God created man in His image and likeness. So God had a vision of what His creation would look like. So did He just wait until random mutations turned up man? Or is design part of the His plan?Buffalo originally said:
And Barbarian responded:
It is interesting that the quote you selected above by Cardinal Ratzinger comes from St. Thomas’ Aquinas’ 3rd proof for the existence of God, the argument from “necessity or contingency.”
However, as a proof that ID is incorrect (that design is NOT part of God’s plan), it is definitely the wrong quote to use. As I’m sure you know, Aquinas’ 5th proof for the existence of God is the “Argument from Design” part of which I quote below from “50 Questions on the Natural Law” by C. Rice.
Aquinas says, speaking of natural bodies “Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence.”
Just a bit of background. The ID movement is very broad. It includes some nuts, just as traditional biology, or physics includes some nuts. It includes some creationists, even though ID, which accepts the age of the universe as e.g. 14 billion years is directly contrary to YEC.My only caution against the ID movement is that many seem to be claiming that they have scientific proof that God stepped in at certain points in history to change things. One can call it fixing things or one can call it beautifying things, the second option of which I am personally sympathetic too.
Only if they put Science above faith.But if someone claims that they have scientific proof that God did something, and this turns out to be false, then people’s faiths can be damaged.
The most adamant people I’ve seen on these forums who insist that God must have done it “their way” are the evolutionists, not the ID folks. ID accepts most of evolution, but “most” isn’t good enough for the hard core evolutionists. ALL MUST BE BELIEVED. I’ve already said many times that “in the end”, when we know all, nothing will surprise of disappoint me. And in the meantime, I’m open to evidence of all flavors. On the other hand, some evolutionists insist that design is not worth looking for since they already know it doesn’t exist. Is THAT the scientific method?But to those whose faith is indeed dependent on God “acting a certain way”, their faith in God can be deeply damaged, sometimes beyond repair.
Yes, your basic premise was incorrect - I agree with you on this. I’ve stated many times that I believe in evolution (without intervention) doing “most of the work”, with God’s interactions being limited just to speed things up at certain points.Evolution, on the other hand, doesn’t actually claim that God did it. People who believe that God used evolution to do it (like me) are the ones who are claiming that God did it. The ToE simply attempts to measure what happened. And to the extent that more evidence is found in favor of evolution, this doesn’t necessarily change our view of God’s actions.
Do you see the difference?
As I said, there are probably people who call themselves IDers who claim this. And their are evolutionists who claim that evolution proves that God does not exist. I’ve looked at the DI web site and have found nothing stating that “scientific proof of God’s existence” is their goal, although some might look at the evidence and make that leap of faith.ID makes specific claims about how God (or some intelligence) acted in order to offer it as a proof for God’s existence. But, if the proof is later found to be incorrect, then the proof then becomes invalid.
Apparently it’s not open enough to admit that “design in nature” is worth looking for. Or that God might have left evidence of his plan that we can determine with human reason.TE, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach. It doesn’t necessarily claim that God specifically did something (for the most part anyway). It only measures what can be scientifically verified and then attributes this to God. Since it doesn’t necessarily make specific claims about God, a lot of room is left open to how things happened.
What proof of God’s existence?In the case of ID, if the evidence is invalided, so is the supposed proof for God’s existence. I am not joking when I honestly say the argument goes no further than this
As I’ve said already, only those who put Science above faith are at risk.In the case of TE, if the evidence is invalided, the proof for God is not invalidated. In this sense, the evidence for evolution can be increased and modified and expanded as more evidence becomes available (just as science is supposed to work). And this only adds to the majesty of God’s providence as we learn more and more about how complex God’s actions are without actually nullifying a proof for God’s existence in the process.
