Does Intelligent Design = Creationism?

[edwest2]

Evolution is not a belief system. It is a branch of biology whose goal is to explain the diversity of life on earth. It is very successful in that goal. Yes, there are some people who make the illogical argument that since evolution (as a process) could exist in the absence of God, its existence therefore proves the absence of God. This is a silly argument because evolution could also exist in the presence of God (theistic evolution). Regardless, how someone uses science to further an agenda does not change the science. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity (and apparent design) better than any other theory, and does so very convincingly. What sort of philosophical position someone tries to further based on evolution does not change that.

The bigger question for me is, why fight this fight? The truth of evolution does not negate the existence of God, (although it does negate a literal reading of Genesis). So why twist yourself up trying to support alternatives to evolution, when they fly in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence? If your answer is that Richard Dawkins told you that if you accept evolution you can’t believe in God, well, then, you’ve let Dawkins win by letting him define the question.

Mike

Hi Mike,

What does evolution do for biology? Bacteria have the built-in capability to change - lateral gene transfer, even between different species. Viruses have the built-in ability to change. Scientists have found bacteria in dirt that were already resistant to natural and synthetic antibiotics. How can that be? Those who make much out of bacteria being able to digest a synthetic material like nylon should consider that fact.

As a Catholic, you should know that the Church teaches that natural (i.e. non-religious) reason can detect God in nature. We are told in the Bible that we are without excuse.

In case you missed it, the Church declares that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

The Church also teaches there is actual design in nature (see Finding Design in Nature By Cardinal Schoenborn, New York Times).

What I see here is the following:

1. A tremendous desire for a self-generating and self-functioning evolutionarry process that has positively, absolutely nothing to do with God.
2. A willingness to consider that if, big if, something similar did occur, God was a critical component and without Whom, evolution cannot exist. This, of course, ruffles the feathers of those who follow science, but the fact is, the Church views faith and reason as complementary.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

In case you missed it, the Church declares that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

In case you missed it, no scientific theory is complete and proven. You keep harping on that but it isn’t a significant idea in any way. I wonder why you are so hung up on that. My guess is that your faith depends on evolution theory being wrong. Such shallow faith!

 

[reggieM]

Hi Reggie. Well, sort of. But even if we don’t assume science will inevitably fill all gaps, the entire argument is based on a false premise. That is, that God’s existence is in any way dependent on human knowledge. God either exists, or He does not. But the status of His existence can not change as human knowledge changes.

Our knowledge of God is dependent on human knowledge. We know about God because we can observe his attributes in the things He has made (as well as by revelation - which comes through the created universe).

Well I should say that I am completely in the same camp as Ken Miller and Martinez Hewlett, if that is who you are referring to. I am not sure why the quotation marks around Catholic, but I think I know what you are implying. I am not playing that game.

That does help because I know your position more clearly now – thanks. I put quotations around Miller as “Catholic” for the same reason that I refer to Miller’s “god”.

How do you know God did not choose to use the mechanism of evolution to imbue us with these things?

The tools I use to know these things are logic, observation, science and revelation as codified and delivered by the Magisterium.

You certainly can not argue that God is not capable of doing it that way.

God is not capable of such contradiction since it is a denial of being. God is the Supreme Being and thus cannot nulify his own Being or Truth.

You can not say that God could not have had the foresight to know what was coming.

This directly denies Ken Miller’s teaching on the matter. When extended logically, it’s also a denial of Darwinism.

What you are really saying is that God did not create humans the way you think He should have, or not the way you would have expected Him to.

Well, I’m saying that God created humans – thus, evolutionary theory is false.

(Or that accepting evolution means that God did not create us according to a literal reading of Genesis, but if you believe in a literal interpretation of a young earth six-day creation, then why are we even having this conversation?).

I don’t know why you’re trying to have this conversation. For my part, I was merely correcting several mis-statements I noticed in your first post.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

I don’t know. My guess is, yes.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know. My guess is, yes.

