Evolution and Original Sin

[reggieM]

…No. Ken Miller does not subscribe to “deistic evolution”. In fact, he spends at least an entire chapter of his book discussing the collapse of Deism, and agreeing with those whose faith requires the belief in a God who is active in the universe today…

I do not see where Ken Miller really addresses the problem that I posed. The “Deist God” doesn’t need to exist. All of the processes in the universe can be explained by accidental events. The Deist God is just “there” really doing nothing and affecting nothing. That’s the extreme view. I don’t think Ken Miller takes that view – but his is a moderate Deism. In other words, I have not see anywhere that Ken Miller says that the universe requires God, or that he has any evidence that God is active in the universe today. All things in nature and the universe are explained, in Ken Miller’s view, through natural processes alone.

One of his examples, in particular, still stands out in my mind: when two kids flip a coin for a piece of pizza, he claims that the coin flip is a truly chance event, but also that God (although He knows what the outcome will be) doesn’t actually determine the outcome of this chance event… and I have no idea what this means.

I don’t understand it either, but in fairness to Mr. Miller – it’s a difficult issue. I can’t see where he’s correct in thinking that kind of event is “uncaused” – or as Fr. Coyne would say, “something that God didn’t know about”. But he should have explained it as divine providence which governs and guides all things. The big problem, as we know, is human free-will. God does not cause us to sin, and does not plan us to sin. But sin is still part of God’s providence in mysterious, paradoxical way.

But those were about the only difficulties I ran into, and that said, I do think he manages to scrape by with enough to support his argument… just not much more

I can understand the confusion about chance.

What I can’t understand is how a Catholic could entirely deny the principles of Intelligent Design theory but still maintain that “God acts in the universe”.

I think we are required to believe that God acts in the universe and in nature – in ways that we can observe.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s a peer-reviewed, scientific publication written by a molecular biologist and a software engineer of The Biologic Institute, an Intelligent Design organization.

The publication discusses the invention of Stylus, a new computer-simulation program which will replace Avida – used to test evolutionary ideas with simulations.

Stylus contains far more complexity and realism than the older model - making it more useful for testing whether it is possible to go from simple building blocks of life to complex organisms without any guiding intelligence.

This underscores the scientific nature of Intelligent Design theory and shows how the theory can be tested in laboratory situations.

plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002246

 

[Camron]

I’m struggling to understand your view on this – and perhaps you’re struggling a bit to explain it also (I’m not sure).

Well, it wouldn’t be the first time that two people communicating over the internet had a hard time understanding each other. It also wouldn’t be the first time that I did a poor job explaining my position either.

Let’s backtrack for a moment on this.

With the above definition of the natural law, I believe it is saying that the natural law is part of “the rational plan” by which God governs the created “order”.

Yes. But don’t forget that that, according to Aquinas, the natural law is a “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.” And “the eternal law” is the supreme act of (practical) reason by which an omnipotent and omnibenevolent Creator freely orders the whole of His creation. Thus, the natural law is a part of the rational plan by which God providentially governs the created order.

As I see it, this is something that can be observed. The natural law that governs things – especially in human life – is a reflection of a supreme intelligence. This is understood through empirical evidence. That’s the classic teleological view. I’m not sure if you’re completely rejecting that.

I’m willing to listen. Again, what is it about nature that empirically verifies that God is the creator of everything? I really am willing to listen if you have anything to offer.

What kind of evidence in nature would not be subject to scientific analysis?

I think that spiritual interactions with the physical world would not be subject to scientific analysis. This doesn’t mean that we cannot see evidence that something spiritual manifested and left a signature, such as the interaction of the human soul within his (or her) own human body. But it does mean that the spiritual itself cannot be directly measured by the physical, except through the soul.

Well, you offered a great quote … but we should reflect on the first line of it:

Actually, don’t reflect on it too brightly lest you ruin the latent image.

This is the problem that I see with science, it’s simply too bright to properly develop the latent image of Christ that was impressed onto the creation from the beginning.

With the Incarnation, we now have an Icon of God – the man-God who is Christ. So, we have the “image” of the invisible God.

We may have also captured this image on the Shroud of Turin too. That’s my belief anyway.

But that’s a side point – more importantly, we can still say “yes, God is invisible”. But the standard ID argument is that “the works of God are visible”. In other words, we can see evidence of God in the works that he created.

For the record, we do see visible signs of God’s invisible grace all the time in the Sacraments which He provides. Are you saying that nature works on the same level as the Seven Sacraments?

 

[Camron]

The book, “Privileged Planet” explores this. The evidence it provides is the “privileged” nature of planet earth. It looks at all the amazing precision of earth’s place and condition in the universe, and how even a slight difference in a few aspects of the earth’s position would mean that life would never be able to survive on earth.

