Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[tonyrey]

A minor clarification - the Church allows us to accept evolution that has God involved somehow, and insists that we reject any evolutionary theory that denies God’s hand in it. Evolution as most people define it is purposeless and Godless.

With reference to my point immediately above, this is a form of evolution which the church would accept.

Thanks for the clarification - without which some may have been misled!

 

[tonyrey]

I would appreciate a citation or reference for that from the scientic position since ID is considered science. Thank you.

Since science is based on our power of reason it would be unscientific not to regard it as scientific!

 

[rossum]

You do not know the details and cannot provide the facts, but you believe it nevertheless.

It is not belief but reasonable acceptance. Science has results, and I base my acceptance on those results. Merely because we don’t know everything does not mean that we cannot know anything. Christianity cannot tell me the name of Seth’s wife; does that mean that we cannot know anything about Christianity?

ID is belief because it has no results. The ID designer has not been shown to do anything at all for abiogenesis.

Nor have they a clue what exactly makes something alive.

You are maligning some very eminent scientists. They have some clues and they are testing to see if those clues are correct or not. ID doesn’t bother to test so it isn’t making any progress.

And back to an older argument, it is impossible to tell how long the journey will take or how you will get there without knowing the destination.

It is possible to say that if you don’t start then you will never reach the destination. Abiogenesis research has started, though it has not yet finished. ID hasn’t even started.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

ID hasn’t even started.

Since science wouldn’t exist without our power of reason it would be unscientific not to regard the power of reason as scientific evidence of Design!

ID doesn’t bother to test so it isn’t making any progress.

You can test your power of reason any time you like - except when you’re asleep, unconscious, in a hypnotic trance or overcome by violent emotion or other illegal states of mind…

 

[Simon62]

Ok just read the Times article before shut eye. Thank you for the link, but I’m afraid I just can’t accept evolution, whether Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI believe it or not. I am absolutely fine with dinosaurs being wiped out by the Flood along with everything else, yes I do believe there was a world wide Flood and so I suppose in this day and age I’d better get back on the ark with Noah. I’d say pretty much most of Genesis I take as read. The problem of the human mind getting around the procreation of mankind from just two people Adam and Eve is not a problem for me, nothing is impossible to God, as I said before.
Anyway it’s late now, definitely off to bed.

God Bless again.

Simon

 

[rossum]

They are only spurious in your opinion. Was Monod’s estimate that the chances of the appearance of the human brain were infinitely slender spurious?

I don’t know, I haven’t seen his calculations.

That is a typical Buddhist statement!

If you ask a Zen question then you will get a Zen answer.

You are evading the question. What is the mathematical probability that the principle of induction will continue to be valid?

Insufficient information.

Now you are equating life with chemistry! And according to you chemistry is the result of an accident because there is no reason why atomic particles or the elements or chemistry or life or anything else exists…

Physical life is chemistry. How well would you do if we removed all the chemicals from your body?

If we are going to get into a discussion of front loading then all this detailed discussion of abiogenesis and the chemistry of life is irrelevant.

What is it a matter of then? Intuition?

No, observation. Buddhism works.

Do all your important views and decisions depend on your calculations?

No, just those related to science.

You have neglected the following facts:

1. Most life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.

Most life on this planet has died. There are more extinct species than living species. Things die. What is your point here?

1. Immensely complex organisms are far less likely to survive than simple ones, e.g. dinosaurs and amoeba.

Amoeba are eukaryotes, and so are not a good example of a simple organism. Eubacteria or arche would be a better example as they are simpler. Some small dinosaurs did survive; they are called birds. You are correct that large slow breeding species are less likely to survive major environmental changes than small fast breeding organisms. This is an easy prediction from evolutionary theory.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Ok just read the Times article before shut eye. Thank you for the link, but I’m afraid I just can’t accept evolution, whether Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI believe it or not. I am absolutely fine with dinosaurs being wiped out by the Flood along with everything else, yes I do believe there was a world wide Flood and so I suppose in this day and age I’d better get back on the ark with Noah. I’d say pretty much most of Genesis I take as read. The problem of the human mind getting around the procreation of mankind from just two people Adam and Eve is not a problem for me, nothing is impossible to God, as I said before.
Anyway it’s late now, definitely off to bed.

God Bless again.

Simon

That position is also acceptable to the Church. So no need to worry.

 

[grannymh]

You lost me here grannymh. Could you elaborate?

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is only concerned with the material/physical aspects of the world in the first two chapters of Book of Genesis because it is opposed to evolution which only pertains to the material/physical world.

I am still looking for the Catholic scientific approach to human origin, not the approach which is part of the faith/science groups. I do have one book on order which sounds like it is on the theological side.

However, after reading this wishy-washy article–one has to go to P.S. at end…

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

…I am ready to give up on ID.

 

[rossum]

Abiogenesis has pyrimidine nucleotides (C, U), but not purine nucleotides (A, G) – yet. But given the recent success with the former, a breakthrough with the latter, i.e. a demonstration how nature may have assembled these bases spontaneously on the prebiotic Earth, is only a matter of time.

At the risk of teaching you ovisuction, purines are being worked on: An Investigation of Prebiotic Purine Synthesis from the Hydrolysis of HCN Polymers.

Linking that reference to my oft repeated points here, that paper refers to other earlier work as far back as 1961. Science advances by small steps; criticising science for not making giant leaps is missing the point. Abiogenesis is a very long term research project.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Ok just read the Times article before shut eye. Thank you for the link, but I’m afraid I just can’t accept evolution, whether Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI believe it or not. I am absolutely fine with dinosaurs being wiped out by the Flood along with everything else, yes I do believe there was a world wide Flood and so I suppose in this day and age I’d better get back on the ark with Noah. I’d say pretty much most of Genesis I take as read. The problem of the human mind getting around the procreation of mankind from just two people Adam and Eve is not a problem for me, nothing is impossible to God, as I said before.
Anyway it’s late now, definitely off to bed.

