Evidence for Design?

[reggieM]

U.S. Catholic Bishops Statement, October 2011 – God’s immediate intervention in nature in the direct creation of every human soul.

God does have quite a lot of involvement in biological nature after all.

Now why isn’t the existence of human consciousness also evidence for design???

RESPONSE TO OBSERVATIONS BY SR. ELIZABETH A. JOHNSON, C.S.J.,
REGARDING THE COMMITTEE ON DOCTRINE’S STATEMENT
ABOUT THE BOOK QUEST FOR THE LIVING GOD
Committee on Doctrine
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/upload/statement-quest-for-the-living-god-response-2011-10-11.pdf

Science could account for life, consciousness, and self-consciousness, however, only if these were wholly the result of the interplay of material forces. While an adherent of a materialist philosophy would readily agree that material factors account for all reality, this accords neither with Catholic teaching, nor with sound philosophical argumentation.

Although a scientific explanation of life in purely material terms already presents considerable difficulties that could be discussed, the crucial issue is that of self-consciousness. Simply put, human self-consciousness cannot be wholly explained as the result of material causes. The multiple neurons of the physical brain cannot account for the unitary self- consciousness of the human person. The functioning of the brain cannot of itself explain human acts of knowing and willing. This has been amply demonstrated by various philosophical arguments. There is therefore one stage in evolution that cannot be fully accounted for by scientific explanation, that of the appearance of self-conscious intelligence and free will.

Human beings necessarily come to be as part of the material universe. Bodily existence is an intrinsic part of human nature. Consequently, scientific investigation has a great deal to teach us about the human person and human society. At the same time, there is something about the human person that transcends material realities and that escapes the grasp of scientific investigation. There must be another, a non-material explanation for the existence of this aspect of the human person. There is a range of philosophical attempts to provide an explanation. The Catholic Church teaches that the human soul is not the result of material forces, such as the bodies of the parents, but is created immediately by God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is the rub - If one wants schools to teach children truth what truths do you exclude and why? Catholics know the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.

Sorry, but you hit one of my buttons. I have to split this response up into two posts and I am probably not giving you the answer you might expect. I’ll also go off-topic a bit; please excuse my venting. This is a very important topic to me.

Children *should *be taught truth and nothing else. But the responsibility for that teaching is not with the public school system but with the parents. Teachers really aren’t there to babysit or spoon-feed what the state has determined is necessary or to pass failing students from grade to grade so that they end up graduating from high school and still not knowing how to read (teachers know this yet this is the system they must work with).

IMO traditional school is worse than a waste of time. I hated it from first grade through my senior year in high school and so my solutions are perhaps different from those of others.

I went to Catholic school and learned important things - like french kissing is a mortal sin and that the black boys in Africa who never heard about Jesus went to limbo (the black girls were not even discussed). I was taught that I *had *to tell the priest exactly how many times I had committed each sin. I didn’t know what french kissing was but my little boyfriend and I thought kissing was yucky anyway so we didn’t do it and the time my sister was the “priest” and married the boy down the street to me we decided that we wouldn’t kiss each other as it was gross. So I felt safe about that (although curious). I ended up lying to the priest during Confession, making up sins and the numbers of times I had committed each one. It wasn’t all bad because now I had lied (and to a priest, no less) so I had a real sin to confess the next time (or was it covered in the Confession that I lied in?). No matter. It was a mess.

I know of a Catholic elementary school that is (relative to my old school) excellent. I hope all Catholic schools are excellent now. But my nieces were still taught things about Catholicism that are not true and they both opted for public school (and the IB program) when it was time to attend high school. Fortunately they had parents who made sure they knew the truth about their faith and they are both very faithful Catholics.

