Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[grannymh]

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Eve **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Entering topics is also very useful since the Catechism does expand on the basics and implications. . Do check out the references in the margins and in the Index.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 the following is under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»

 

[ricmat]

The paper isn’t science - the intro calls it a contention, the paper says it’s just an evaluation.

Meyer himself (page 271) questions whether any of ID can be called science, before wondering off into metaphysics hoping he can slip it in sideways. And for theists he drops a bombshell, completely separating ID from a personal god with his “metaphysically neutral criteria” – the intelligent agent is reduced to a mindless computer.

In any previous age this would be called heresy. Curious that ID beings into question the entire nature of God when evolution doesn’t.

I read page 271 of the paper you linked to.

Here is what you say Meyer said: “Meyer himself (page 271) questions whether any of ID can be called science…”

Here is a cut and past of what Meyer actually said: “Methodological naturalism asserts that, as a matter of definition, for a hypothesis,theory, or explanation to qualify as “scientific,” it must invoke only naturalistic or materialistic entities. On that definition, critics say, the intelligent design hypothesis does not qualify.”

No, Meyer didn’t say what you said he did.

I guess you missed the “critics say” part.

 

[ricmat]

In any previous age this would be called heresy. Curious that ID beings into question the entire nature of God when evolution doesn’t.

What exactly are you saying “would be called heresy”?

What exactly do you think ID says about the nature of God?

 

[StrawberryJam]

What exactly are you saying “would be called heresy”?

What exactly do you think ID says about the nature of God?

ID is not science. It’s a lot of sciency sounding gobbledygook.

Science does not speak of the nature of God. That should answer your questions.

Ask yourself why it does not, or can not.

 

[grannymh]

What exactly are you saying “would be called heresy”?

What exactly do you think ID says about the nature of God?

Don’t know about the heresy bit and am too tired to find out.

Personally, I vote for Catholic teachings about God and human origin. But, unfortunately, that wasn’t an option in the poll. On the other hand, I now have been brought up-to-date regarding how a few Catholics either want to tweak Divine Revelation or ignore it. So it is a good thing Catholic teaching was left off the poll.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Don’t know about the heresy bit and am too tired to find out.

Personally, I vote for Catholic teachings about God and human origin. But, unfortunately, that wasn’t an option in the poll. On the other hand, I now have been brought up-to-date regarding how a few Catholics either want to tweak Divine Revelation or ignore it. So it is a good thing Catholic teaching was left off the poll.

Granny, polls are generally useless. Let’s move on.

 

[ricmat]

ID is not science. It’s a lot of sciency sounding gobbledygook.

Science does not speak of the nature of God. That should answer your questions.

Ask yourself why it does not, or can not.

Thank you for your opinion.

Actually, I wanted to see what Inocente has to say about it since he raised the issue.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, polls are generally useless. Let’s move on.

I agree that polls are generally useless. I don’t have much hope for moving on. Sorry about that.

 

[rossum]

Is “more probable” the very best estimate you can give?

In the absence of more precise data, yes. Give me more precise data and I will give you a more precise answer.

Your previous answer “more probable” is extremely imprecise! I am referring to the **relative **probability **to one another **of the survival of prehistoric animals , e.g. an amoeba and a dinosaur.

Your question is extremely imprecise. A single amoeba may survive for weeks. A particular species of amoeba may survive for millions of years. A genus, or other higher clade, of amoeba may survive for hundreds of millions of years. You have not indicated what level you are talking about: individual, species or higher clade.

What scientific evidence is there that the material universe is destroyed periodically and re-emerges after a period with no material life?

Very little, it is known as the oscillating universe theory. As I pointed out, that is Buddhism, not science.

1. You cite a claim in an article that neuroscience neuroscience may explain the Dalai Lama…

I cited no such claim. Please re-read the article. Neuroscience may explain why the Dalai Lama is so happy. It does not claim to explain his existence.

So in science there are no absolute probabilities?

Look in any scientific publication. Every figure comes with an indication of the expected error in that figure. Like “accurate to eighth decimal places” or “with 98.5% certainty” or “plus or minus 0.0042”.

I am not asking about when all life on Earth will become extinct but whether you can estimate when different forms of life on earth were likely to become extinct. In other words which are likely to survive longer and, for example, the approximate degree of likelihood for an amoeba and an elephant.

Mammal species in general do not last as long as protist species. The probability is that elephants as a species will go extinct before a given species of amoeba will go extinct. An individual elephant is highly likely to outlive an individual amoeba.

