Evolution book

[reggieM]

Some books that I’ve either read or which have come highly recommended to me (and I will read them soon):

Darwin on Trial - Philip Johnson
Reason in the Balance - Philip Johnson
Darwin’s Black Box - Michael Behe
(those three helped to launch the Design Revolution in the 1990s).

Privileged Planet - Guillermo Gonzalez
(Wonderful book detailing the evidence of design in the universe).

A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature: Benjamin Wiker,Jonathan Witt
(This book is simply brilliant. Engaging to read and filled with valuable insights).

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’leary
(Ms. O’Leary is a Catholic author).
Darwinian Fairytales - David C. Stove
Darwin Day in America - John G. West
The Edge of Evolution - Michael Behe
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome - John C. Sanford
By Design - Larry Witham
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues - Mike Gene
The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells

 

[ricmat]

Some books that I’ve either read or which have come highly recommended to me (and I will read them soon):

Darwin on Trial - Philip Johnson
Reason in the Balance - Philip Johnson
Darwin’s Black Box - Michael Behe
(those three helped to launch the Design Revolution in the 1990s).

Privileged Planet - Guillermo Gonzalez
(Wonderful book detailing the evidence of design in the universe).

A Meaningful World: How the Arts And Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature: Benjamin Wiker,Jonathan Witt
(This book is simply brilliant. Engaging to read and filled with valuable insights).

The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’leary
(Ms. O’Leary is a Catholic author).
Darwinian Fairytales - David C. Stove
Darwin Day in America - John G. West
The Edge of Evolution - Michael Behe
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome - John C. Sanford
By Design - Larry Witham
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues - Mike Gene
The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems - William A. Dembski, Jonathan Wells

I didn’t know that Priveleged Planet was a book (I thought it was a movie). Darn…one more order to Amazon. I’m way over budget already…

 

[kliner]

Because creatures, unlike God, are not all-knowing, and have to figure things out. Hence we don’t just act, we must first consider and plan. God has no need of this.

No, not anything. “Lesser beings design.” “People play soccer.” Are both true, but neither says “all being design” or “all people play soccer.” Does that help? Keep in mind, humans are not the only creatures that design. Apes and some birds build tools, for example, and we see signs of planning and problem solving in a number of birds and mammals, which cannot be explained as reflexive or instinctive.

But, the context of which I was speaking (as was introduced above in the thread) was that lesser beings somehow direct their own evolutionary process, which, as I said in my previous post, is not possible.

God did give us (and some other creatures) the ability to design, however.

True, but not in the arena of evolutionary progress (as I explained in my previous post). And, just as a side note, I’m a bit hesitant to say that other creatures have the ability to design in the same way as humans and I think that I would have to hold that it has to be due to their sensitive abilities as that is all that they have. To hold that they are intellectual is (I’m not sure of your background in metaphysics), well, problematic. I would just briefly introduce that once you hold their rationality, then you also hold their immortality.

I notice that there’s a sudden shift from “design” to “direct.”

My apologies, that was just an aside. I will try to make those more clear in my current (and future) posts.

I’m not aware of any “atheistic evolution theories”; there are atheistic evolution beliefs, but a theory is unable to consider the existence of God.

I went through a biology course in New Orleans about a year ago, in which the teacher, a Catholic, was honestly trying to reconcile her faith with what she knows with her biology training. It is my understanding and experience (which doesn’t appear to be as fine-tuned as yours on the physical science side) that many who hold evolution to be true, use it as an argument against the existence of God. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., etc. Ever seen the bumper sticker (they’re fairly popular) that mocks the “Jesus” fish and instead is a fish with legs that says “Darwin”?

Even scientists who are atheists will remind you that evolution is not random.

God created it. No one designed it. Remember, our God is omnipotent.

Our God is all knowing (as well as all powerful), but what does it mean to have a creation without a design? That, to me, seems to say that God somehow did not, from all eternity, intend to create what He did; i.e., again, that creation is just an accident of His “playing with elements” (and again, what does this mean for the redemption of an “accidental” creation?).

You must remember that every tiniest particle and force in the universe is the result of God’s involvement. If He turned His attention away from us, we would not even exist.

Yes, but on two different levels (which is somewhat implicit in what you wrote). God created(1) in specific and it acts(2) as it was created (intended) to act (with the power which it received from God). In the first place, God gave it existence; in the second, it acts on its own (still dependent on God’s giving it existence). This distinction, by the way, is one of the most important made by St. Thomas in his writings and synthesis of Greek/Aristotelian thought with Christianity.

continued (too long for one post I am told) …

 

[kliner]

… continued …

All natures laws are God’s actions. We sometimes think of them as self-propelled, but they are just God acting in a consistent and regular way. This allows us to live because it makes the universe consistent and predictable.

I don’t think so. That would be to say that God is directly controlling/micromanaging each of His creatures. While, again, I know that each of His creatures would not exist without Him sharing His Being with us, I don’t think that that at the same time implies that He is directly in control of each of the things that He created. Rather, I think, again, that He created them (1) (as I wrote previously of evolution and also in this post), and that now they are acting as He created them to act (2). Action follows from being.

Another option is that you meant that God is the primary agent of the individual actions carried out in the universe, which sounds pantheistic, or at the very least, Ockham-istic . Ockham did away with “natures” and said that we just named them so because of our common experience of them (for convenience in conversation, etc.), but not because of their acting in the same way each time (according to their nature). Since created things do not act according to natures, but according to “the will of God,” then nothing is definitely so, and could be different, if God so willed it (notice the basis of fideism and relativism here). Such that, an apple tree could one day grow oranges (or squirrels for that matter), rather than the apple tree acting according to its nature as it was created by God (and verified “as good” [Gen 1:31]) and growing apples. But, that is not how God creates; when is the last time that you heard of an apple tree growing a goat, etc.?

