe; fish could survive in such a universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

What is your scientific basis for determining that the DNA has anything at all to do with life?

The vast majority of living organisms use DNA as part of their intra-cellular chemistry. Removing parts of a cell’s DNA, such as its mitochondrial DNA, will kill that cell.

rossum