That’s one of many aspects that can be observed scientifically.

I agree with all of this. But does this empirically prove that God did this, that God is our creator? Or does it give a reasonable proposition to believe that God indeed controlled all of the creation to be orientated toward the arrival of humanity – and eventually, through humanity, the coming of Christ?

As Richard Dawkins says, “the universe appears as if it was designed”. This is something he discovered through observation.

Ok, so what about the universe appears designed? Is it the anthropological principle?

Again, I really don’t follow you here. I was probing your comment regarding what you see in creation. Perhaps you’re saying that the interpretation you give to creation and nature is not something that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. It’s an intuitive reflection – or as another poster said, it’s knowledge that comes in the interior life of a person only.

I also think that animals can see it too to a limited extent. But yes, this is what I think. I also think that creation’s purpose is only fully realized in the coming of Christ too. The evidence of God’s creation can only be perceived through a living soul that is open to God’s Spirit, even if only on a primal animalistic level. Nature cannot perceive this. Nature can only be perceived.

My concern with this is that it abstracts the interior life (or intuition) from the evidence that one can see in nature, or among other human beings. In my view, that makes religion like some kind of imagination or fantasy – divorced from reality and nature.

Well, that is what many hardened atheists think about our God—that our God is like some kind of imagination or fantasy – divorced from reality and nature. If we can ignore them and continue to believe that God is not a figment of our imagination, then why can’t we also ignore them when they claim the evidence we perceive of God’s hand in His creation is likewise a figment of our imagination?

Think about what you are claiming when you say that.

 

[Camron]

I don’t see that Darwinism has refuted the teleological argument (Paley’s Watchmaker) - that we can see the glory of God in nature. How can science describe this? First, by pointing out that Darwinism is a badly flawed method of understanding nature. Second, by indicating how “the universe appears as if it was designed” – by matching natural processes, laws and results two what we understand already as “designed things”.

I think that “Darwinism” really is a poor thing to use when attempting to explain human nature, especially human behavior. I think that the theory of evolution, while it may highlight something theologically important in the way God unraveled His creation, it is really only especially useful for explaining common descent with modification.

Going beyond this usually (but not always) leads to all sorts of grave errors in my opinion, such as Social Darwinism or Evolutionary Psychology. Even some arguments for Theistic Evolution fall into this category in my opinion, as noted already.

 

[Doug50]

Camron:“Quick question: Does the light of reason require faith?”

To answer that I’m going to quote Saint Augustine and the Catechism
pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience…

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm
35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026),

48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.

49 Without the Creator, the creature vanishes (GS 36). This is the reason why believers know that the love of Christ urges them to bring the light of the living God to those who do not know him or who reject him.

the short answer is “no” because the Light of Reason is what puts all of us in God’s image.

 

[Camron]

Here’s a peer-reviewed, scientific publication written by a molecular biologist and a software engineer of The Biologic Institute, an Intelligent Design organization.

The publication discusses the invention of Stylus, a new computer-simulation program which will replace Avida – used to test evolutionary ideas with simulations.

Stylus contains far more complexity and realism than the older model - making it more useful for testing whether it is possible to go from simple building blocks of life to complex organisms without any guiding intelligence.

This underscores the scientific nature of Intelligent Design theory and shows how the theory can be tested in laboratory situations.

plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002246

Now that is interesting. I will be reading this in more detail when I have a better chance to sit down.

Reggie, did you read this thread here? If so, what did you think of it? This is a detailed example of what I personally think science can infer regarding a “mind at work”.

As I mentioned in that thread somewhere, many scientists think our own mind is merely an illusion. Considering this information, it doesn’t surprised me that they consider the “mind” they perceive in creation is likewise an illusion.

 

[masterjedi747]

This portion of your post is actually very similar to my position. I would disagree only in the definition of “random.” If God wills something to be so, then it is so. It doesn’t happen accidentally, or without God’s foreknowledge…

Then I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement. I’m using “random” simply to refer to an outcome that is truly unpredictable (but not without a cause). And certainly, the “unpredictable” qualification applies only to creatures that exist in time… to an eternal and omniscient God, there’s nothing random about anything. I suppose you might say that “chance” is a phenomenon resulting from free will, and perceived only by beings that exist in time.

In other words, to us it appears random but to God it is not random at all.

What he said.

The Deist God is just “there” really doing nothing and affecting nothing. That’s the extreme view. I don’t think Ken Miller takes that view – but his is a moderate Deism. In other words, I have not see anywhere that Ken Miller says that the universe requires God, or that he has any evidence that God is active in the universe today. All things in nature and the universe are explained, in Ken Miller’s view, through natural processes alone.