I would hold that the universe is consistent and predictable because God created it to be so, and the various creatures (acting according to their specific natures) and whatnot that interact, intertwine, and intermingle, are all acting according to the way that God had intended them to act when He created them - something like the illustration/analogy of a “divine symphony.”

Of course. Nature is uncaring, unthinking. It is merely a tool in the hands of God.

That was Darwin’s great discovery. Contingency plays a part, but as Pope Benedict says, God can use contingency as easily as anything else. So what appears random to us, does not necessarily mean unpredictable to Him.

Quantum events are irreducibly random, and yet they are of God.

I’m trying to reconcile our two posts in this response, and I think that the answer is that “quantam events” are outside of the context in which I was speaking. In my post, I used random with the connotation (not explicitly so) that it is without a starting point or a purpose/end, but is merely functioning on its own without any standard by which it acts (its nature). How this applies to “quantam events,” I do not know, but I think that what I meant by random still encompasses it as well (in that they [whatever they are] are “random” inasmuch as they are serving another purpose and are not acting chaotically, without a purpose/goal/end). As you said above, “what appears random to us, does not necessarily mean unpredictable to Him.”

 

[The_Barbarian]

I don’t think so. That would be to say that God is directly controlling/micromanaging each of His creatures.

Except for those with free will, He is.

While, again, I know that each of His creatures would not exist without Him sharing His Being with us, I don’t think that that at the same time implies that He is directly in control of each of the things that He created.

It’s deeper than that. He’s directly in control of the laws of nature, which are just the way God acts in a consistent and predictable fashion to make our world.

Rather, I think, again, that He created them (1) (as I wrote previously of evolution and also in this post), and that now they are acting as He created them to act (2). Action follows from being.

This seems to me to be a weak version of deism. I don’t think so.

Another option is that you meant that God is the primary agent of the individual actions carried out in the universe, which sounds pantheistic, or at the very least, Ockham-istic . Ockham did away with “natures” and said that we just named them so because of our common experience of them (for convenience in conversation, etc.), but not because of their acting in the same way each time (according to their nature). Since created things do not act according to natures, but according to “the will of God,” then nothing is definitely so, and could be different, if God so willed it (notice the basis of fideism and relativism here). Such that, an apple tree could one day grow oranges (or squirrels for that matter), rather than the apple tree acting according to its nature as it was created by God (and verified “as good” [Gen 1:31]) and growing apples. But, that is not how God creates; when is the last time that you heard of an apple tree growing a goat, etc.?

Precisely why this view of God and Creation is neither pantheistic nor deistic. It merely confirms His continuing attention to every detail of the universe, without which, it would not even exist.

I would hold that the universe is consistent and predictable because God created it to be so,

And continues to create it to be so.

and the various creatures (acting according to their specific natures) and whatnot that interact, intertwine, and intermingle, are all acting according to the way that God had intended them to act when He created them - something like the illustration/analogy of a “divine symphony.”

Those without free will, anyway.

Barbarian observes:
Of course. Nature is uncaring, unthinking. It is merely a tool in the hands of God.

That was Darwin’s great discovery. Contingency plays a part, but as Pope Benedict says, God can use contingency as easily as anything else. So what appears random to us, does not necessarily mean unpredictable to Him.

Quantum events are irreducibly random, and yet they are of God.

I’m trying to reconcile our two posts in this response, and I think that the answer is that “quantam events” are outside of the context in which I was speaking.

If you want to develop a concept of God acting in the world, you must also consider the bottom of existence as well as the top level.

In my post, I used random with the connotation (not explicitly so) that it is without a starting point or a purpose/end, but is merely functioning on its own without any standard by which it acts (its nature).

Maybe there’s a better word that doesn’t contradict accepted usage?

How this applies to “quantam events,” I do not know, but I think that what I meant by random still encompasses it as well (in that they [whatever they are] are “random” inasmuch as they are serving another purpose and are not acting chaotically, without a purpose/goal/end).

St Thomas Aquinas thought they could. Our current Pope also thinks so.

As you said above, “what appears random to us, does not necessarily mean unpredictable to Him.”

Yes. So contingency is not really a problem here.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian Observes:
Because creatures, unlike God, are not all-knowing, and have to figure things out. Hence we don’t just act, we must first consider and plan. God has no need of this.

No, not anything. “Lesser beings design.” “People play soccer.” Are both true, but neither says “all being design” or “all people play soccer.” Does that help? Keep in mind, humans are not the only creatures that design. Apes and some birds build tools, for example, and we see signs of planning and problem solving in a number of birds and mammals, which cannot be explained as reflexive or instinctive.

But, the context of which I was speaking (as was introduced above in the thread) was that lesser beings somehow direct their own evolutionary process, which, as I said in my previous post, is not possible.

Depends on what you mean by “direct.” Canids, for example, are quite capable of making decisions based on what they detect in the environment. Say one pack begins to spend more and more time in a neighboring dry area. Over time, this decision can lead to evolutionary changes.

Barbarian observes:
God did give us (and some other creatures) the ability to design, however.

True, but not in the arena of evolutionary progress

“Progress” is meaningless in terms of evolution. But humans are quite capable of directing their own evolutionary path(s).

(as I explained in my previous post). And, just as a side note, I’m a bit hesitant to say that other creatures have the ability to design in the same way as humans and I think that I would have to hold that it has to be due to their sensitive abilities as that is all that they have.