I need to point out to my fellow Catholics that your primary purpose here is to promote ideology, not facts. As Pope Benedict has said, the theory of evolution excludes areas of reason we still need. Divine revelation is real, factual information even if it appears to exist outside the most holy science. It is clear that an evolutionary process that does not include divine providence simply cannot exist. (From Human Persons Created in the Image of God, part 69.)Yeah, I know, the old bait-and-switch. “Oh, we see “design” in nature.” Then when it’s pointed out that there is no design to be found, it’s “well, we just mean that God intended things to work out as they did.”
Which is perfectly consistent with contingency and evolution, as the Pope says.
When even probabilistic processes can be labeled “design”, what can’t be labeled design, if God it the creator? And it it merely means “intent”, what then do we make of the discovery by engineers, that evolution works better than design for complex processes?
Ed, if you feel you have to tell other people that you aren’t the one trying to promote an ideology, that should be a tip-off for you. It’s a tip-off for everyone else.I need to point out to my fellow Catholics that your primary purpose here is to promote ideology, not facts.
Which is why science is for understanding nature, and faith is for understanding God. This, for some reason annoys you.As Pope Benedict has said, the theory of evolution excludes areas of reason we still need.
People here have been trying to tell you that. I’m glad you came around, but remember, science isn’t about the supernatural.Divine revelation is real, factual information even if it appears to exist outside the most holy science.
Fortunately, science doesn’t deny divine providence. It’s why the Pope says that common descent is virtually certain; nothing in evolutionary theory is contrary to Cathlolic belief.It is clear that an evolutionary process that does not include divine providence simply cannot exist.
Yes. That is why science alone cannot give you the entire picture.Since God is the “rationality” behind Creation, He must, according to Catholic teaching, be included in the process.
As the Pope says, contingency works for God just as well as anything else. This is where you oppose the magisterium of the Church.This is a Catholic Forum not a Darwinists’ Forum or a Secular Humanists’ Forum where ideas that all the life we see around us was just randomly mutated and naturally selected into place.
Some of your fellows have explained that they don’t mean “design” in the strict sense, but rather in terms of intent. There is nothing wrong with that. Only when you get into the ID doctrines of the Unification Church and the Discovery Institute does it conflict with Catholic belief.Computers cannot program themselves and neither can cells. Pope John Paul II spoke explicitly about Design In Nature.
That should be the primary concern of Catholics, not political manipulations.Meanwhile, the Pope of the Catholic Church was compelled to write a book because many scientists are using evolutionary theory to negate the role of God.
You keep saying this, but have yet to support it. You claim that “The Pope wrote a book because many scientists use evolution to negate a role for God in Creation.” However, this description is not accurate for any book that I am aware of. The closest candidate is this book that came out last month. Unfortunately for your claims, it is not a book written by the pope, it was not written for the purpose you claim, but is simply the proceedings from a regular conference with his former students that had evolution as its topic. If you are referring to another book, than tell us which one you are referring to.You are promoting false teaching. The Pope wrote a book because many scientists use evolution to negate a role for God in Creation. That is a fact. It is a fact that is against the teaching of the Catholic Church which tells all Catholics, no God, no evolution.
God probably followed “wait and see” just like parents who refuse to genetically engineer their child to certain specifications for hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, etc, but who wait patiently to see what comes out. That’s what we did, and we’ve thrilled with our children.God created man in His image and likeness. So God had a vision of what His creation would look like. So did He just wait until random mutations turned up man? Or is design part of the His plan?So what is the answer to the question? No vision, no design - wait and see or Vision and design?
What you say above sounds like what Cardinal Schoenborn condemned in Chance or Purpose - Page 169.God probably followed “wait and see” just like parents who refuse to genetically engineer their child to certain specifications for hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, etc, but who wait patiently to see what comes out. That’s what we did, and we’ve thrilled with our children.
There’s a big difference between God foreknowing the path evolution will take on a planet, and engineering it.“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…” .
And I responded:“God probably followed “wait and see” just like parents who refuse to genetically engineer their child to certain specifications for hair and eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, etc, but who wait patiently to see what comes out. That’s what we did, and we’ve thrilled with our children.”