I agree. He did know what Adam would look like.

Did He plan for Adam to look that way?

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Hi Mike,
In case you missed it, the Church declares that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.

The Church also teaches there is actual design in nature (see Finding Design in Nature By Cardinal Schoenborn, New York Times).

What I see here is the following:

1. A tremendous desire for a self-generating and self-functioning evolutionarry process that has positively, absolutely nothing to do with God.
2. A willingness to consider that if, big if, something similar did occur, God was a critical component and without Whom, evolution cannot exist. This, of course, ruffles the feathers of those who follow science, but the fact is, the Church views faith and reason as complementary

Peace,
Ed

Ed, thanks. I think we agree on 90% of this stuff. I agree that there are people, like Dawkins, who try to use the fact of evolution to argue for the nonexistence of God. I agree that this is the position that we need to be strongly refuting, with solid science and solid theology. My reading of most of the Church’s pronouncements, including Schoenborn’s, is that they are strongly arguing against this illogical philosophical extension of evolution, rather than arguing against the validity of evolution itself. Dawkins, and other vigorous atheists, want us to equate evolution with atheism. This is not science, it is philosophy. I urge that we do not allow ourselves to get drawn into Dawkins’ strategy.

My interpretation is that if we look at the entire record of the Church’s teachings on evolution, we see that on one hand it has never came out against the science of evolution, or denied that evolution explains the patterns of diversity of life on earth. On the other hand, the Church has repeatedly stated its opposition to the claim that a logical extension of evolution is atheism, or even a Deist type of god who could care less about us. And I do believe that type of misuse of evolution is what Cardinal Schoenborn was attacking. (Having said that, I admit I don’t read every pronouncement and statement the Church makes. I don’t have that kind of free time.)

Finally, I will not attempt to convince you that evolution is truly the best explanation of what we see in nature, because my experience tells me that will be a waste of both our times, and certainly not something that can be done in sound bites. However, I will hope you will consider rethinking your opinion of science. You seem to be attacking a caricature of science as promoted by some aspects of the media, and by the fundamentalist evangelicals. Science is not a global conspiracy to promote atheism. It is not bent on destroying religion. I am a scientist and most of my friends are. We are Catholics (or maybe “Catholics”?), Protestants, Jews, and atheists. We do not share a common philosophy or agenda. If anything, we are the least organized people I know.

And peace to you. Mike.

 

[masterjedi747]

You can not say that God could not have had the foresight to know what was coming.

In fairness to Mr. Miller, it denies his opinion on the matter. He’s wrong, yes, but (1) it is a very small, easily correctable, and understandable error in context; (2) he clearly leaves it on the level of "I think", and (3) in any case, it is not central to his argument; in fact, I think his argument is better if we ignore that particular opinion, and near perfect if we actually make the necessary corrections for him.

When extended logically, it’s also a denial of Darwinism.
Well, I’m saying that God created humans – thus, evolutionary theory is false.

Then you have an erroneous understanding of evolutionary theory. Saying that God deliberately willed the creation of humans does not invalidate descent with modification. What it does (correctly) deny is the idea that any natural process is capable of working “all on its own” apart from Divine Providence. But that’s a separate philosophical consideration, not an intrinsic element of the biological theory.

I agree. He did know what Adam would look like.
Did He plan for Adam to look that way?

Yes, of course.

 

[Mike_BioProf]

Did He plan for Adam to look that way?

I have no idea.

 

[Orogeny]

I agree. He did know what Adam would look like.

Did He plan for Adam to look that way?

Is there a future with God? Does God exist in time?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mike_BioProf]

In fairness to Mr. Miller, it denies his opinion on the matter. He’s wrong, yes, but (1) it is a very small, easily correctable, and understandable error in context; (2) he clearly leaves it on the level of "I think", and (3) in any case, it is not central to his argument; in fact, I think his argument is better if we ignore that particular opinion, and near perfect if we actually make the necessary corrections for him.