In terms of designing things, of planning for the future, etc. we differ from chimps in degree, but not in kind.

There are a few important things in human behavior that chimps can’t do, but designing isn’t one of them.

To hold that they are intellectual is (I’m not sure of your background in metaphysics), well, problematic. I would just briefly introduce that once you hold their rationality, then you also hold their immortality.

I hope not. I have been told by some that an immortal soul is the consequence of a sufficiently developed nervous system. I’m not sure that I buy that. What if we do produce rational machines?

But apes show planning, forethought, humor, and even (alone with humans, so far as we can tell) empathy in the sense of being able to infer mental states in others. They apparently even have some sense of the numinous; Jane Goodall reported one evening, the whole troop of chimps were transfixed by the glory of a particularly beautiful sunset.

I don’t believe that they have immortal souls, but I would not kill one, unless it was to save a human. And something else; for those apes who have been taught to sign, their trainers say that the one thing they would never tell the apes, was that they would eventually die.

That is a sobering thought.

Barbarian observes:
I’m not aware of any “atheistic evolution theories”; there are atheistic evolution beliefs, but a theory is unable to consider the existence of God.

I went through a biology course in New Orleans about a year ago, in which the teacher, a Catholic, was honestly trying to reconcile her faith with what she knows with her biology training. It is my understanding and experience (which doesn’t appear to be as fine-tuned as yours on the physical science side) that many who hold evolution to be true, use it as an argument against the existence of God.

Maybe so. But not any scientists I know.

Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., etc.

Haven’t seen what Hitchens says, but Dawkins admits that science can’t refute God.

Ever seen the bumper sticker (they’re fairly popular) that mocks the “Jesus” fish and instead is a fish with legs that says “Darwin”?

It’s funny, and a clever way to make the point, but when someone gave me one, I never put it on my car. It’s one thing to let people know that they are adding their own doctrines when they embrace creationism, but it’s quite another to use an ancient Christian symbol to make the point.

Barbarian observes:
Even scientists who are atheists will remind you that evolution is not random.

God created it. No one designed it. Remember, our God is omnipotent.

Our God is all knowing (as well as all powerful), but what does it mean to have a creation without a design?

It means that He didn’t have to figure any of it out.

That, to me, seems to say that God somehow did not, from all eternity, intend to create what He did;

Rather, it means that God knew from all eternity what He would do. No designing required.

Barbarian observes:
You must remember that every tiniest particle and force in the universe is the result of God’s involvement. If He turned His attention away from us, we would not even exist.

Yes, but on two different levels (which is somewhat implicit in what you wrote). God created(1) in specific and it acts(2) as it was created (intended) to act (with the power which it received from God). In the first place, God gave it existence; in the second, it acts on its own (still dependent on God’s giving it existence). This distinction, by the way, is one of the most important made by St. Thomas in his writings and synthesis of Greek/Aristotelian thought with Christianity.

Yes. But this is inconsistent with design, and completely consistent with nature as God’s tool. What we think of as nature having laws and being independent, is merely God’s action in a consistent and reliable way so that we can live and exist here.

 

[kliner]

Except for those with free will, He is.
…
Those without free will, anyway.
…
It’s deeper than that. He’s directly in control of the laws of nature, which are just the way God acts in a consistent and predictable fashion to make our world.
…
Precisely why this view of God and Creation is neither pantheistic nor deistic. It merely confirms His continuing attention to every detail of the universe, without which, it would not even exist.

So, you’re saying that the universe (in all of its parts) is directly controlled by God, rather than each acting according to the nature which it was given it by God?

If you agree with Ockham’s view of reality, I suggest noting again that his philosophy was the basis of fideism (and consequently, the Protestant Reformation) and relativism. His “nominalism” (which I described in my previous post) has been the main source of problems in modern philosophy par excellence (say, from Descartes onward). And I can say without hesitation that this is far away from St. Thomas’ teaching on reality, especially since Ockham’s philosophy was a rebellion from the Thomistic tradition (specifically as regards natures). Ockham’s view of nature is simply incorrect, as history has borne out for us.

And, finally, you have emphasized a few times “without which it would not even exist” in your previous posts. But, in creating things, God creates them according to a specific nature, by which they act and cannot not act in accordance with. This is a crucial distinction to make. It is a being, yes, and it has its being by God having shared His Being with it, yes, but He also created it as this particular thing which acts this particular way. Without realizing this distinction, you are back to the question that the Greeks (who were many and brilliant: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) could never solve and which wasn’t solved until St. Thomas (if I remember my history correctly).

P.S. I would have to disagree that God is unable to use a rational creature, namely, men and angels, in the “symphony.” We can surely go against His will with our free will, but He already knows that and still works through our free choices to bring about His will (without getting into the distinctions of God’s antecedent and permissive will, which are extremely important in this discussion, but which is parenthetical to the main one).

Kevin said: I would hold that the universe is consistent and predictable because God created it to be so,

And continues to create it to be so.

This is where, I would think, God’s directing the evolutionary process that I previously spoke of comes in.

If you want to develop a concept of God acting in the world, you must also consider the bottom of existence as well as the top level.
…
Maybe there’s a better word that doesn’t contradict accepted usage?

I was not ignoring it, as is evidenced by the sentence that follows the one which you quoted.
…
I could have probably chosen a more succinct word, but I don’t think that it is “contradictory” in the context in which I used it.

Kevin said: How this applies to “quantam events,” I do not know, but I think that what I meant by random still encompasses it as well (in that they [whatever they are] are “random” inasmuch as they are serving another purpose and are not acting chaotically, without a purpose/goal/end).