Shouldn’t the teachers in a Catholic school teach the truth about the Catholic Faith? I’m afraid they don’t. Shouldn’t the teachers in CCD programs teach the truth about the Catholic Faith? I’m afraid they don’t. They teach things like “the fish was ‘shared’ (said in a lovey-dovey, sing-song voice) between all those thousands of people and Jesus never provided more fish to all those hungry people. What was it? Five fish and some bread and it was shared among all those people and they were stuffed by the time they finished eating. Amazing! “Sharing” (said in a lovey-dovey, sing-song voice) is ‘good’ and that is the whole point of that whole event.” Bzzzzzp! Wrong!

I am very poorly catechized and I’m very afraid that young Catholics are still very poorly catechized. Many don’t even know that they receive the actual Body and Blood of Jesus when they receive Communion. They think it’s bread and wine and symbolizes Jesus. To be honest, I didn’t know it was the Body and Blood of Jesus either - not until I joined this forum!

Where I live we have home schooling and if I had been blessed enough to not have my one living child stolen from me (and he was) I would have used home schooling. His education would have been based on the Catholic faith. He would have also been taught every course required by the state and much, much more because he would have known from the beginning that he would be expected to graduate from college, hopefully with an M.D. or Ph.D.*

*Parents *are the ones who should teach their children about the Catholic Faith. Parents should know what that faith is and should not expect a public school full of children who are Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc. to provide Church teaching. Sending their children to a Catholic school which they have investigated and have found to teach real Catholic teaching is one way to correct the problem. Adding to and correcting the teaching provided in public schools is another way (and I suppose the false teachings presented in Catholic schools can be corrected in this way, too). CCD classes (with corrections) is a third way. Home schooling is a fourth way (and the best, IMHO).

Also, it is important for parents to show their faith even when they are not teaching in a structured, school-oriented way. We teach our children 24 hours a day. If we teach them truth in “school” and then treat them in a non-Christian way, we have failed as teachers.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

*I admit that’s *my * dream. I fully realize that the only important degree is “Saint” and there is nothing wrong with any job or career that is honest and worked at in an ethical, Christian way and that makes the worker feel fulfilled and happy (where would we be without people who collect garbage? I hate to even think about it! Besides, I live in a small town and I really like the guys who pick up the garbage - they are kind, good men). I would have made this clear to him and also pointed out the trap of “self-importance” (“I’m more important than the men who pick up garbage: I have an excellent education, I have control over people’s lives and I like that power and God must have more important plans for me than for people who resort to menial labor because that’s all they can do because of their limited intelligence; good for me!” - I still have the memory of two college students who sat on some steps at their college and decided this was at least partially true ). My Dad was a plumber and ashamed of his job, although I was always proud of him. But he took his shame out on his children and this resulted in a lot of confusion in us about the Church (why does Dad go to Mass on Sunday and then scream at us the rest of the day? He gave me the answer after he retired: It was because he knew that the next day was Monday and he would have to go back to being a plumber and he absolutely loathed his job). Out of his four children, two are now Catholic. Did he fail as a teacher? Yes; I’m so sorry to say so but he did. I wish he were still alive so that we could discuss the Church and how much more I understand now.

My parents shirked their responsibility to teach me and relied on a horrible Catholic school - a school they finally pulled me out of one day when I was in the seventh grade because I was being horribly bullied by both students and the principal (who was my seventh grade teacher). I was put in public school and I suppose I was sent to CCD but I have absolutely no memory of going. I didn’t understand my faith and what’s worse - I didn’t care. I ended up leaving the Church and I am still angry about what happened to my education. Now I am still poorly catechized, ask what many probably think are very stupid questions here on CAF (I don’t ask most of the questions I have here - I call a friend who will not attack me or laugh at me because of my ignorance; I am ashamed of being so poorly catechized).

 

[LittleSoldier]

So you would leave them at the mercy of the “Science explains how we exist” brigade… :bigyikes:

No. I would have them be taught science in a science class, French in a French class, and geometry in a geometry class. I do not believe that religion should be taught in any grade from kindergarten through twelfth grade unless the class is being taught in a religious school. There are too many problems. I can imagine what would happen once the ACLU became involved. How many millions of children would receive educations even worse than the ones they are receiving now as the lawsuits regarding religious instruction move slowly up to the Supreme Court?