What you say above sounds like what Cardinal Schoenborn condemned in Chance or Purpose - Page 169.
“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”
Since the question doesn’t involve the free-will of mankind or the angels, it involves only the will of God. So I’d say that God knowing the path evolution will take is the same as God engineering it. [Where “engineering” in this context means to “make it happen.” Not “watch it happen.”] But I say this without having put much thought into it, so perhaps my conclusion is wrong.There’s a big difference between God foreknowing the path evolution will take on a planet, and engineering it.
So did God work backward from His vision and set the conditions and processes to achieve the planned outcome?drpmjhess originally said:
And I responded:
Since the question doesn’t involve the free-will of mankind or the angels, it involves only the will of God. So I’d say that God knowing the path evolution will take is the same as God engineering it. [Where “engineering” in this context means to “make it happen.” Not “watch it happen.”] But I say this without having put much thought into it, so perhaps my conclusion is wrong.
Absolutely - plans are designed. I’ve been trying to make this point with these guys for about a year now.So did God work backward from His vision and set the conditions and processes to achieve the planned outcome?
EIther way implies a plan. Plans are designed.
First of all, I’m not trying to demonize anyone. I have no interest in trying to present YEC’s, for example, as loony or evil. Those types of arguments disgust me. I simply think they are wrong.Just a bit of background. The ID movement is very broad. It includes some nuts, just as traditional biology, or physics includes some nuts. It includes some creationists, even though ID, which accepts the age of the universe as e.g. 14 billion years is directly contrary to YEC.
Yes, and inevitably this becomes a possible candidate for a potential scientific evidence of God’s influence. Irreducible complexity, for example, specifically argues for the idea that some intelligence must have interfered to make it happen on a cellular level. This intelligence, although unnamed, seems to inexorably lead toward God.]I’ll go with the DI definition of what ID is, which is not seeking “proof” for the existence of God. After all, we all know that he exists already. They’re looking for evidence of design in nature.
That’s not always true. There can be people who don’t know any better who are swept away by the movement too. They’re not specifically nor deliberately putting their own faith in science above their faith in their own faith. Think about it.Only if they put Science above faith.
Yes. But we expect that some people’s faith will be damaged by the atheist’s argument. This is sad enough as it is. It becomes much more tragic when some people’s faith becomes damaged by the theist’s argument.Some people’s faith has also been damaged by the atheist argument that since evolution explains everything, God is not necessary, therefore he doesn’t exist. This also works only if they put Science above faith.
I actually agree with you on this point. I don’t particularly like some the TE arguments presented here which seek to demonize the ID movement. I’ll have no part of that. Nonetheless, I do believe that God used evolution to create the diversity of life we see here on earth today, even if I reject some of the other weak philosophical arguments that are presented against the ID movement.The most adamant people I’ve seen on these forums who insist that God must have done it “their way” are the evolutionists, not the ID folks.
No. But neither is the attempt to brand all forms of evolution as being nothing more than an atheist’s immoral paradise considered scientific either. Pardon my crudeness but there really are some here, on the opposite side of the debate, who at least appear to be attempting to demonize TE just as much as others attempt to demonize the ID movement. Like I said before, I’ll have no part of that.ID accepts most of evolution, but “most” isn’t good enough for the hard core evolutionists. ALL MUST BE BELIEVED. I’ve already said many times that “in the end”, when we know all, nothing will surprise of disappoint me. And in the meantime, I’m open to evidence of all flavors. On the other hand, some evolutionists insist that design is not worth looking for since they already know it doesn’t exist. Is THAT the scientific method?
Could you please clarify this a bit? You seem to be agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time. Did I give an initial premise that you felt was incorrect and then clarify the matter further so that you now agree with me?Yes, your basic premise was incorrect - I agree with you on this.
Intended, planned, designed, ordained … all are the same in the context of this discussion.Attributing planning to an omniscient God is not rational. He never has to figure things out. So, unless you use “design” as merely "intent, " it is an error to suppose that God designs.
