Does Intelligent Design = Creationism?

[reggieM]

Ed - that is a great post. Thanks.

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.

That’s it. If the process was shaped by God’s involvement, then it cannot be correctly described by omitting God’s influence.

The argument to this is usually, “do we need to mention God in order to explain gravity”?

There are two obvious problems. The first one, indicates how seriously the materialist mindset has taken over. When thinking about the difference between biology (the study of living things) and evolution’s claims on the origin of human life (soul, consciousness, spiritual nature) – versus “gravity” (study of physical laws on matter) – the evolutionist cannot see any difference. This is the result of reductionism. The human being is like a pile of rocks – both caused by physical forces alone.
The other argument is “God was involved in everything, so there’s no need to mention Him.”
But this destroys any notion of design, and refutes Darwin’s interest in getting rid of teleology. If God directs every natural process – then God is rolling the rocks down the hill and placing them in position in a pile – and He does it for a precise reason that we might be able to determine.

That is really the ultimate ID theory. It says that “everything is designed” and we can prove it merely by looking at anything in nature. This refutes natural selection also, since God is selecting characteristics and causing mutations to happen – for a pre-determined purpose.

That is not a totally bad concept but it actually ruins science since everything in nature is planned by God. Thus, a sickness is planned and shouldn’t be cured.

But Catholic thinking is based on “natural reason” (another phrase for “common sense”).

The Design Argument is based on that. Some things can be seen as designed. Other things are the results of random, unintelligent, unplanned natural laws.

The natural laws alone do not produce life, do not produce the supernatural aspect of man, do not produce complex specified information and cannot explain the miracles of God, and especially the incarnation and redemption by His Son through dying and rising again.

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]

Mankind was not inevitable? In Genesis, God states, Let us make man.

God did not have to create man, but He chose to do so, was my point.

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.
…
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 philosophical materialism,” “random,” “undirected,” or “works without either plan or purpose” because it is implied there is “no divine plan.”

I have no strong reason to doubt your source on this issue, so I’ll grant it. But I still don’t think the stronger language accurately represents his position on the matter, based on everything that I’ve read coming from him.

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.

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 sure you’re expecting me to disagree on this, and I do.
In fact, I tend to see it quite the opposite, based upon all of the books, articles, interviews and lectures that I’ve seen coming from him. So while I grant that he expresses his position in much looser terms than he ought to, and I think it’s because he lacks a certain understanding of the deeper philosophical issues involved, I still believe that the points he’s driving at are fundamentally correct. And the fact that he so clearly supports statements coming from both the Catechism and from Rome regarding this matter says a whole lot to me about the core of his position.

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…

…mostly because there are other issues involved. Take your example, for example:
"Paul Nelson:

For example – a very minimalist view of ID:
“Intelligent design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation.” That’s it? Yep. The possibility of detecting design.

See, I think design is a question for natural philosophy, not natural science. So the moment someone starts saying that design should be “scientifically detectable”, I have a problem. As a Thomistic philosopher, the design that I see in nature is self-evident… I don’t need it to be “scientifically detectable” in order to know that it’s there. And if in fact design is not scientifically detectable, nothing changes. I don’t even understand why you would want design to be scientifically detectable, unless perhaps you’re trying to argue for something along the lines of irreducible complexity… and thus begins the inevitable spiral from the “minimalist” position outlined above to the much bigger forms of ID that I have a host of other issues with. I very much prefer to stick with the Thomistic account of ID, which is both supported by the Church and not even potentially opposed to anything that modern science might have to tell us about creation.

…at least [Francis Collins] 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

Wait… why?
So when he lists the second core belief of Christianity on page 222:
“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.”
…you think he actually disagrees with that in the end? Because I certainly don’t. I think he definitely does “make room for the supernatural aspect of man”, and in fact is fully aware that he is obligated to do so as a Catholic.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t see your first point. God did not just set everything in motion and while it was running, by itself apparently, He said, “You know, I think I’ll just throw man into the mix.” That’s not supported by Scripture.

Second. Ken Miller is doing a lousy job. As a professional editor myself, and contributing author, I do not let a book go to press without at least one more editor looking it over. The large publishing houses in New York usually have four editors to a book, and depending on the subject matter, it’s not uncommon to have one or more other scholars look it over before publication. The Bible tells us that our Christian teachers will be held to a higher standard than those who do not teach. That is why things need to spelled out and not made vague in any way.

That is why I post so often regarding this subject. Vagueness. Especially regarding the Catholic viewpoint.

A) Too often, I read, The Church has no problem with evolution. Pope John Paul II said…

What did he say? Just something good about evolution? Did he not mention certain fixed points? Those fixed points are facts concerning the origin and dignity of the human person as being willed by God. But, of course, mention religion and odds are the other poster calls that irrelevant.