When I was in high school I took chemistry (), physics (), and biology )). In biology we learned mostly about the structure of organisms. Nothing involving theories as to how things are the way they are was introduced in any science class I took unless I’ve just forgotten it (which is always a possiblity).

At the college level classes on comparative religions and specific religions are fine IMO, as is a class on ID (but if it does not fit the requirements that are necessary for science it should not be taught as a science class).

I have no problem with theories being presented as theories and good science instructors do this. Early on, as a biology/research psychology major I had it branded into my brain that science cannot and does not present facts. It is limited in that respect but is still productive and can help human beings.

I have no problem with ID being presented as a theory or with a class on ID on the college level - I would probably even take it! I’m not sure how it should be classified (philosophy? miscellaneous classes?) I also have no problem with a class on Creationism. College is so different from regular public school, at least in the US. Students have a certain amount of freedom when it comes to choosing classes. When I was in college I only had to pay $65 a quarter for unlimited units (unheard of today). Books were expensive, especially for science majors but nothing like they are now! But I was able to take numerous classes which had nothing to do with my major (poetry, geology, astronomy) and I learned so much in those classes. Just learning about different ways of thinking was an education in itself.

Now my niece has no room for a logic course. She can only take the classes that she is required to take and I find that a shame.

In the post preceding this one I said that parents should be the educators. I don’t know how it all got so mixed up - when did parents stop becoming responsible for their children’s education? So many send their children to public school and don’t even think about what they are being taught (like how wonderful ABC is and I actually heard of a class in which the children were being taught that masturbation is the way to go (I have no backup for this; even the person who told me, my Mom, is no longer alive - at least not on earth)).

The PARENTS are the ones who are responsible for the conception, fetal growth, birth, and fostering of their children. Until college, when the “children” should be mature enough to be able to process information in a somewhat-mature fashion, it’s the PARENTS who need to teach their children.

I wouldn’t have sent my son to a public school where I live. They are so bad they get failing marks every year and yet nothing is changed. They have no money for textbooks and ask the public for donations but they just put in a new ballfield. (I understand that the money for the ballfield may have come from a donation specifically meant for that purpose but c’mon! What is more important - a ballfield or textbooks?)

BTW, science does not explain how we exist. In science there are hypotheses and theories. And science is profoundly limited. We need philosophy and theology and probably more to understand how we exist (and why we exist and how we got to this point and what about God?).

 

[reggieM]

I am very poorly catechized and I’m very afraid that young Catholics are still very poorly catechized.

I fully agree. I know many young Catholics who have suffered with very bad education both from Catholic schools and CCD (and RCIA for converts). Many parents now are also victims of that “lovey dovey” approach that you mentioned so they have almost zero religious content in their thoughts – they can’t pass on the truths to their children.

Many don’t even know that they receive the actual Body and Blood of Jesus when they receive Communion. They think it’s bread and wine and symbolizes Jesus. To be honest, I didn’t know it was the Body and Blood of Jesus either - not until I joined this forum!

Again, I agree and also I’m very glad to know that you learned that beautiful truth, even though it came late. I am not at all surprised that a Catholic school student didn’t know that basic doctrine. Actually, I’m very surprised when I meet one who does know that (and many other basics). How did we arrive at this disasterous result? That’s another very good topic to explore elsewhere, but let’s just admit that a lot of work is needed, and we can be grateful for the many good remedies and good schools in place now.

*Parents *are the ones who should teach their children about the Catholic Faith.
Also, it is important for parents to show their faith even when they are not teaching in a structured, school-oriented way. We teach our children 24 hours a day. If we teach them truth in “school” and then treat them in a non-Christian way, we have failed as teachers.

