This is where we part company big-time. ID, by asserting that natural selection happens naturally without God, says I’m only allowed to see God’s design in things which are (for the unimaginative and the mathematically challenged) very complex. ID thus says God has nothing to do with 99.99999999% of the universe where it says things develop naturally.
There are some issues with what you said.
- “by asserting that natural selection happens naturally without God” – but this is the most common claim of mainstream evolution.
Miller & Levine’s
Biology: The Living Science: “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.”
Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes: “Darwin’s brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the** purposeless, merciless process of natural selection**, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the
illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike “perfection” of honeybees’ combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a
product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.”
Evolution, by Douglas J. Futuyma: [Darwin’s] alternative to intelligent design was design by the
completely mindless process of natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree. This process cannot have a goal, any more than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the present. Thus the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior. (p. 282)
Biologist Jerry Coyne: “this is what I teach—that
natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.”
- “says I’m only allowed to see God’s design in things which are (for the unimaginative and the mathematically challenged) very complex.”
It nowhere says that. In the same way, St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument requires that one can observe an ordered process from a non-ordered. Or a process that works towards and end from one that does not.
- “ID thus says God has nothing to do with 99.99999999% of the universe where it says things develop naturally.”
It’s an interesting opinion, but completely unsupported by fact. ID does not say that.
).
. From post #876, ID says sex is so amazingly wonderful and complex that it must have been specially created (even though sex occurs in many species including plants), while no doubt for other reasons the gonorrhea bacterium is so simple that it developed naturally all by itself. Just go through the logic of ID and you’ll see sticking plasters and sealing wax all over the place, and more added every day.
There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not a heresy. It’s not “unCatholic”. In fact, it’s a positive bit of evidence.