St Thomas Aquinas thought they could. Our current Pope also thinks so.

If you mean that they say that things can act without an end, I would definitely like to see quotes for this. St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica is architected on Exitus-Reditus, in which all things come from God and have their finality, their goal, their purpose, in God. Causality and goal-oriented action (as well as many other arguments) are all throughout the Summa with this model in sight.

 

[kliner]

Kevin said: But, the context of which I was speaking (as was introduced above in the thread) was that lesser beings somehow direct their own evolutionary process, which, as I said in my previous post, is not possible.

Depends on what you mean by “direct.” Canids, for example, are quite capable of making decisions based on what they detect in the environment. Say one pack begins to spend more and more time in a neighboring dry area. Over time, this decision can lead to evolutionary changes.

But, this is not done with any awareness of what the consequences are of what their instincts “decide.”

“Progress” is meaningless in terms of evolution. But humans are quite capable of directing their own evolutionary path(s).

Such as from caveman to homo sapien? This process appears (from my minute study of it) to happen over a very long period of time, but we can certainly not do something as I described in the “blue whiskers” example. Exposing ourselves to certain extremes (such as living in Antarctica) may (according to the theory or hypothesis or whatever it is, of evolution) influence the path, but my point was that we are unable to directly will such things, especially arbitrarily (which is what my example pointed to).

In terms of designing things, of planning for the future, etc. we differ from chimps in degree, but not in kind.

There are a few important things in human behavior that chimps can’t do, but designing isn’t one of them.

I would say we differ in sensate vs. rational. My philosophy professor once made an interesting point about the discussion of animal intelligence. It was something to the effect of, “it’s not so much that animals are intelligent for the things that they can do, but that we don’t appreciate the wonders that we are able to be achieve by using only our animal/sensate powers.” I think Mortimer Adler’s book, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes, would be a helpful one for you in this area, as it seems that it is a question that you are unsure of (cf. your thoughts below this one on rationality). While I’m at it, I would also recommend Fr. Norris Clarke, S.J.'s The One and the Many, which could be a great help to you in continuing to synthesize your faith with science.

I hope not. I have been told by some that an immortal soul is the consequence of a sufficiently developed nervous system. I’m not sure that I buy that. What if we do produce rational machines?

But apes show planning, forethought, humor, and even (alone with humans, so far as we can tell) empathy in the sense of being able to infer mental states in others. They apparently even have some sense of the numinous; Jane Goodall reported one evening, the whole troop of chimps were transfixed by the glory of a particularly beautiful sunset.

I don’t believe that they have immortal souls, but I would not kill one, unless it was to save a human. And something else; for those apes who have been taught to sign, their trainers say that the one thing they would never tell the apes, was that they would eventually die.

That is a sobering thought.

Eek. Disregard that information that was given to you about the central nervous system . This is a reductionistic and materialistic view of man that is definitely not compatible with Church teaching on the human soul. For a little argumentation against it: a crucial problem with this theory is that it does not allow for abstract thoughts to occur. If the thoughts which we have were strictly materially based (which would restrict it to the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut which our brain [which is not our mind, BTW] receives), then how could we know about things such as gratitude? And, not stopping there, how could we recognize an act of gratitude among a variety of circumstances? If it were strictly material, we would recognize only immediate acts and not be able to distinguish them as “gratitude,” but as “act.” Or a dog. Why do we call both a Chihuahua and a Golden Retriever “dog”? It is not because they look the same, because they obviously don’t. But, we take in the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, abstract from it (which is impossible materially) and are then capable of knowing “universals”, that is, what makes both this little short-haired rat-looking thing and this big fluffy bear-cub-sized thing both “dog”. Apes are incapable of doing such things (maybe by memory, but that’s not to be confused with the process of abstraction). Are animals enthralled by St. Peter’s, Rembrandt, or Mozart? Are they able to classify and distinguish and appreciate these from other buildings, paintings, or pieces? One last way of looking at it is: when you see an ape doing what I’m doing right now (on its own accord and without some sort of elaborate rote-memorization process), constructing arguments based on the philosophical level and trying to discover how all of this is related to God and evolution (does it know “God,” can it conceive “evolution”?), give me a call (replace animal with machine, and you’ve got another argument).

I wouldn’t be hesitant to attribute the characteristics you listed to sensate capabilites (as well as a tendency of humans to anthropomorphize animal reactions (cf. Jane Goodall), especially nowadays: chickens are intelligent creatures, come on PETA. I’ve seen chickens, there’s no intelligence there).

… continued …

 

[kliner]

…continued…

Haven’t seen what Hitchens says, but Dawkins admits that science can’t refute God.

Dawkins surely doesn’t favor God: “The God Delusion”? His public position certainly does come across as if that is the case.

Kevin said: Our God is all knowing (as well as all powerful), but what does it mean to have a creation without a design?

It means that He didn’t have to figure any of it out.

Kevin said: That, to me, seems to say that God somehow did not, from all eternity, intend to create what He did;

Rather, it means that God knew from all eternity what He would do. No designing required.

I think we just said the same thing .

Kevin said: Yes, but on two different levels (which is somewhat implicit in what you wrote). God created(1) in specific and it acts(2) as it was created (intended) to act (with the power which it received from God). In the first place, God gave it existence; in the second, it acts on its own (still dependent on God’s giving it existence). This distinction, by the way, is one of the most important made by St. Thomas in his writings and synthesis of Greek/Aristotelian thought with Christianity.