Me personally, I don’t have a problem with this. If this is indeed the way God did it then I have no right to have any problem with it. On the other hand, what evidence is there that God actually did this?I’ve stated many times that I believe in evolution (without intervention) doing “most of the work”, with God’s interactions being limited just to speed things up at certain points.
Could you provide a link for the DI site?As I said, there are probably people who call themselves IDers who claim this. And there are evolutionists who claim that evolution proves that God does not exist. I’ve looked at the DI web site and have found nothing stating that “scientific proof of God’s existence” is their goal, although some might look at the evidence and make that leap of faith.
Me personally, I don’t think Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence have been refuted. There are a few minor things here and there that “might” need to be adjusted. Aquinas was not 100% right about everything. But I really don’t see him as being wrong about many things.Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence have been refuted - or so I’ve heard (although that might be just an opinion). Does this mean that God does not exist, or that Aquinas should not have proffered them - because if proven to be false then God is disproved?
Ok, so where’s the evidence? What is the evidence? What are we actually looking for?Apparently it’s not open enough to admit that “design in nature” is worth looking for. Or that God might have left evidence of his plan that we can determine with human reason.
Apparently God’s proof of God’s existence. Not for His own sake. It’s for our sakes.What proof of God’s existence?
I think we agree that it goes both ways.As I’ve said already, only those who put Science above faith are at risk.
No. If you mean mere intent, then you have not limited God. If you mean planning, then you say that God is not omnipotent.Intended, planned, designed, ordained … all are the same in the context of this discussion.
Until you accept that nature is merely God acting in this world, you will not understand.That distinction is relevant to whether or how God directs the course of nature.
Yet none of this confirms your assertionHello tonyl,
What don’t you understand? See this article:
news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21548399-663,00.html
Near the bottom is a heading titled Against Atheism. Read that part.
What does this have to do with anything I’ve said? How does this invalidate “textbook” evolution? It doesn’t!I think you do not wish to see what is clearly stated in Human Persons Created in the Image of God, Part 69. In summary: evolution without divine providence cannot exist. This is clear.
What are you talking about? Where have I ever said anything that could remotely imply that I don’t believe these things!The Church is not beholden to evolutionary theory as written in textbooks. You seem to also be missing the fact that the Church not only believes that Jesus Christ is alive right now but certifies miracles and canonizes people as saints. You may be unaware of the image of Mary, Mother of God appears on a cloak, or tilma, that should have turned to powder many years ago.
If you want to be taken seriously, stop the dishonest attacks. Stop calling us atheists and heretics and attributing beliefs to us that we don’t nor have ever espoused.The Church does not believe in a symbolic Jesus or in symbolic miracles or in symbolic artifacts fashioned supernaturally. It believes in a real, physical Jesus, in actual proven miracles and in artifacts that can be examined by science.
You appear to be of the school of thought that strictly separates science and religion which is in full accord with atheist aims in the United States; which even a few Catholics believe. Secularists confine God to the Church building and the rituals performed there.
So why do you disagree with me and most evolution science supporters that science and religion are complementary? Why do you insist on an adversarial relation?This is not how the Church sees God, not at all. Pope Benedict has stated that science and religion are complementary but that idea is rejected. He also refers to those “fooled by atheism” into believing that there is no purpose behind what we see around us.
Why do you choose an article with a few brief out of context snippets and some uninformed speculation from intelligent design advocates instead of looking at what the Pope has actually said? He has said that saying he is against evolution is absurd.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/
These are not my own opinions but fully consistent truths held by the Church and spoken about by the Pope.
Perhaps we need to clarify the Catholic understanding of omnipotent. What is your understanding?No. If you mean mere intent, then you have not limited God. If you mean planning, then you say that God is not omnipotent.
Until you accept that nature is merely God acting in this world, you will not understand.
God does not merely direct nature; nature exists only by the action of God.