That is very good.
It’s not just teaching words in a book. It has to be lived, in the family – integrated into the Catholic tradition and the joys of the Catholic way of life.
We’re shaping an identity for children, forming them with the knowledge of our loving God as their beginning and the goal of their life to the End.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I fully agree. I know many young Catholics who have suffered with very bad education both from Catholic schools and CCD (and RCIA for converts). Many parents now are also victims of that “lovey dovey” approach that you mentioned so they have almost zero religious content in their thoughts – they can’t pass on the truths to their children.-

My pain doctor attended RCIA, along with his wife. He is an intelligent person (I think one has to be to understand and practice anesthesiology) but he accepted what the RCIA teacher (a priest) told him. And that was a huge mistake as it resulted in his turning his back on the Church. What the priest told him was wrong. And my doctor didn’t bother to ask anyone else.

Again, I agree and also I’m very glad to know that you learned that beautiful truth, even though it came late. I am not at all surprised that a Catholic school student didn’t know that basic doctrine. Actually, I’m very surprised when I meet one who does know that (and many other basics). How did we arrive at this disasterous result? That’s another very good topic to explore elsewhere, but let’s just admit that a lot of work is needed, and we can be grateful for the many good remedies and good schools in place now.

Thank you! I am so happy that I have learned so much from CAF. I had never run across the term “The Real Presence” or the “Beatific Vision” before I joined. Now, even though I have to muddle through what some people mistakenly claim as Church teaching, I am asking and learning. I remember calling my friend in a panic because I had read that a sin against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven and I was sure I must have committed that sin sometime and my friend probably did all she could do to not laugh. She knew I was in despair. I really thought I had already been damned. When she explained what the sin was I was so relieved!

That is very good.
It’s not just teaching words in a book. It has to be lived, in the family – integrated into the Catholic tradition and the joys of the Catholic way of life.
We’re shaping an identity for children, forming them with the knowledge of our loving God as their beginning and the goal of their life to the End.

I think the Church should have some well-taught programs which explain true Church teaching to parents (or parents to-be, which would be even better). Maybe a retreat would be a good idea. Another retreat, perhaps required before a child could be baptised, could be used to show what you have described above. Parents need all the help they can get.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think that I have led the thread on a detour which could lead to it becoming off-topic. I apologize if this happens. I should start a new thread (I should be making a list of threads I should start).

Why is this thread so long, anyway?

 

[grannymh]

I see no material, natural, evidence for god.
My evidence for god is mental state of being.
I intuit the existence of god.
This is evidence to no one but this Being, and I have no problem with that.
Others have had a similar intuitive experiences, but always it is a personal experience.

Intuit is a good word for what I have found at the dawn of human history. The verbal myths of ancient peoples reflect a knowledge of something non-material. What is reflected in their stories is not the point. The point is that all cultures have a sense of something beyond the natural material environment, something supernatural. While personal in experience, the human ability to intuit the supernatural exists universally.

 

[grannymh]

That is truly awesome – in the best sense of that word.

Fibonacci sequences are found in diverse aspects of nature. Flowers, bee hives, nautilus shells … and also in spiral galaxies. Mathematical fine-tuning in biology?

“… if nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” – Pope Benedict XVI

Citation please.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Intuit is a good word for what I have found at the dawn of human history. The verbal myths of ancient peoples reflect a knowledge of something non-material. What is reflected in their stories is not the point. The point is that all cultures have a sense of something beyond the natural material environment, something supernatural. While personal in experience, the human ability to intuit the supernatural exists universally.

It seems to be true that all cultures, in some way or form, look to the heavens for guidance. We have the Roman and Greek gods, the Buddhist god, Allah, the gods of the Native Americans - and of course I AM WHO AM. It is part of Jung’s Collective Unconscious even though the forms those gods “and God” take may be that of evil beings or good beings (or both) and some societies had gods and demigods for every little thing and there was even a shrine to “the Unknown God” (I believe Paul turned that into a shrine for the true God.