I can’t argue much from the text, because I don’t have the book available to me right now… but I’m not so sure. Especially if he didn’t explicitly say that somewhere. Because in fact, the more that I’ve read and listened to him, the more I feel certain that he does not hold that sort of position. Remember also that the purpose of his book is simply to eliminate the conflict, and point toward the right resolution… but not necessarily to assert/argue much more beyond that.

Here’s some quotes from his interview here:

*“It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.”

“…I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends.”*

And this one was actually in his book:
“…in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.”

I don’t understand it either, but in fairness to Mr. Miller – it’s a difficult issue.

My thoughts exactly. I’m willing to forgive him, but I’m still going to argue.

What I can’t understand is how a Catholic could entirely deny the principles of Intelligent Design theory but still maintain that “God acts in the universe”.

I just went through this in another thread… you are aware that there are effectively two types of Intelligent Design, right? (see here) …I don’t think any Catholics are denying the first kind.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Stylus contains far more complexity and realism than the older model - making it more useful for testing whether it is possible to go from simple building blocks of life to complex organisms without any guiding intelligence.

This underscores the scientific nature of Intelligent Design theory and shows how the theory can be tested in laboratory situations.

I read the report. In fact, there’s no mention of design, or anything identifiable as ID. But it does use evolutionary theory. Apparently, there’s no verified results, so no testing yet, and of course, it’s based on evolution, not ID.

If they can get it to work, it will be useful. But that wouldn’t be the first time that an IDer actually did some creditable science. The real question is when they will do it with ID.

I like the idea of using only rule formation of new protein folds; but again, this is based on evolution, not design.

It’s intriguing, the use of Han characters to compare with protein folds, but there is a reason why they are consistent with the idea of conserved folds. Most Han characters are actually compounds of two or more simpler characters. Most often, there is a component with an idea, and then a second component which gives a hint about pronounciation. Some are quite complex. The symbol for “short” is composed of “arrow” (shorter than spear) “woman” (shorter than man) and “grain” (shorter than tree).

Logical, but not entirely mappable on protein sequences as a folding guide.

 

[reggieM]

*“It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.”

“…I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends.”*

And this one was actually in his book:
“…in nature, elusive and unexplored, we will find the Creator at work.”

Those are good quotes, but I don’t think they do seem like the “moderate Deism” that I mentioned. In other words, they don’t address the concern I have (stated previously):

“I have not seen anywhere that Ken Miller says that the universe requires God, or that he has any evidence that God is active in the universe today.”

In the quotes above, Ken Miller makes assertions that have no real foundation. He’s not providing an argument, but just making an assertion of his belief. This is similar to the Deist saying that “God is out there” somewhere – but there’s no evidence that God exists.

 

[reggieM]

I just went through this in another thread… you are aware that there are effectively two types of Intelligent Design, right? (see here) …I don’t think any Catholics are denying the first kind.

You *are *aware that if definition #2 is correct, then there are more than 2 kinds of Intelligent Design, right?

(I do not think definition #2 is correct – certainly, no ID theorists define ID that way.)

 

[masterjedi747]

In the quotes above, Ken Miller makes assertions that have no real foundation. He’s not providing an argument, but just making an assertion of his belief.

Right. But I guess I thought that was the point. He’s trying to argue that what he believes is not in contradiction with evolution, but he’s not at all going into why he believes what he does. When it comes to the philosophical aspects of his book, he is, as it were, playing defensive, not offensive. Whether or not he actually holds a “moderate deist” position, and doesn’t believe that an offensive argument for God’s involvement can be made, or if he is simply avoiding that question since it goes beyond what he set out to do… I don’t think we can really address that. But from what I’ve heard/read, I’m much inclined to think that it’s the latter.

You *are *aware that if definition #2 is correct, then there are more than 2 kinds of Intelligent Design, right?

…no, I’m not. Those two are the only ones that I’m aware of. Type 1 acknowledges the design/designer, and Type 2 takes it a step further by claiming that the design could not have been achieved through natural means (such as evolution).

(I do not think definition #2 is correct – certainly, no ID theorists define ID that way.)

Well, I didn’t think those were definitions, exactly… but maybe that’s irrelevant. It’s gonna depend on your response to the above, I guess.

 

[Camron]

Camron:“Quick question: Does the light of reason require faith?”

To answer that I’m going to quote Saint Augustine and the Catechism
pibburns.com/augustin.htm
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience…

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm
35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
47 The Church teaches that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty from his works, by the natural light of human reason (cf. Vatican Council I, can. 2 § 1: DS 3026),

48 We really can name God, starting from the manifold perfections of his creatures, which are likenesses of the infinitely perfect God, even if our limited language cannot exhaust the mystery.