God Bless again.

Simon

God bless, Simon. The main thing is that we believe in the teaching of Jesus…

Have a peaceful night.

 

[ricmat]

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is only concerned with the material/physical aspects of the world in the first two chapters of Book of Genesis because it is opposed to evolution which only pertains to the material/physical world.

I am still looking for the Catholic scientific approach to human origin, not the approach which is part of the faith/science groups. I do have one book on order which sounds like it is on the theological side.

However, after reading this wishy-washy article–one has to go to P.S. at end…

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-presuppose-a-mechanistic-view-of-nature/

…I am ready to give up on ID.

I’m not sure there is a “Catholic scientific approach to human origins” - the science folks inherently reject God or God’s actions as a possible cause - and of course, Catholics require it.

But neither is ID the Catholic approach. By definition, ID is looking for design, and therefore a designer. Assuming it finds one, it is up to the individual to decide who the designer is. Obviously, in the case of the universe, or life, many would say that the designer must be God.

I suggest reading this short article which explains that ID is not anti-evolution per-se.

ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1161

And this page includes a large number of short primers on ID.

ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

If you have a lot of time on your hands, I recommend the book Signature in the Cell. Or if you are interested more in the cosmological aspects - the book “Privileged Planet” is also very good.

 

[grannymh]

Since science is based on our power of reason it would be unscientific not to regard it as scientific!

This is your original sentence from post 883: " Design is concerned with human nature because it regards our rationality, conscience, free will and capacity for love as evidence that we are created in the image and likeness of God."
I was looking for an article which explains this in ID science. However, I am now convinced that ID stops short of human origin.

 

[tonyrey]

They are only spurious in your opinion. Was Monod’s estimate that the chances of the appearance of the human brain were infinitely slender

He didn’t have to make precise calculations to know what he was talking about. He didn’t win the Nobel Prize for talking out of his hat.

You are evading the question. What is the mathematical probability that the principle of induction will continue to be valid?

Insufficient information.

Then all scientists are working with insufficient information… The success of science must also due to insufficient information…

Now you are equating life with chemistry! And according to you chemistry is the result of an accident because there is no reason why atomic particles or the elements or chemistry or life or anything else exists…

Physical life is chemistry. How well would you do if we removed all the chemicals from your body?

Very well indeed! I wouldn’t be bothered by my health problems.

If we are going to get into a discussion of front loading then all this detailed discussion of abiogenesis and the chemistry of life is irrelevant.

Not at all. The devil is in the details. You regard “chemistry” as an adequate explanation of physical life which radically affects your interpretation of existence. Do you believe there is any reason or purpose for our existence?

What is it a matter of then? Intuition?

No, observation. Buddhism works.

Scientific observation?

Do all your important views and decisions depend on your calculations?

No, just those related to science.

So the role of mathematical probability is strictly limited in philosophy?

1. Most life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.

Most life on this planet has died. There are more extinct species than living species. Things die. What is your point here?

That there are overwhelming odds against survival.

1. Immensely complex organisms are far less likely to survive than simple ones, e.g. dinosaurs and amoeba.

Amoeba are eukaryotes, and so are not a good example of a simple organism. Eubacteria or arche would be a better example as they are simpler.

The fact remains that unicellular organisms are far more likely to survive.

You are correct that large slow breeding species are less likely to survive major environmental changes than small fast breeding organisms. This is an easy prediction from evolutionary theory.

Which reinforces Monod’s conclusion - without the need for precise calculations - that the chances of the human brain appearing were “infinitely slender”.

 

[tonyrey]

This is your original sentence from post 883: " Design is concerned with human nature because it regards our rationality, conscience, free will and capacity for love as evidence that we are created in the image and likeness of God."
I was looking for an article which explains this in ID science. However, I am now convinced that ID stops short of human origin.

It is a far more cogent explanation of human origin than natural selection - which is blind rather than intelligent.

 

[grannymh]

Most life on this planet has died. There are more extinct species than living species. Things die.

I have been wondering why the human species is extant and still multiplying. Could it be that it is the rational species which adapts environments to itself?

 

[tonyrey]

I have been wondering why the human species is extant and still multiplying. Could it be that it is the rational species which adapts environments to itself?

For a person who believes in God it must due to His Will and intervention when life on earth almost became extinct.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure there is a “Catholic scientific approach to human origins” - the science folks inherently reject God or God’s actions as a possible cause - and of course, Catholics require it.

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.

But neither is ID the Catholic approach. By definition, ID is looking for design, and therefore a designer. Assuming it finds one, it is up to the individual to decide who the designer is. Obviously, in the case of the universe, or life, many would say that the designer must be God.

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

I suggest reading this short article which explains that ID is not anti-evolution per-se.

ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1161

And this page includes a large number of short primers on ID.

ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php

If you have a lot of time on your hands, I recommend the book Signature in the Cell. Or if you are interested more in the cosmological aspects - the book “Privileged Planet” is also very good.

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

 

[Al_Moritz]

God created, out of nothing and that’s that!

Simon

That is exactly what I believe too. I accept the science of evolution (I am also a scientist myself).

 

[minkymurph]

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is only concerned with the material/physical aspects of the world in the first two chapters of Book of Genesis. It appears to slide by human nature and ignores chapter three of* Genesis* which is crucial for Catholicism.

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.

 

[grannymh]

It is a far more cogent explanation of human origin than natural selection - which is blind rather than intelligent.

I give up.