Well put. Miller’s foray into quantum physics is not terribly convincing, but clearly comes at the end and is clearly meant to be highly speculative. Like you said, it is not central to his argument.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, thanks. I think we agree on 90% of this stuff. I agree that there are people, like Dawkins, who try to use the fact of evolution to argue for the nonexistence of God. I agree that this is the position that we need to be strongly refuting, with solid science and solid theology. My reading of most of the Church’s pronouncements, including Schoenborn’s, is that they are strongly arguing against this illogical philosophical extension of evolution, rather than arguing against the validity of evolution itself. Dawkins, and other vigorous atheists, want us to equate evolution with atheism. This is not science, it is philosophy. I urge that we do not allow ourselves to get drawn into Dawkins’ strategy.

My interpretation is that if we look at the entire record of the Church’s teachings on evolution, we see that on one hand it has never came out against the science of evolution, or denied that evolution explains the patterns of diversity of life on earth. On the other hand, the Church has repeatedly stated its opposition to the claim that a logical extension of evolution is atheism, or even a Deist type of god who could care less about us. And I do believe that type of misuse of evolution is what Cardinal Schoenborn was attacking. (Having said that, I admit I don’t read every pronouncement and statement the Church makes. I don’t have that kind of free time.)

Finally, I will not attempt to convince you that evolution is truly the best explanation of what we see in nature, because my experience tells me that will be a waste of both our times, and certainly not something that can be done in sound bites. However, I will hope you will consider rethinking your opinion of science. You seem to be attacking a caricature of science as promoted by some aspects of the media, and by the fundamentalist evangelicals. Science is not a global conspiracy to promote atheism. It is not bent on destroying religion. I am a scientist and most of my friends are. We are Catholics (or maybe “Catholics”?), Protestants, Jews, and atheists. We do not share a common philosophy or agenda. If anything, we are the least organized people I know.

And peace to you. Mike.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your detailed reply. I will point out that there are a few official scientific organizations out there and they do get mentioned whenever this subject gets brought up, like the National Academy of Sciences. According to the journal Nature, most leading scientists reject God.

If anyone is producing a caricature, it is the media. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers. In our current Internet Opinion Culture, too many people believe that all opinions carry some weight and this is generally false. There are real truths out there but I’ve found the truth presented only rarely.

If you read Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn, he states quite clearly that the Church has not just acquiesced to the evolution idea. To say otherwise is simply not factual. Pope John Paul II had something nice to say about evolution but added that there are certain fixed points. Among those fixed points are the things that ground the dignity of the human person.

I have done some rethinking about Evolution as presented here and in the media – it is not a credible theory. Second, the urgency and frequency of comments here leads me to believe that all of those who say I need to think about evolution and believe it, right now, today, means that it is all part of getting people, especially Christians, to believe some words currently appearing on the sides of buses: Man created God.

Is the theory itself of any value? All I know is that geneticists are discovering various things about DNA and the DNA interrelationship between various plants and animals. To know that human beings share some DNA with various plants tells me that things are bit more complex than scientists originally thought. I’ve decided to trust the Church, and only the Church on this subject.

In the meantime, I will always add the necessary, causal activity of God to whatever process occurred. Those who insist this is outside the realm of science should also asks themselves why, if it is outside of science, they need to quote this or that Pope to promote this idea.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

In fairness to Mr. Miller, it denies his opinion on the matter. He’s wrong, yes, but (1) it is a very small, easily correctable, and understandable error in context; (2) he clearly leaves it on the level of "I think", and (3) in any case, it is not central to his argument;

According to this, Miller’s denial of God’s omniscience, divine plan and His willing and knowledge of human life through his direct creative power, is a “small error”.
Miller supports his theory with materialist philosophy that distorts the true teaching on the nature of God, and actually invents a new, false “god”.