49 Without the Creator, the creature vanishes (GS 36). This is the reason why believers know that the love of Christ urges them to bring the light of the living God to those who do not know him or who reject him.

the short answer is “no” because the Light of Reason is what puts all of us in God’s image.

Good answers.

 

[Camron]

In the quotes above, Ken Miller makes assertions that have no real foundation. He’s not providing an argument, but just making an assertion of his belief. This is similar to the Deist saying that “God is out there” somewhere – but there’s no evidence that God exists.

First of all, I think you have to read his book in context. I think he does address the concerns about falling into the errors of Deism very well. I too think that the later part of his book kind of falls apart (Francis Collin’s book seems to do the same I might add). But Miller’s defense of theistic evolution is very strong in my opinion.

Concerning Deism, the Deist position is actually similar to the Catholic Church’s definition in that Deists also believe that God can be perceived through clear reason by the things He has created. You won’t find a unified position on this matter from the Deist perspective though.

Where Deism departs gravely from the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is that the Deist denies the possibility of God performing True Miracles and they also reject Divine Revelation too. The idea that Jesus is God would also be scoffed at by most Deists, precisely because it goes directly against their uninvolved watchmaker philosophy which they have framed their concept of God into.

 

[Camron]

What he said.

I suppose it could be broken down into two basic categories (subject to revision):

1: Atheist : Randomness caused everything.

2: Theist: God caused the randomness to be created-- which He further used to create everything.

Based on the earliest parts of Genesis, I would go with #2, since it appears that God created everything from chaos. Keep in mind that even the chaos was created by God too. And He apparently created everything out of chaos too.

 

[ricmat]

I suppose it could be broken down into two basic categories (subject to revision):
1: Atheist : Randomness caused everything.

2: Theist: God caused the randomness to be created-- which He further used to create everything.Based on the earliest parts of Genesis, I would go with #2, since it appears that God created everything from chaos. Keep in mind that even the chaos was created by God too. And He apparently created everything out of chaos too.

Funny…when I read Genesis, what I see is chaos, until God steps in. Then He puts order in place.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Since God created all things, then chaos is also His creation. And by the late 70s, people began to realize that chaos worked according to some fixed rules and that order spontaneously arises from chaos.

I briefly encountered that fact, while doing some work on the Lotka-Volterra models for prey/predator relationships. Couldn’t get it to run smoothly. Then, Feigenbaum figured out why…



mathworld.wolfram.com/FeigenbaumConstant.html

The real miracle is creating a universe where a few simple rules generate everything else. And why not? Wouldn’t elegance be an attribute of creation by an omnipotent God?

 

[reggieM]

…no, I’m not. Those two are the only ones that I’m aware of. Type 1 acknowledges the design/designer, and Type 2 takes it a step further by claiming that the design could not have been achieved through natural means (such as evolution).

Type 2 as given above does not describe the support that ID gives for the teleological argument.

But in either case, ID does not accept that the design could have been achieved by natural means alone. It required a designer/creator.

The difference is that one Type 1, it is believed that there is no evidence of God’s work in nature – but there is an assertion that “God did something”.

In Type 2, it’s the teleological argument where it is believed that the work of God is evident in the things He created (the Privileged Planet, etc).

If there is an ID theory that just holds that evolution is not sufficient to explain nature, then that’s a Type 3 as I see it.

 

[edwest2]

Computers cannot program themselves, neither can cells.

Jesus Christ appearing as true God and True man was a significant intervention in natural processes. It is unknown exactly how many he healed and raised from the dead, returning them to the gene pool. As one scientist remarked: “Genetics and environment, what else is there?” Christ is the answer.

Appearances of the Blessed Virgin have also influenced lives, not to mention the miracles of saints. Every baptism, every commitment to Christ covers Original Sin in His blood.

The Original Sin committed by our first parents.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Type 2 as given above does not describe the support that ID gives for the teleological argument.

But in either case, ID does not accept that the design could have been achieved by natural means alone. It required a designer/creator.

The difference is that one Type 1, it is believed that there is no evidence of God’s work in nature – but there is an assertion that “God did something”.

In Type 2, it’s the teleological argument where it is believed that the work of God is evident in the things He created (the Privileged Planet, etc).

If there is an ID theory that just holds that evolution is not sufficient to explain nature, then that’s a Type 3 as I see it.

I think the current political hysteria over the Political version of ID/Stealth Creationism will give way to an information theory that will show that a device, even a relatively complex device, cannot program itself or create information, aside from a possible one-off copy/static duplicate.

By the way, if a clearly designed artifact were found on, say Mars, and no evidence of a designer were found, that would still not negate the existence of the object.

God bless,
Ed