B) Intelligent Design. The power and the fury of the responses. It’s religion. Remember Dover! Keep it out of our schools!!! It’s not science.

It’s just as much science as any archaeologist digging in the ground finding a fragment, and declaring it a dried piece of clay, or a rock or a piece of ancient pottery. Archaeologists do this all the time. But, the secular world understands only mathematical style arguments. For example, an argument is presented to change someone’s opinion. But “opinion” is the wrong word. Something is either true or it is not. An opinion very often revolves around something you ‘think’ might be true or false without doing any real, in depth research.

Intelligent Design is science. The complex nano-machinery in the cell did not invent itself. DNA and RNA did not write itself. And organisms do not upgrade themselves on the fly without some existing, built-in capacity to do so, such as in bacteria and viruses.

The Church will not accept an argument for any theory of evolution that explicity does not include God as a direct, causal agent (See Communion and Stewardship, available online.)

So what are we left with?

We have Science, over here. Also called evolution. According to the Biology textbook, it runs entirely on its own; an engine fueled by random mutations that blindly selects organisms that happen to be in the right environment at the right time. Even Ken Miller agrees with the Stephen Jay Gould idea that if we could rewind the process, things will turn out differently because the mix of variables would be different. No need for any supernatural agent to tweak the process at all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

I’m sure you’re expecting me to disagree on this, and I do. In fact, I tend to see it quite the opposite, based upon all of the books, articles, interviews and lectures that I’ve seen coming from him. So while I grant that he expresses his position in much looser terms than he ought to, and I think it’s because he lacks a certain understanding of the deeper philosophical issues involved, I still believe that the points he’s driving at are fundamentally correct.

I made a very strong statement as a means of a summary. I look at the facts given and draw a conclusion. You look at those, and perhaps other facts, and draw a different - mostly opposite conclusion. I thought I backed up my view with some supporting texts well enough. You’re seeing it differently - and I can’t argue it beyond that point.
In other words, on the basis of what I’ve seen, I could not trust Ken Miller’s writings.
His work has been recommended to me by at least 4 Catholics here on CAF in these evolutionary discussions in the past. At the very least, I would just say that I don’t consider him to be a good source, for reasons given. Other than that, yes I know you disagree with that. I wasn’t trying to prove it or be convincing, but just to make a statement about my view.

See, I think design is a question for natural philosophy, not natural science. So the moment someone starts saying that design should be “scientifically detectable”, I have a problem. As a Thomistic philosopher, the design that I see in nature is self-evident… I don’t need it to be “scientifically detectable” in order to know that it’s there.

The design that you observe is self-evident. That is good – and that’s the perennial Catholic position. We can correctly understand nature and even God’s work through human intuition (or “natural reason”) which is like common sense.
But that the same time, this does not exclude science from the picture.
If you can observe and detect design – then why is it impossible to scientifically test for it? We’re not talking about a supernatural presence, but the design that you can actually perceive with your senses. You may not “need” it to be evaluated by science, but why oppose the effort to look into it? It’s merely a scientific effort to define what is meant by “design” – something that exists in the real world, and then apply that definition to nature.
The Holy See does this all the time with regard to evaluating miracles.
If something cannot be explained by natural occurences – then the conclusion that a miracle occured is the most reasonable. Science contributes to that.
In the same way, if something is so improbable that physical laws alone could not produce it – then we see evidence of design (planned for a purpose).

And if in fact design is not scientifically detectable, nothing changes.

If design is humanly detectable through our senses and reason – then it’s part of the empirical world of sensory data. It can be measured and studied scientifically. There may be some designs that we recognize intuitively which we struggle to define scientifically – but in theory, it can be evaluated through scientific means.

I don’t even understand why you would want design to be scientifically detectable, unless perhaps you’re trying to argue for something along the lines of irreducible complexity…

Even atheist astronomers recognize that the fine-tuning and cosmological coincidences showing symmetry, mathematical precision and tightly-balanced relationships cannot be the product of mere chance alone. Thus, they propose the multiverse idea to “explain” these coincidences and fine-tuning. This is scientifically detectable and provable evidence of design – something that corresponds perfectly to mathematical formulae and, if off by a tiny percentage, would not permit the earth to support life (or even the earth to exist).

I very much prefer to stick with the Thomistic account of ID, which is both supported by the Church and not even potentially opposed to anything that modern science might have to tell us about creation.

The Thomistic account of idea recognizes order and purpose in nature. Notice Peter Kreeft’s definition of the Design Argument where he uses the order and purpose found in the human body (organs accomplish their tasks in an organized fashion to achieve a purpose) and in the cycles of nature (bees polinate plants so plants bear fruit which feed small animals which feed larger animals which die and decompose to feed worms which aerate the soul so plants can grow and be polinated by bees, etc.)