Are there overwhelming odds against survival on this planet - discounting human activity?

Yes. The Sun will destroy all life if a big asteroid doesn’t get us first. How is this question relevant to the topic of the thread?

rossum

 

[inocente]

I guess you missed the “critics say” part.

By critics, Meyer knows he means just about every working scientist and philosopher of science on the planet. If he can’t use the scientific method then it ain’t natural science.

What exactly are you saying “would be called heresy”?

What exactly do you think ID says about the nature of God?

In his attempt to redefine the scientific method to incorporate ID, Meyer writes “it will employ only metaphysically neutral criteria—such as explanatory power and causal adequacy—to evaluate competing hypotheses.” He replaces a personal god with metaphysical neutrality, this here intelligent agent could be a computer, an alien, it could even be dead by now. Every possible reason for trusting in Christ is replaced by nada.

 

[grannymh]

In his attempt to redefine the scientific method to incorporate ID, Meyer writes “it will employ only metaphysically neutral criteria—such as explanatory power and causal adequacy—to evaluate competing hypotheses.” He replaces a personal god with metaphysical neutrality, this here intelligent agent could be a computer, an alien, it could even be dead by now. Every possible reason for trusting in Christ is replaced by nada.

I knew if I lived long enough, I would come across a better explanation than financial necessity for the avoidance of the Catholic teaching regarding human nature.
Please note that I said teaching and did not refer to any individuals or faith/science groups.
Please note that I respect the Catholics who are sincerely trying to find a solution to the problems of modern science theories when certain theories directly attack Catholicism… More power to them.
Please note that my heart is in the future in the hope that someday I will find a Catholic apologist who is willing to address modern science in regard to true human origin.

Note to self: stop being cranky and get back on task.

Blessings to all,
granny

 

[ricmat]

By critics, Meyer knows he means just about every working scientist and philosopher of science on the planet. If he can’t use the scientific method then it ain’t natural science.

So you admit that you misrepresented what Meyer said in the paper.

In his attempt to redefine the scientific method to incorporate ID, Meyer writes “it will employ only metaphysically neutral criteria—such as explanatory power and causal adequacy—to evaluate competing hypotheses.” He replaces a personal god with metaphysical neutrality, this here intelligent agent could be a computer, an alien, it could even be dead by now. Every possible reason for trusting in Christ is replaced by nada.

Please tell me exactly where Meyer said the above. Based on your previous posts, I want to be sure it is actually what he said, and didn’t miss something like “critics say” like your previous accusation did.

ID doesn’t replace a personal God (I use capital G, I wonder why you don’t) with nada. ID says that it is not in the religion business. You should read up on ID. And no, I’m not talking about the 6 day creationists who IMO hijacked the ID for a period a while back.

So tell me about evolution. Does it replace a God of purpose, a God who “designed the world to be lived in” (see my previous quote from Is45) with the watchmaker God of deism - one who gets the ball rolling and then doesn’t get involved anymore? I don’t know what you think, but some here seem to be pushing that general concept.

 

[ricmat]

I knew if I lived long enough, I would come across a better explanation than financial necessity for the avoidance of the Catholic teaching regarding human nature.
Please note that I said teaching and did not refer to any individuals or faith/science groups.
Please note that I respect the Catholics who are sincerely trying to find a solution to the problems of modern science theories when certain theories directly attack Catholicism… More power to them.
Please note that my heart is in the future in the hope that someday I will find a Catholic apologist who is willing to address modern science in regard to true human origin.

Note to self: stop being cranky and get back on task.

Blessings to all,
granny

Granny, don’t take Inocente’s word for what Meyer is saying. Read Meyer for yourself.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, don’t take Inocente’s word for what Meyer is saying. Read Meyer for yourself.

Sorry, but this female has a brain of my own.

It is not important who says what – when the obvious tickles me. I did say “'Please note … that I did not refer to any individuals or faith/science groups.”

Futhermore, as a writer in the dark ages of ethics, my policy is to verify quotes with the speaker before publication. Or I will use a proper citation.

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes. The Sun will destroy all life if a big asteroid doesn’t get us first. rossum

The sun will destroy macrobial life in 500 million years or so, but it will not make microbial life on earth impossible for several billion years after that.

 

[tonyrey]

             *Is "more probable" the very best estimate you can give?*

I am not a specialist in biology. What data do you think Jacques Monod had? Was he unjustified in drawing his conclusion?