Yes. But this is inconsistent with design, and completely consistent with nature as God’s tool. What we think of as nature having laws and being independent, is merely God’s action in a consistent and reliable way so that we can live and exist here.

I would disagree, but you have read my previous posts for my reasons why.

I’m not a supporter of the “design” theory, mainly as I don’t clearly know what they believe, nor do I have the opportunity to learn the intricacies of what they think. I just thought that pointing that out could help, as it sometimes seems as if you are defending against someone who is familiar with “intelligent design” position.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Haven’t seen what Hitchens says, but Dawkins admits that science can’t refute God.

Dawkins surely doesn’t favor God:

Of course not. He is noticably angry at those who do. But he is honest enough to admit that science won’t help him.

Our God is all knowing (as well as all powerful), but what does it mean to have a creation without a design?

Barbarian observes:
It means that He didn’t have to figure any of it out.

That, to me, seems to say that God somehow did not, from all eternity, intend to create what He did;]/quote]

Barbarian observes:
Rather, it means that God knew from all eternity what He would do. No designing required.

I think we just said the same thing .

If so, you have used “design” in a way that rules out designing.

Kevin said: Yes, but on two different levels (which is somewhat implicit in what you wrote). God created(1) in specific and it acts(2) as it was created (intended) to act (with the power which it received from God). In the first place, God gave it existence; in the second, it acts on its own (still dependent on God’s giving it existence). This distinction, by the way, is one of the most important made by St. Thomas in his writings and synthesis of Greek/Aristotelian thought with Christianity.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. But this is inconsistent with design, and completely consistent with nature as God’s tool. What we think of as nature having laws and being independent, is merely God’s action in a consistent and reliable way so that we can live and exist here.

I would disagree, but you have read my previous posts for my reasons why.

Then we disagree. I repeated the points we each expressed, because I think it nicely sums up the ideas on each side.

I’m not a supporter of the “design” theory, mainly as I don’t clearly know what they believe, nor do I have the opportunity to learn the intricacies of what they think. I just thought that pointing that out could help, as it sometimes seems as if you are defending against someone who is familiar with “intelligent design” position.

It’s really a legal position. In the US, government is required to keep a strict neutrality with respect to religion. By redefining God as a vague and possibly fallible “designer”, IDers hope to make Him teachable in public school.

 

[kliner]

Kevin said: That, to me, seems to say that God somehow did not, from all eternity, intend to create what He did;
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Barbarian forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Rather, it means that God knew from all eternity what He would do. No designing required.

Kevin said: I think we just said the same thing .

Barbarian observes:
Rather, it means that God knew from all eternity what He would do. No designing required.
…
If so, you have used “design” in a way that rules out designing.

“Knowing from all eternity what He would do” is synonymous with “intending things to happen as they have.”

If I’ve used “design” loosely then I apologize, but again, I haven’t intended by my posts to defend an “ID” position, so I can understand if some of the words that I chose may have set off flags for you, which was not my intention. We do both come from two different backgrounds wherein the same terms have different connotations. The term “substance” would be a prime example of this.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But humans are quite capable of directing their own evolutionary path(s).

But yes, the tool-making of early humans, like H. habilis and H. erectus reduced the need for robust jaws and teeth, which then became smaller.

This process appears (from my minute study of it) to happen over a very long period of time, but we can certainly not do something as I described in the “blue whiskers” example.

It can only work with whatever variation exists. However, numerous societies have decided who will live and who will not, and that does make a difference.

but my point was that we are unable to directly will such things, especially arbitrarily (which is what my example pointed to).

For example, people who were unpredictably violent were more tolerable when we had nothing but fists, but in barbaric societies, such people are quickly removed, because with weapons, they become dangerous.

Hunter-gatherers tend to be bigger and stronger than farmers, because they are generally better fed. But that changes us. Medieval humans, in a rather extreme example, were much smaller than humans before or after.

Barbarian
In terms of designing things, of planning for the future, etc. we differ from chimps in degree, but not in kind.

There are a few important things in human behavior that chimps can’t do, but designing isn’t one of them.

I would say we differ in sensate vs. rational.

Chimps are quite capable of rational behavior. In one case, apes built a crude ladder to escape a zoo enclosure.

“it’s not so much that animals are intelligent for the things that they can do, but that we don’t appreciate the wonders that we are able to be achieve by using only our animal/sensate powers.” I think Mortimer Adler’s book, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes, would be a helpful one for you in this area, as it seems that it is a question that you are unsure of (cf. your thoughts below this one on rationality). While I’m at it, I would also recommend Fr. Norris Clarke, S.J.'s The One and the Many, which could be a great help to you in continuing to synthesize your faith with science.

I have no faith in science, since science requires data, not belief. Hence, I accept that apes show mental capacities that we used to think were ours alone, because the evidence shows it. I don’t think this is particularly shameful or destructive to faith in God, although it is a bit unsettling.

Barbarian
I hope not. I have been told by some that an immortal soul is the consequence of a sufficiently developed nervous system. I’m not sure that I buy that. What if we do produce rational machines?

But apes show planning, forethought, humor, and even (alone with humans, so far as we can tell) empathy in the sense of being able to infer mental states in others. They apparently even have some sense of the numinous; Jane Goodall reported one evening, the whole troop of chimps were transfixed by the glory of a particularly beautiful sunset.

I don’t believe that they have immortal souls, but I would not kill one, unless it was to save a human. And something else; for those apes who have been taught to sign, their trainers say that the one thing they would never tell the apes, was that they would eventually die.

That is a sobering thought.

This is a reductionistic and materialistic view of man that is definitely not compatible with Church teaching on the human soul.