You promote the book that contains this heretical teaching in every post you offer on CAF. Maybe you ought to ihnclude an asterisk and a “easy correction” to this anti-Catholic notion along with the promotion of the book.

I fear that to some like Miller, a defense of Darwinism is more important than holding the Catholic truth that comes to us from Christ. Thus, a new “god” is invented in order to seem to reconcile his theory.

 

[masterjedi747]

According to this, Miller’s denial of God’s omniscience, divine plan and His willing and knowledge of human life through his direct creative power, is a “small error”.

You promote the book that contains this heretical teaching in every post you offer on CAF.

I called it a “small error” because (1) it’s not explicit, (2) it’s not supported by anything else in the book, and (3) it’s not even important to his argument. Furthermore, I think it’s a mistake to say that he denies “God’s omniscience, divine plan and His willing and knowledge of human life through his direct creative power”. Putting the questionable portions of his book in context with other articles and works that he has written, I don’t believe that he would actually be willing to deny what you claim. I believe he simply has a flawed/incomplete understanding of the philosophical issues at hand, and accordingly makes an unintentional (but not wholly unreasonable) error.

Miller supports his theory with materialist philosophy that distorts the true teaching on the nature of God, and actually invents a new, false “god”.

I don’t see that at all. His whole argument is simply that there is no fundamental conflict between modern science and Christian theology. He has absolutely no intention of creating a “new god”. In fact, I think he takes a pretty significant step back toward the Thomistic understanding of God; he doesn’t quite make it, as I tell everyone I recommend the book to, but he does get about 98% of the way there, which is one reason why I think it’s worth reading.

Maybe you ought to include an asterisk and a “easy correction” to this anti-Catholic notion along with the promotion of the book.

I promote Miller’s book as an excellent starting point, not as the culmination of perfect Catholic theology. I have minor disagreements with certain portions of the book, as I always strive to make clear when I speak about the book with others; but, by and large, I do believe those errors are not severe, not intentional, and in any case easily addressed, even by the standards of the book itself: there are various quotes which naturally lend support to correct Catholic teaching on the matter, even if Miller (to my frustration) failed to develop that point sufficiently for a broader audience.

 

[reggieM]

I called it a “small error” because (1) it’s not explicit,

I find it to be blatantly explicit … as here:

No question about it. Rewind that tape, let it run again, and events might come out differently at every turn. Surely this means that mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might as well have left us out. I agree.
– Kenneth Miller’s book – pg 273

Putting the questionable portions of his book in context with other articles and works that he has written, I don’t believe that he would actually be willing to deny what you claim.

Here’s a statement from a textbook Mr. Miller co-wrote with Joseph Levine:

[comment] Additionally, Miller’s textbook, Biology: Discovering Life contains language which is even more anti-religious than that of his elephant textbook, Biology. Consider the 5th and 6th instances below:

(5) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

That lines up precisely with the beliefs he explained in Finding Nature’s God. So, he’s committed to that – he invented a false “god”, who is ignorant and did not plan the creation of human life. He states that clearly and affirms it.

I believe he simply has a flawed/incomplete understanding of the philosophical issues at hand, and accordingly makes an unintentional (but not wholly unreasonable) error.

There is a lot of confusion here, but I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to sort things out rather than just white-wash the problem. You believe his error is “not wholly unreasonable” and I agree. I think he is more consistent with evolutionary theory this way. He creates an “ignorant god” so that evolution can proceed by accidental, undirected physical forces. Claiming that God knew and willed an action means that the action was designed and directed by God. That is the foundation of ID theory, which you and Mr. Miller reject. When God plans something, he designs it for a purpose.

I don’t see that at all. His whole argument is simply that there is no fundamental conflict between modern science and Christian theology. He has absolutely no intention of creating a “new god”.

I think the facts are as shown. His “god” did not know that human beings would be created since “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained”, to quote him. He had to invent a false “god” – on that was ignorant and subordinate to the laws of nature. Evolution acted without this “god’s” knowledge and will.