“It is more likely that evolution is a random process with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria and other single cell organisms will live on if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence was an unlikely development for life on Earth from the chronology of evolution.** It took a very long time: two and a half billion years to go from single cells to multi cell beings who are a necessary precursor to intelligence.** This is a good fraction of the total time available before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis that the probability for life to develop intelligence is low. In this case we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy but **we are unlikely to find intelligent life.” **brembs.net/SWH.html

Do you agree with Hawking’s conclusion? If not why not?

Your previous answer “more probable” is extremely imprecise! I am referring to the **relative **probability **to one another **of the survival of prehistoric animals , e.g. an amoeba and a dinosaur.
Your question is extremely imprecise. A single amoeba may survive for weeks. A particular species of amoeba may survive for millions of years. A genus, or other higher clade, of amoeba may survive for hundreds of millions of years. You have not indicated what level you are talking about: individual, species or higher clade.

I specified an amoeba and a dinosaur. What is extremely imprecise about that?

What scientific evidence is there that the material universe is destroyed periodically and re-emerges after a period with no material life?

Very little, it is known as the oscillating universe theory. As I pointed out, that is Buddhism, not science.

So what is the non-scientific evidence for the truth of Buddhism - apart from your claim that “it works”?

1. You cite a claim in an article that neuroscience neuroscience may explain the Dalai Lama…

I cited no such claim. Please re-read the article. Neuroscience may explain why the Dalai Lama is so happy. It does not claim to explain his existence.

That was the title of the article which:

1. You accepted unquestioningly
2. Is consistent with your view that life is chemistry
3. Implies that mental activity can be explained by neuroscience

So in science there are no absolute probabilities?

Look in any scientific publication. Every figure comes with an indication of the expected error in that figure. Like “accurate to eighth decimal places” or “with 98.5% certainty” or “plus or minus 0.0042”.

Yet in practice you don’t allow for the possibility of error with regard to the fundamental laws of science?

I am not asking about when all

life on Earth will become extinct but whether you can estimate when different forms of life on earth were likely to become extinct. In other words which are likely to survive longer and, for example, the approximate degree of likelihood for an amoeba and an elephant. Mammal species in general do not last as long as protist species. The probability is that elephants as a species will go extinct before a given species of amoeba will go extinct. An individual elephant is highly likely to outlive an individual amoeba.

So the human brain is far less likely to appear and to survive than amoeba?

Are there overwhelming odds against survival on this planet - discounting human activity?

Yes. The Sun will destroy all life if a big asteroid doesn’t get us first. How is this question relevant to the topic of the thread?

It demonstrates that the survival of life on this planet has been against overwhelming odds for more than three billion years. Doesn’t that strike you as a remarkable fact? Or do you attribute it as a mere consequence of physical necessity?

 

[StAnastasia]

It demonstrates that the survival of life on this planet has been against overwhelming odds for more than three billion years. Doesn’t that strike you as a remarkable fact? Or do you attribute it as a mere consequence of physical necessity?

Existence is a remarkable fact. What conclusions can we draw from that? Life on earth is resilient. What conclusions can we draw from that? Only one salmon egg in a thousand will hatch, travel out to sea, and return to spawn. What conclusions can we draw from that? That sometimes only a few people survive a plane crash is a remarkable fact. What conclusions can we draw from that?

There is no simple answer to any of these questions. People respond to possibilities, uncertainties, and probabilities in different ways.

StAnastasia

 

[vz71]

There is no simple answer to any of these questions. People respond to possibilities, uncertainties, and probabilities in different ways.

StAnastasia

I find it facinating that people will attribute divine intervention that saves them from a car wreck that they would have a 1 in 1000 chance of never being in the first place.
But these same people will stand steadfastly against divine intervention in favor of science that has odds against it much greater then that when looking towards these theories.

 

[StAnastasia]

I find it facinating that people will attribute divine intervention that saves them from a car wreck that they would have a 1 in 1000 chance of never being in the first place. But these same people will stand steadfastly against divine intervention in favor of science that has odds against it much greater then that when looking towards these theories.

Indeed. Or attributing the victory of their favorite sports team to divine intervention.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Eve **
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Entering topics is also very useful since the Catechism does expand on the basics and implications. . Do check out the references in the margins and in the Index.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 the following is under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»

Granny, what do you think of the Catechism of Thomas Aquinas? I know it’s not official Church teaching but he was pretty smart and I’m wondering if it would clear up some of the problems I have understanding the official CCC (and wondering if I should buy it as I’m very low on money right now).