I’ve said nothing about the human soul; this is all quite naturalistic. John Paul II (I think) said that the soul is not merely an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, so the fact that apes have mental capacities much like ours, that’s not an offense to Catholic faith.

For a little argumentation against it: a crucial problem with this theory is that it does not allow for abstract thoughts to occur.

If I could show you that a chimp can infer your mental state, and act accordingly, would you think they can manage abstract thought?

If the thoughts which we have were strictly materially based (which would restrict it to the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut which our brain [which is not our mind, BTW] receives), then how could we know about things such as gratitude?

Do you think apes are incapable of gratitude? Would you say true altruism (as opposed to protecting one’s offspring) is impossible for an ape?

And, not stopping there, how could we recognize an act of gratitude among a variety of circumstances? If it were strictly material, we would recognize only immediate acts and not be able to distinguish them as “gratitude,” but as “act.” Or a dog. Why do we call both a Chihuahua and a Golden Retriever “dog”? It is not because they look the same, because they obviously don’t.

Interesting. Show me that apes don’t recognize dogs as a category. One ape, in particular, was able to accurately classify all sorts of things as cats, including a stuffed one.

Are animals enthralled by St. Peter’s, Rembrandt, or Mozart? Are they able to classify and distinguish and appreciate these from other buildings, paintings, or pieces?

So, a chicken doesn’t fly, because it can’t fly to South America? This is a difference in degree. BTW, apes who can sign, do express awe. Obviously, the beauty of a sunset isn’t as sublime as that of “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik”, but the effect on me is somewhat the same.

I wouldn’t be hesitant to attribute the characteristics you listed to sensate capabilites

I guess it’s true that reason is dependent on sensory functions, but not entirely. Chimps seem to be able to reason by visualizing a solution.

(as well as a tendency of humans to anthropomorphize animal reactions (cf. Jane Goodall)

There are ways to test this. Would you like to know how we learned that chimps can infer mental states in others?

 

[kliner]

Chimps are quite capable of rational behavior. In one case, apes built a crude ladder to escape a zoo enclosure.

My dog freely ran among hundreds of acres of woods for all of her life (about 11 years at the time) until we moved into a suburban area where she could no longer enjoy this same freedom. For the first year at our new home, she (quite cleverly, amidst all of the obstacles we placed in front of her) dug under the fence in order to escape her new “prison.”

I have no faith in science, since science requires data, not belief. Hence, I accept that apes show mental capacities that we used to think were ours alone, because the evidence shows it. I don’t think this is particularly shameful or destructive to faith in God, although it is a bit unsettling.

I did not mean faith in physical science, but to integrate your faith with what you know about about the physical sciences (or vice versa), as they can’t contradict one another (cf. Fides et Ratio).

If I remember correctly, Adler’s book, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes, specifically addresses animal intelligence. It may be a good book for this topic.(Adler was a neo-Thomist philosopher of the 1900’s, who was received into the Church after all of his (99 or so) agnostic or atheistic years [which is ironic, considering his being a Thomist] a few years before he died in 2001.)

I’ve said nothing about the human soul; this is all quite naturalistic. John Paul II (I think) said that the soul is not merely an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, so the fact that apes have mental capacities much like ours, that’s not an offense to Catholic faith.

But, when I mentioned that when you attribute rationality, then you attribute immortality (and also when I said that the mind is not the brain), I did so because the mind is a faculty of the soul. This is why there is a problem with this as regards Church teaching. Here’s a few quotes from a Google search of the Catechism:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26 Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.271934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

If I could show you that a chimp can infer your mental state, and act accordingly, would you think they can manage abstract thought?

A dog can infer my mental state when it senses fear in me.

Do you think apes are incapable of gratitude? Would you say true altruism (as opposed to protecting one’s offspring) is impossible for an ape?

Interesting. Show me that apes don’t recognize dogs as a category. One ape, in particular, was able to accurately classify all sorts of things as cats, including a stuffed one.

Not merely as a category, but what is it capable of of doing with the concept “dog” (does it even have one?). Can it write a poem about one? Could it compare its fellow apes behavior to that of a dog? Does it even have a language (that is not an artificial “language” imposed on it by people teaching it by memorization) to communicate without our aid? My dog knows the difference between a dog and a cat, but not in the same way that I know the difference between a dog and a cat, and even further, not in the same way that God knows a dog and a cat. This is not merely a case of “degree,” but a different level. The reason why apes don’t do these things is because they can’t.

And, though I think that I addressed this fairly well last night with my example of an ape doing what I was at that moment doing (and all that preceded it), a friend of mine, when I spoke to him of our discussion, made the comment, “when’s the last time you saw an ape come up to a human and teach it to communicate with it, to teach us its ‘language’?”

So, a chicken doesn’t fly, because it can’t fly to South America? This is a difference in degree. BTW, apes who can sign, do express awe. Obviously, the beauty of a sunset isn’t as sublime as that of “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik”, but the effect on me is somewhat the same.

I’m sorry, but I completely missed that analogy.

And, I wasn’t speaking of difference of impression on the individual, rather, I was speaking of an animal’s ability to think abstractly about such things (consequently, comparing St. Peter’s to other churches, and other examples, respectively). Again, my dog can look at a sunset. But, it would be my anthropomorphizing saying that it was “enjoying a beautiful sunset” - even if it was just hanging out watching the sunset, that is still a sensory capability. I can see it just as well as it can.

… continued …

 

[kliner]

…continued…

I guess it’s true that reason is dependent on sensory functions, but not entirely. Chimps seem to be able to reason by visualizing a solution.