I promote Miller’s book as an excellent starting point, not as the culmination of perfect Catholic theology. I have minor disagreements with certain portions of the book, as I always strive to make clear when I speak about the book with others; but, by and large, I do believe those errors are not severe, not intentional, and in any case easily addressed, even by the standards of the book itself: there are various quotes which naturally lend support to correct Catholic teaching on the matter, even if Miller (to my frustration) failed to develop that point sufficiently for a broader audience.

Ok, that seems reasonable on the face of it, but I still disagree. One should not have to distort Catholic teaching like that. It’s a very bad example and a scandal for a Catholic to publicly make such statements. He has lapsed in the faith and a good priest should give him an ultimatum.

I’ll add this – if there was an abundance of books supporting Miller’s view of evolution, then you could choose another one to promote, that didn’t have the theological and philosophical errors. But personally, I don’t think there are many at all. Theistic evolution is not a mainstream view, at least in the science literature.

The fact that Miller creates this distorted view of God in order to try to reconcile evolution says a lot to me. You might say that his errors are easily corrected, but why would he fall into that kind of thing in the first place?

It’s my conclusion that he really had to. He believes that evolution explains all of nature and all of human life, and there is zero evidence of God’s design in nature itself (intervening and acting beyond what natural laws produce).

That’s mainstream evolutionary theory. Trying to fit God in that picture is so difficult, that Miller had to change the nature of God to do it.

 

[edwest2]

To ReggieM -

Excellent post. It would be good to remove Mr. Miller’s books from consideration. Why he believes what he writes, I cannot comment on. I simply don’t know. The fact that his words go against clear Church teaching is evident.

It seems that two views of science are being required here:

A) A purely atheist view that assigns to evolution the attributes of being a self starting engine. An engine that is fueled by mutations and chance, and the results selected in a blind process that, if repeated, would have turned out differently.

B) The Catholic view. That God willed each one of us into existence. If any process similar to evolution did occur, it could not have occurred without God’s direct causal action.

The desire to reconcile these two views here only ends with two possible results.

A) Science can’t comment on God but you should believe in the self starting engine that produces life forms willy-nilly, and just happened to produce man. Maybe God used it.

B) A process that may have occurred that was directly shaped by God’s direct involvement. But even if that is acknowledged to a point, the “science is silent about God” statement appears.

We are taught that a physical Jesus Christ died for all men. Why? Through one man sin entered the world. Polygenism is right out. And if you have scientific evidence then why bother quoting a Pope to prove your case? The Church teaches faith and reason are complementary, not separate. The combined answer is the full and true answer.

What? As Catholics, we are going to tell people Jesus died for your sins and mine, and when they ask why, we’re going to tell them he died for a few hominids that God selected out of a group that he dropped souls into? That is not Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[masterjedi747]

I apologize in advance of the fact that this is spread out over multiple posts.

Here’s a statement from a textbook Mr. Miller co-wrote with Joseph Levine: (5) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152

I don’t remember, unfortunately, where I can find the documentation to support this assertion, so at the moment I can only respond based on memory: The textbook in question was indeed written by both Ken Miller* and Joseph Levine*. Joseph Levine is the one who wrote that particular section, not Ken Miller. And when it was brought to Ken Miller’s attention that Mr. Levine had indeed published this passage, he immediately took action to ensure that the passage was removed and/or corrected in all subsequent editions. Hence the edition this quote was taken from is the first edition, from 1992 – and I am virtually certain that you will be able to find no such passage in any of the more recent editions of their textbook. So although the passage was indeed printed initially, and Ken Miller did accept a certain measure of personal responsibility for not proof-reading Joseph Levine’s work as closely as he should have (though honestly, it was supposed to be a science textbook, so it’s not exactly the case that Miller should have been expecting Levine to start inserting philosophical assertions) – the above passage, in any case, ought not be taken in any way as the actual position of Ken Miller, but rather of his co-author.