 

[reggieM]

“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.”
…you think he actually disagrees with that in the end? Because I certainly don’t. I think he definitely does “make room for the supernatural aspect of man”, and in fact is fully aware that he is obligated to do so as a Catholic.

It’s clearly a contradiction with what he said before. For reasons given, I do not think he is an honest person. I already concluded that he lied in his court testimony. Some will say that he “forgot” that he had several editions of his textbook with materialist language. Or perhaps he “didn’t know” the text was there.
Given the direct contradiction which I see in the text you just posted, in his own personal book – I conclude that he has either deceived himself or he’s trying to get away with something.

I accept and understand that you disagree. You dismiss his materialistic-philosophical statement where he stated explicitly that God did not plan for human life.

I can’t and I don’t want to fight with you on this issue, masterjedi747. Our views are totally irreconcilable.

I have to trust that you have good reasons for holding your views. I don’t know what those reasons are, and I don’t want to guess or judge you on them. As I see it, you’re reconciling Miller’s contradiction by downplaying the one side and amplifying the other side.

At least you do accept that there are two conflicting sides in his own mind (or in his book anyway). You say that he is weak in philosophy and that explains it well enough for you.

For me – I don’t accept that. I don’t like a Catholic who will (as it appears to me), play games like that and give contradictory information without admitting it. That is not straightforward and honest as I see it.

But in the end, I guess that’s about all I can say about Ken Miller.

 

[reggieM]

We have Science, over here. Also called evolution. According to the Biology textbook, it runs entirely on its own; an engine fueled by random mutations that blindly selects organisms that happen to be in the right environment at the right time. Even Ken Miller agrees with the Stephen Jay Gould idea that if we could rewind the process, things will turn out differently because the mix of variables would be different. No need for any supernatural agent to tweak the process at all.

That is right. Ken Miller explicitly stated that nature would produce a different result if the process was started again. This means that his “god” did not have the purpose and intention of creating man but was subordinate to nature. What that means is that nature was in control - not his god. Nature made things happen and this god had to watch on the sidelines to see what would result. This is a radically different god because nature would have power over this “god”. If Miller’s god had actually wanted man to be created, nature could have thwarted his god’s desire and not produce human beings.

Additionally, since supposedly, “evolution is not random” (which is another contradictory point of evolutionary theory) – then when evolution started, human beings would necessarily result (thus refuting Gould).

If this “god” didn’t want human beings, there would be nothing that could be done because nature would produce them whether this god wanted them or not.

This is illogical and goes against the most basic Catholic teaching on the nature of God also. Although, we don’t need revelation to know that God must be more powerful than nature and can direct nature by His Will.

 

[masterjedi747]

If you can observe and detect design – then why is it impossible to scientifically test for it?

The Holy See does this all the time with regard to evaluating miracles.

Right… I don’t think it’s impossible. I’m just (1) not convinced that it has successfully been done, and (2) absolutely unaffected by the results of such a test. It’s an interesting side question, but it’s not the area that we really need to be defending. If some of the scientific tests were to actually come back negative, then I would say fine, and simply carry on defending the more fundamental position of St. Thomas, which does not require that anything be “improbable according to physical laws” in order to have been created for a purpose.

Ken Miller explicitly stated that nature would produce a different result if the process was started again.

And for what it’s worth, I wholeheartedly agree that all of the deeper errors you listed can naturally be drawn from the flawed position that Ken Miller puts forward as his suggested solution. My only response (final recap) is that I think the philosophical reasoning he used to reach this exact position very much illustrates his lack of education in the matter, for precisely the reasons you gave. He fails to see that he can’t actually have it both ways, and so ends up speculating himself into an unnecessary contradiction that (in my opinion) he isn’t aware of… further evidenced (again, in my opinion) by the fact that he is perfectly willing in his other articles to defer to the authority of the Catechism and the Church with regard to philosophical and theological matters.

 

[masterjedi747]

I don’t see your first point.

My first point was simply this: God was not obligated to create the universe, nor was He obligated to create man. Creation is something that God chooses to do, not something that He must do.

God did not just set everything in motion and while it was running, by itself apparently, He said, “You know, I think I’ll just throw man into the mix.” That’s not supported by Scripture.

First of all, there’s big problems involved with suggesting that God could have “set everything in motion and let it run by itself”… but I’m sure you’re fully aware of that, so I don’t think we need to dwell on that fact.

Second of all, you do have to admit that “Let us make man in our own Image” doesn’t happen until the 6th day… so I don’t think it’s perfectly safe to assume that there *isn’t *some level of truth to the kind of scenario that you described above. No, there was certainly no shadow of ignorance in God’s mind regarding the “future” of His creation “before” He created it. Neither can we say that He didn’t plan every single detail out “before” creation began. But we can still understand that God was not obligated to create this universe in this way. He could have simply “finished” creation on the fifth day, and left man wholly out of the picture, if (contrary to fact) He had chosen to do so.