St. Thomas holds that all knowledge (specifically talking about humans) comes through sense experience. Where else would the mind get the images in order to “visualize a solution”?

There are ways to test this. Would you like to know how we learned that chimps can infer mental states in others?

I guess that could be an interesting bit of information to know, but that still doesn’t change what I said (in the post above) with regard to this.

 

[abu_kamoon]

For Catholics who believe in evolution, I would like to ask them how “science” explains the virgin birth. How does “science” explain the Ressurection of Jesus Christ, or His walking on water? How does “science” explain the miracles described in the Bible?

If science can explain our origins (something than no one one Earth observed, how do they explain these more recent events?

My position is that our origins are outside the boundaries of science. Science can no more explain where we came from than it can explain where we go when we die.

 

[The_Barbarian]

For Catholics who believe in evolution, I would like to ask them how “science” explains the virgin birth.

I don’t “believe in” evolution, any more than I believe in thunderstorms. One merely observes natural phenomena. But science does not and cannot comment on the supernatural. If you want science to do this for you, you are lost.

If science can explain our origins

It can only explain the origin of our physical bodies. For our souls, you need to find another way of knowing.

But that’s alright; it’s O.K. to be unscientific in many circumstances.

God gave you an intellect and curiosity to find out things He did not reveal to you. Let God be God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

St. Thomas holds that all knowledge (specifically talking about humans) comes through sense experience.

St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.

However, you can visualize things you never sensed, and then make them be.

Barbarian asks:
There are ways to test this. Would you like to know how we learned that chimps can infer mental states in others?

I guess that could be an interesting bit of information to know, but that still doesn’t change what I said (in the post above) with regard to this.

It would be critical to understanding why what humans and chimps do is qualitatively different than things dogs do.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
Chimps are quite capable of rational behavior. In one case, apes built a crude ladder to escape a zoo enclosure.

My dog freely ran among hundreds of acres of woods for all of her life (about 11 years at the time) until we moved into a suburban area where she could no longer enjoy this same freedom. For the first year at our new home, she (quite cleverly, amidst all of the obstacles we placed in front of her) dug under the fence in order to escape her new “prison.”

No cleverness involved. That is built-in. When your dog learns to pile up things to get over the fence, on her own, call the ethologists, you will have a unique dog. I had one who learned to open a gate latch. But I inadvertantly taught her; she observed me doing it. And that is much, much different than constructing a way out.

Barbarian
I have no faith in science, since science requires data, not belief.

I did not mean faith in physical science, but to integrate your faith with what you know about about the physical sciences (or vice versa), as they can’t contradict one another (cf. Fides et Ratio).

Which is what I did. And that’s what I think has you unhappy.

Barbarian observe:
I’ve said nothing about the human soul; this is all quite naturalistic.

But, when I mentioned that when you attribute rationality, then you attribute immortality

Don’t see how. It is quite possible for a being to be rational and not immortal.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

None of this say that immortality is a consequence of rationality. Moreover, since you seem willing to grant that even your dog has some measure of it, you could also assert that immortality requires a certain measure of rationality.

But this is wrong, I think; there are humans who have no rational facilities at all, and yet they have immortal souls.

Barbarian offers:
If I could show you that a chimp can infer your mental state, and act accordingly, would you think they can manage abstract thought?

A dog can infer my mental state when it senses fear in me.

No, a dog merely obseves behavior and acts accordingly. Apes can actually infer that you have a mind and what you are thinking.
So far, only humans and apes have been shown to know this. Monkeys, for example, can’t do it.

Barbarian
Do you think apes are incapable of gratitude? Would you say true altruism (as opposed to protecting one’s offspring) is impossible for an ape?

Interesting. Show me that apes don’t recognize dogs as a category. One ape, in particular, was able to accurately classify all sorts of things as cats, including a stuffed one.

Yes. Even monkeys have a generalized concept of things like “snake;” Vervets, for example, have generalized and specific calls for snake and for “not dangerous snake.”

Can it write a poem about one?

Rather crude ones. An annoyed gorilla, which had been taught signing, once called a worker “you green #$*%” (excretory product).

Could it compare its fellow apes behavior to that of a dog?

Yes. One chimp taught to sign, tried to so communicate wth a cat.

Does it even have a language (that is not an artificial “language” imposed on it by people teaching it by memorization)

Isn’t that what we do with our children?

to communicate without our aid?

Chimps in particular, seem to be able to coordinate very well, so long as they can see each other, in hunting and other activities.

This is not merely a case of “degree,” but a different level.

The gap seems to be between apes and other animals, as far as that is concerned.

“when’s the last time you saw an ape come up to a human and teach it to communicate with it, to teach us its ‘language’?”

I read a particularly funny report about a chimp attempting to teach a scientist how to fish for termites. He got the hang of making the stick,but never did become proficient at fishing the termites out of the mound. (chimps teach their offspring how to do it, and it appears the chimp felt that the scientist’s clumsy attempts indicated a need for instruction)

Barbarian
So, a chicken doesn’t fly, because it can’t fly to South America? This is a difference in degree. BTW, apes who can sign, do express awe. Obviously, the beauty of a sunset isn’t as sublime as that of “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik”, but the effect on me is somewhat the same.

I’m sorry, but I completely missed that analogy.

If we limit rationality to an appreciation of Mozart, then rational people are relatively scarce.

Again, my dog can look at a sunset. But, it would be my anthropomorphizing saying that it was “enjoying a beautiful sunset” - even if it was just hanging out watching the sunset, that is still a sensory capability. I can see it just as well as it can.