There is definitely something there; like the taboos present in most societies we share an intuition of something eternal and divine which is responsible for natural phenomena and which shares itself with us in some form.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That suggests the Catholic Church is guilty of not always following the example of Jesus

Sarah x

The Catholic Church *always *follows the example of Jesus; it is her members that are guilty of sin. I know I’m a member of the Catholic Church but I do sin. Yet the Church provides the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is much more than a simple forgiveness of mortal and venial sin. The Sacrament also provides grace and strength to help us avoid the near occasions of sin and to follow Jesus’ teachings more closely.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that I have led the thread on a detour which could lead to it becoming off-topic. I apologize if this happens. I should start a new thread (I should be making a list of threads I should start).

Why is this thread so long, anyway?

I have pointed out that there is great interest in evidence for Design because it provides a rational basis for believing in God and following the example of Jesus, the thread has not been side-tracked or become unruly and it is so popular it has been viewed more than 23,000 times…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have pointed out that there is great interest in evidence for Design because it provides a rational basis for believing in God and following the example of Jesus, the thread has not been side-tracked or become unruly and it is so popular it has been viewed more than 23,000 times…

But it has a rating of only two stars - not very good at all. And most threads are shut down at the 1,000 post mark. I’ve never seen one go over 1,300 or so. This is definitely strange.

 

[razredge]

With philosophical implications.

Of course, just like heliocentrism had philosophical and theological implications

Hackneyed!

Hackneyed it may be but it’s still a valid objection. Why doesn’t God heal amputees - it’s not so hard, lizards for example have no difficulty regrowing limbs.

Why don’t you write an article presenting your sceptical views for a Catholic or Christian publication? I’m sure everyone would be deeply impressed by your lack of faith…

Oh of course, because any reasonable person would accept as fact, without second thought that resurrections occur even today.
And I have plenty of faith, really, if lacked faith wouldn’t I just become an atheist, it’d be far easier

 

[razredge]

It is blasphemy to suggest God does the absolute minimum to prevent and alleviate the suffering of His children…

Not if you think that this is the best of all possible worlds (or one of the best) and so God couldn’t have created any other world with less suffering (without comprimising on things like free will)

From the “evidence” one could just as easily conclude that there is no God. If we are to accept your assumption that God does the absolute minimum to prevent and alleviate the suffering of His children Christians will become the laughing stock of society…

Indeed, we have to rely on other evidence to believe in God.
And I think a person who believes that God is constantly intervening everywhere to prevent suffering despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is more likely to be ridiculed than one who believes God leaves the world to its own devices.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And I think a person who believes that God is constantly intervening everywhere to prevent suffering despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is more likely to be ridiculed than one who believes God leaves the world to its own devices.

Precisely.

 

[tonyrey]

It is blasphemy to suggest God does the absolute minimum

It is the best of all possible worlds precisely because God does intervene, prevent and alleviate suffering! There could be far more suffering than there is because the vast majority of living beings are not diseased, deformed or killed in a disaster. Leibnitz pointed out that there are far more houses than hospitals - to which we could add that much unnecessary suffering is cause by the human race…

… and so God couldn’t have created any other world with less suffering (without comprimising on things like free will)

I agree - precisely because God does intervene!

From the “evidence” one could just as easily conclude that there is no God. If we are to accept your assumption that God does the absolute minimum

to prevent and alleviate the suffering of His children Christians will become the laughing stock of society… Indeed, we have to rely on other evidence to believe in God.

1. What is the "other evidence?
2. Do you believe there is no or very little evidence of Design in the universe?
3. If there is what is that evidence?
4. If not why did God leave no evidence?

And I think a person who believes that God is constantly intervening everywhere to prevent suffering despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary is more likely to be ridiculed than one who believes God leaves the world to its own devices.

1. What is “all the evidence pointing to the contrary”?
2. Do you believe science explains every single event that occurs in the world?
3. Do you reject all the evidence for miracles - including all those recognised by the Church?
4. Why did Jesus tell His followers they would work miracles in His name?
5. Does the intercession of the saints in heaven count for nothing?
6. Why would God work miracles so rarely?
7. Would you never pray for a miracle if people you know are gravely ill?