Allow me to rephrase it in another way, hopefully clearer: Insofar as God eternally perceives His creation to be a completed whole, the future is fully foreknown and predetermined with respect to His divine intellect. However, insofar as men perceive God’s creation to being carried out and brought to fulfillment in time, we see the future of creation to be fully dependent upon what God freely chooses to do in the future.

…

There are many, many other things that I would like to say about the rest of your post, Ed, but I’m not going to do so right now. In truth, I almost agree with nearly half of what you’re saying, and yet I strongly disagree with the other half of your position… so my response to you would have to reflect that level of complexity, and I honestly don’t think it’s worth taking the time right now to critique your position in such meticulous detail.

Suffice it to say that the Church, following in the philosophical tradition of Saint Thomas, has absolutely no problem saying both that “God is a direct, causal agent of evolution”, and that “evolution is a purely natural process”. These statements, properly understood, are not opposed, and claiming one does not rule out the other.

 

[edwest2]

My first point was simply this: God was not obligated to create the universe, nor was He obligated to create man. Creation is something that God chooses to do, not something that He must do.

First of all, there’s big problems involved with suggesting that God could have “set everything in motion and let it run by itself”… but I’m sure you’re fully aware of that, so I don’t think we need to dwell on that fact.

Second of all, you do have to admit that “Let us make man in our own Image” doesn’t happen until the 6th day… so I don’t think it’s perfectly safe to assume that there *isn’t *some level of truth to the kind of scenario that you described above. No, there was certainly no shadow of ignorance in God’s mind regarding the “future” of His creation “before” He created it. Neither can we say that He didn’t plan every single detail out “before” creation began. But we can still understand that God was not obligated to create this universe in this way. He could have simply “finished” creation on the fifth day, and left man wholly out of the picture, if (contrary to fact) He had chosen to do so.

Allow me to rephrase it in another way, hopefully clearer: Insofar as God eternally perceives His creation to be a completed whole, the future is fully foreknown and predetermined with respect to His divine intellect. However, insofar as men perceive God’s creation to being carried out and brought to fulfillment in time, we see the future of creation to be fully dependent upon what God freely chooses to do in the future.

…

There are many, many other things that I would like to say about the rest of your post, Ed, but I’m not going to do so right now. In truth, I almost agree with nearly half of what you’re saying, and yet I strongly disagree with the other half of your position… so my response to you would have to reflect that level of complexity, and I honestly don’t think it’s worth taking the time right now to critique your position in such meticulous detail.

Suffice it to say that the Church, following in the philosophical tradition of Saint Thomas, has absolutely no problem saying both that “God is a direct, causal agent of evolution”, and that “evolution is a purely natural process”. These statements, properly understood, are not opposed, and claiming one does not rule out the other.

The Biology textbook shows the average young mind a process that is complete in itself, and from those concepts flows all of the errors that the Catholic Church is addressing. It does, however, perfectly serve the non-theist who relies on the idea that a self starting and self generating natural (non-God) force created him or her. That is why we see “Man created God” on the sides of buses today. Evolutionary psychology tells people that our self upgrading genes gave us the idea of a god or gods until we became smart enough to throw that idea away. And God forbid should this continue without being challenged by the witness of the faithful.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Right… I don’t think it’s impossible. I’m just (1) not convinced that it has successfully been done, and (2) absolutely unaffected by the results of such a test. It’s an interesting side question, but it’s not the area that we really need to be defending. If some of the scientific tests were to actually come back negative, then I would say fine, and simply carry on defending the more fundamental position of St. Thomas, which does not require that anything be “improbable according to physical laws” in order to have been created for a purpose.

I thought this was a very good reply, thanks. I think your logic and reasoning are good, as I see it. I only disagree that you would be totally unaffected by what science finds. But also, it’s a bit of a risk that we have to take – but we have to say that science cannot possibly explain all of the origin and development of nature. In other words, intelligent design (God’s power for those who believe) is present in nature and it has been seen by many people – even including some atheists like Fred Hoyle.

So, there are “gaps” – and God does fill them, and always will. The Resurrection is one of those gaps. If science ever filled it, then our Catholic Faith would be ruined (St. Paul said that).

I think it’s also dangerous to take a “materialism of the gaps” approach also. That would mean that we would have to believe it is possible, in theory, for science to explain everything about the development of nature.

In any case, it sounds like you’re open to the concepts of ID theory – and I think that puts you closer to my views than I originally thought you were.

Thanks for an excellent discussion on this issue.

 

[wasmit]

Do you think ID is basically a rebranding of creationism?

Yes