I find it to be blatantly explicit … as here:No question about it. Rewind that tape, let it run again, and events might come out differently at every turn. Surely this means that mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might as well have left us out. I agree.
– Kenneth Miller’s book – pg 273

This is definitely one of the more problematic passages in the book, but I don’t think the case is as simple as it seems. For one, I think it’s worth keeping this sentence in context with some of the sentences immediately following:

“What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as compatible with a divine will… When examined closely, the notion that we must find historical inevitability in a process in order to square it with the intent of a Creator makes absolutely no sense. Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable and historically contingent process. So, for that matter, were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number from last night’s lottery… If we can look at the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as being consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species.”

So I do think that there is something true being expressed in the sentence that you quoted, although I agree that it ought not to have been worded as it was. The truth being expressed is that God did not have to create man. Of course we know by faith that He indeed chose to do so, and willed to do so… but He did not have to do so. Mankind’s appearance on this planet was, in a very real sense, not necessary (he uses the word inevitable). This much, at least, is true, both theologically and from a biological perspective. If a third party observer were to have watched the gradual evolution of life on earth, he would never have been able to say “this process will inevitably lead to the emergence of the human race”, short of being given divine revelation of such future events.

He had to invent a false “god” – one that was ignorant and subordinate to the laws of nature.

How do you see “subordinate to the laws of nature”? I mean, He certainly doesn’t believe that miracles are impossible:

“A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though that makes no scientific sense – there is the matter of Jesus’ y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense. They are specific acts of God, designed in most cases to get a message across. Their very rarity is what makes them remarkable.” (He continues later on the page to ask “If this is true, why shouldn’t we allow that the creation of our species was a miracle?”) – pg. 239-40

His “god” did not know that human beings would be created since “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained”, to quote him.

I would argue that he qualifies the entire discussion leading up to this quote as speaking “in a purely biological sense” (top middle of pg. 271 in my paperback edition)… so not addressing any deeper theological sense.

 

[masterjedi747]

…he invented a false “god”, who is ignorant and did not plan the creation of human life.

I truly don’t believe that He would hold that position. I grant that he’s a bit too vague with regard to God’s omniscience, but I’m convinced that He would certainly grant it if you pressed him for a solid answer.

For example, in listing the core beliefs of the great Western religions, he includes:

“Second, we exist as the direct result of God’s will. We are the intentional creations of God, creatures with physical bodies but immortal, spiritual souls. He has endowed us with free will, allowing us to choose good or evil, to love or reject him.” --pg. 222

“Let there be no doubt about it: the God I am speaking of is the one who whispered to Moses from the burning bush, “I am He who am”.” – pg. 223

Some other quotes from Ken Miller, to help illustrate his position in the larger context:

“As Cardinal Schönborn quite properly points out, the Catholic Church is staunchly opposed to any view of life that would exclude the notion of Divine purpose and meaning. In the new century, as he puts it, the Church will “defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.” In response I would echo the words of the Catechism that scientific studies of “the age and development of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man . . . invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator.” Indeed they do.
…Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator’s plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities, a continuing creation in which the Divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.” – Cardinal Schonborn’s Mistake

“…the [International Theological Commission] writes that the argument between ID and evolution concerns “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.”
…The key insight, which sits at the very heart of Benedict’s thoughts on the matter, is that “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.” The point of the pope’s homily was not to take issue with evolution itself, but with the philosophical view that humans are nothing more than the * casual and meaningless products* of that process. …The authentic lesson to be stressed is that “divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided,” a process like evolution.” – Darwin’s Pope?

(…both of these articles can be found, along with several others, on Ken Miller’s website)

Claiming that God knew and willed an action means that the action was designed and directed by God. That is the foundation of ID theory, which you and Mr. Miller reject. When God plans something, he designs it for a purpose.