 

[tonyrey]

Why doesn’t God heal amputees - it’s not so hard, lizards for example have no difficulty regrowing limbs.

1. It would be impossible for anyone to deny that miracles have occurred and that a benevolent Power exists.
2. It would defeat the purpose of creating us with the power to choose what to believe and how to live…
3. It would be far simpler to prevent people losing their limbs in the first place!

 

[tonyrey]

But it has a rating of only two stars - not very good at all. And most threads are shut down at the 1,000 post mark. I’ve never seen one go over 1,300 or so. This is definitely strange.

The rating is at odds with the thread’s popularity.

Do you wish to see the thread closed down? If so why?

 

[tonyrey]

No. I would have them be taught science in a science class, French in a French class, and geometry in a geometry class. I do not believe that religion should be taught in any grade from kindergarten through twelfth grade unless the class is being taught in a religious school. There are too many problems. I can imagine what would happen once the ACLU became involved. How many millions of children would receive educations even worse than the ones they are receiving now as the lawsuits regarding religious instruction move slowly up to the Supreme Court?

When I was in high school I took chemistry (), physics (), and biology )). In biology we learned mostly about the structure of organisms. Nothing involving theories as to how things are the way they are was introduced in any science class I took unless I’ve just forgotten it (which is always a possiblity).

At the college level classes on comparative religions and specific religions are fine IMO, as is a class on ID (but if it does not fit the requirements that are necessary for science it should not be taught as a science class).

I have no problem with theories being presented as theories and good science instructors do this. Early on, as a biology/research psychology major I had it branded into my brain that science cannot and does not present facts. It is limited in that respect but is still productive and can help human beings.

I have no problem with ID being presented as a theory or with a class on ID on the college level - I would probably even take it! I’m not sure how it should be classified (philosophy? miscellaneous classes?) I also have no problem with a class on Creationism. College is so different from regular public school, at least in the US. Students have a certain amount of freedom when it comes to choosing classes. When I was in college I only had to pay $65 a quarter for unlimited units (unheard of today). Books were expensive, especially for science majors but nothing like they are now! But I was able to take numerous classes which had nothing to do with my major (poetry, geology, astronomy) and I learned so much in those classes. Just learning about different ways of thinking was an education in itself.

Now my niece has no room for a logic course. She can only take the classes that she is required to take and I find that a shame.

In the post preceding this one I said that parents should be the educators. I don’t know how it all got so mixed up - when did parents stop becoming responsible for their children’s education? So many send their children to public school and don’t even think about what they are being taught (like how wonderful ABC is and I actually heard of a class in which the children were being taught that masturbation is the way to go (I have no backup for this; even the person who told me, my Mom, is no longer alive - at least not on earth)).

The PARENTS are the ones who are responsible for the conception, fetal growth, birth, and fostering of their children. Until college, when the “children” should be mature enough to be able to process information in a somewhat-mature fashion, it’s the PARENTS who need to teach their children.

I wouldn’t have sent my son to a public school where I live. They are so bad they get failing marks every year and yet nothing is changed. Theey have no money for textbooks and ask the public for donations but they just put in a new ballfield. (I understand that the money for the ballfield may have come from a donation specifically meant for that purpose but c’mon! What is more important - a ballfield or textbooks?)

BTW, science does not explain how we exist. In science there are hypotheses and theories. And science is profoundly limited. We need philosophy and theology and probably more to understand how we exist (and why we exist and how we got to this point and what about God?).

If you lived in the UK you would realise that the vast majority of parents have had little religious education and no longer belong to a church anyway. If school doesn’t fill the vacuum for children nothing will… That is why it is essential to counteract the propaganda of eminent scientists like Dawkins who abuse their academic position to preach that Design is a myth and that we exist purely by Chance…