I don’t actually have any objection to what you’ve said right here. If that’s what you mean by ID, then I have no problems… and I think, based on the previous quotes, you can begin to see that Ken Miller doesn’t particularly have a problem with that either. That’s exactly the position of the Church, and that’s fine. What both myself and Ken Miller do have issues with is something like the version of ID as defined by Pandas and People: “Intelligent Design means that the various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact.” I would, as a Thomist philosopher, certainly grant the existence of purpose and design in nature… but it’s certainly not identical with the sort of “design” being for by Pandas and People.

You might say that his errors are easily corrected, but why would he fall into that kind of thing in the first place?

Keeping in mind the context of his other statements, I honestly do think that it’s simply a matter of an incomplete education in Catholic philosophy/theology. His philosophical exploration errs in a few instances on account of his ignorance. It’s just not quite his field of expertise, and it shows, despite the fact that (in my opinion) he honestly intends to keep his position in line with Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[edwest2]

Mankind was not inevitable? In Genesis, God states, Let us make man. I can’t think of anything more direct.

As a contributing author and editor, I cannot imagine for a moment not reading what my co-author(s) wrote, from the standpoint of consistency if nothing else.

Once again, the explanation seems to suggest that whatever evolution is it operates outside of God’s control. Scripture does not support this idea.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I don’t remember, unfortunately, where I can find the documentation to support this assertion, so at the moment I can only respond based on memory: The textbook in question was indeed written by both Ken Miller* and Joseph Levine*. Joseph Levine is the one who wrote that particular section, not Ken Miller. And when it was brought to Ken Miller’s attention that Mr. Levine had indeed published this passage, he immediately took action to ensure that the passage was removed and/or corrected in all subsequent editions. Hence the edition this quote was taken from is the first edition, from 1992 – and I am virtually certain that you will be able to find no such passage in any of the more recent editions of their textbook.

Unfortunately, Mr. Miller perjured himself in the Kitzmiller trial and claimed that the phrase “random and undirected” (meaning that God did not direct the process) was found in only the first edition – as you indicate here.
This site gives a fuller explantion.

Miller claims that only one edition of his textbooks had problematic language, stating “this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement”. This is also a false statement. If Miller has indeed published eleven versions of his textbooks, as he says, then there are materialistic descriptions of evolution in six of them:

INDENT “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991); emphasis in original)
(2)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 1993); emphasis in original)

(3)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995); emphasis in original)

(4)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (4th edition, Prentice Hall, 1998); emphasis in original)

Additionally, Miller’s textbook, Biology: Discovering Life contains language which is even more anti-religious than that of his elephant textbook, Biology. Consider the 5th and 6th instances below:

(5) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original)

To Miller’s credit, the latest editions of his textbook do not seem to contain such anti-theological language. But if Ken Miller has published 11 textbook versions, then it remains the case that more than half (6 / 11) of his textbooks have contained theologically charged language like evolution is “purposeless,” “heartless,” “required believing in philophical materialism,” “random,” “undirected,” or “works without either plan or purpose” because it is implied there is “no divine plan.”[/INDENT]

I realize that you may not accept this research since it comes from a Discovery.org related site, but it is compelling evidence as I see it.

Now, after reading that, and the quote from his book, I am expected to accept the following:

1. Miller only co-authored the textbook and didn’t realize that the quote was in there.
2. In court, when he claimed it was only in one edition, but it actually was in 6 subsequent editions – this is a minor detail of no significance.
3. Miller did not intend to lie in court, even though his “misstatement” helped his anti-ID campaign (for which he is an ardent attack-dog).
4. Miller doesn’t actually believe what was in 6 versions of the textbook – and repeated almost verbatim in his own private book.
5. The contradictions in Miller’s views, his philosophical and theological errors and confusion are of no importance when it comes to him being a spokesman for reconciling evolution and religion.

… continued

 

[reggieM]

continued from previous

Masterjedi747, I believe I understand your views. I certainly do not think you’re ignorant or trying to be deceitful. You’re seeking some way to validate or justify what Miller has stated – even though you don’t believe it yourself. Actually, I can understand that although I am completely and totally opposed to it. You’re a fan and you’re trying to uphold Miller’s reputation as a Catholic and as a teacher in this matter of science and faith. We probably all do that kind of thing to some extent.

For me, however, this is an extremely serious issue. The damage that Miller does with his foolish and ill-considered compromises with materialist-atheism is profound and widespread. Many souls are lost by such things – and a heavy price will be required as a result.

You’ve offered your points well and I can’t see any reason to fire back at you - because I think you know where I stand also and our views cannot be reconciled.

Actually, I consider what Miller is doing to be evil – the work of Satan – because he proclaims himself to be a Catholic and many will put their trust in him but will be lead astray.

I’m sorry to say it so dramatically, but I cannot defend that kind of compromise with the Faith that we received from Christ through His Church.

I do not mean that as a criticism against you personally. Actually, I think you are probably a very good Catholic and that’s what makes this even more confusing and troubling.

… one side note, yes, I think you should consider looking at ID in a new light. Pandas and People was written 20 years ago (1989). There have been 50 or more books on ID since then with a far more sophisticated and well-developed approach. If you like Miller’s book for its attempt to reconcile evolution and Faith (even with its errors), I cannot see why you would not like several recent ID books which do the same thing without compromising the fundamentals of Christian Faith.

Most ID theorists accept evolution (much more than I do), others don’t. There’s also some diversity of opinion about how Design can be found in nature and how it can be determined – and what ID means. ID theory can be applied both to the cosmos as well as to biology. So, again, it’s good to have a much broader view of the topic – so you’re not attacking an imaginary target.

For example, I though this was a good post – a very minimalist view of ID:

First important point: ID is often erroneously associated with a whole battery of religious and political commitments. As one scientist interviewed off camera laments: “If I write ‘intelligent design’ they hear ‘creationism’, they hear ‘religious right’, they hear ‘theocracy.’” This scientist is right. It is crucial to recognize that the term “ID” conjures up what is for many a distasteful array of images. This places ID at a huge disadvantage out of the gate: rather like trying to get elected in Utah under the banner of the Green party.

Second important point: ID is actually a very precise, relatively modest, and yet profound claim. It is summarized succinctly by Paul Nelson in another interview in the film: “Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation.” That’s it? Yep. The possibility of detecting design.

It is important that we grapple with the implications here. The age of the earth, the Noahic flood, even common descent … none of these other issues are at stake in ID. In other words, you could believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that there was no global flood and that human beings and chimps share a common ancestor, and you could also be an enthusiastic proponent of ID.

Note further that since the sole commitment in ID is to the detection of intelligent causation, you could be an atheist and an ID theorist; it matters not one whit to the theory whether that intelligence is divine.

The importance of this point cannot be overstated because once you realize that ID is a minimalistic claim which is unconnected to any explicitly religious doctrine, you can begin to see that ID might well belong in the science classroom (and even more importantly, in the science lab).

More at this blog

That is a pretty good definition:

**“Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation.” **

So, to claim that nature shows purpose through the function of natural laws (although I think this is absurd and impossible in the case of evolution, many do not) is simply the Design Argument in one version.

Actually, of the theistic evolutionists, Francis Collins at least does not distort the teaching on the nature of God. He believes that design can only be observed in nature in the matter of human morality, but that is basically an ID argument. He opposes ID though because he thinks evolution is responsible for everything else in nature, except for human morality. Again, I find this to be false and inconsistent (why does he sequester God’s action and observable design to only the origin and development of morality and not allow it to be discovered anywhere else?) – but at least he makes room for the supernatural aspect of man, the origin of the soul, and the fact that physical laws alone cannot explain human life.

This is something that Ken Miller is not willing to do – and thus, the serious problems I have with him.