I’ve never seen a dog pay much attention to a sunset. That would be a remarkable thing, too.

 

[kliner]

Barbarian
Chimps are quite capable of rational behavior. In one case, apes built a crude ladder to escape a zoo enclosure.

No cleverness involved. That is built-in. When your dog learns to pile up things to get over the fence, on her own, call the ethologists, you will have a unique dog. I had one who learned to open a gate latch. But I inadvertantly taught her; she observed me doing it. And that is much, much different than constructing a way out.

Why is it intellectually-driven cleverness for an ape to do a similar thing which is “built in” for a dog?

Barbarian
I have no faith in science, since science requires data, not belief.

Which is what I did. And that’s what I think has you unhappy.

If your understanding of physical sciences is that apes have rational souls, then I don’t believe that you have. To me, it appears that you have accepted what science says, without reference to what the Church teaches in the corresponding field (that of Christian anthropology).

Don’t see how. It is quite possible for a being to be rational and not immortal.
…
None of this say that immortality is a consequence of rationality. Moreover, since you seem willing to grant that even your dog has some measure of it, you could also assert that immortality requires a certain measure of rationality.

According to Christian anthropology, it’s not.
…
Because it’s not a consequence of rationality - it’s connatural with rationality, and the texts which I quoted from the Catechism specifically say (I emphasized them) “God created man a rational being … Man is rational and therefore like God … [man is] created in the ***image of the one God ***and equally endowed with rational souls.”

Because the mind is a faculty of the soul, and, as the Catechism defines it, immortality is, “the quality of the spiritual human soul whereby it survives the death of the body and remains in existence without end, to be reunited with the body at the final resurrection,” it follows that the mind, a faculty of the soul, is immortal.

But this is wrong, I think; there are humans who have no rational facilities at all, and yet they have immortal souls.

All humans have rational faculties. It’s in the definition of “human,” an animal with a rational soul. If they didn’t, then what’s to stop us from killing those who we deem “irrational”? (unfortunately, Terri Schiavo is an example of this)

No, a dog merely obseves behavior and acts accordingly. Apes can actually infer that you have a mind and what you are thinking.
So far, only humans and apes have been shown to know this. Monkeys, for example, can’t do it.

That’s a stretch. Not even humans can know what other humans are thinking. Only God “searches the depths of the human heart.”

Yes. Even monkeys have a generalized concept of things like “snake;” Vervets, for example, have generalized and specific calls for snake and for “not dangerous snake.”
…
Rather crude ones. An annoyed gorilla, which had been taught signing, once called a worker “you green #$*%” (excretory product).

Yes. One chimp taught to sign, tried to so communicate wth a cat.

Isn’t that what we do with our children?

But that sign was not something that it came up with on its own - it was taught by rote memorization to it.

Chimps in particular, seem to be able to coordinate very well, so long as they can see each other, in hunting and other activities.

As do wolves.

Barbarian
So, a chicken doesn’t fly, because it can’t fly to South America? This is a difference in degree. BTW, apes who can sign, do express awe. Obviously, the beauty of a sunset isn’t as sublime as that of “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik”, but the effect on me is somewhat the same.

If we limit rationality to an appreciation of Mozart, then rational people are relatively scarce.

But we were talking about the ability to appreciate things in an abstract manner and being able to then to compare, contrast, and use these concepts of Mozart, church, dog, plant, in completely unrelated and creative contexts.

I’ve never seen a dog pay much attention to a sunset. That would be a remarkable thing, too.

My dog lays in the sun all the time, watches her surroundings, etc., etc. I had a water dragon who very much “appreciated” going outside (many lizards love to bask). His colors became very vibrant, and his composure was much less timid. He became much more alert and very interested in experiencing all of these things: vibrant greens, the wind blowing, birds flying (with some fear and caution in his eyes ).

St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.

But to infer that because he made errors in a field of science which he was not an expert in (this specific example of which I have never heard) is not a strong argument against his mastery over philosophical and theological arguments. He did make some errors, even in these fields, but the specific case that I cited is not one of them. To say that one can visualize without having first seen is like telling a person who has been blind all their life to imagine the color green - they can’t do it - all knowledge comes through sense experience.

…continued…

 

[kliner]

…continued…

In the end, this discussion falls to animal intelligence, which is, according to Church teaching, restricted to humans, as humans are the only creatures that God has created to have “dominion” (Gen 1:26) over all other creatures. In the language in which I have been speaking, this means that humans are the only material creatures which have been endowed with souls capable of rationality. All other animals’ souls have but the powers of vegetative and sensitive (plants have only vegetative). Only humans possess all three powers: vegetative, sensitive, and rational. From the Catechism:

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

1705 By virtue of his soul and his ***spiritual powers of intellect ***and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”

1951 … Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.
33 The human person: With his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the “seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material,” can have its origin only in God.

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.” 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."

I think that these quotes (and the ones I quoted previously) are ample enough for the Church’s position of the discussion at hand. You can find plenty more by searching through the index of the Catechism under related titles: Man, Rational, Immortal, etc.

It’s not just as simple as saying “apes are rational” because they exhibit certain advanced sensitive functions. There is a lot of history (not to mention the most important: truth) behind the Church’s position on this issue. The Church has integrated (read: Christianized) these aspects of Greek philosophy and you can search through the Church Fathers all day long (I read a decent portion of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s “On the Making of Man,” from the 4th century, for a research project, and what I have said here will be easily [and explicitly] found in this and other of his writings). This is what the Church holds about man and animals. To say that apes are rational is to overturn what the Church has taught about man for close to two millennia - it is no light statement.

I invite you to consider these things as you continue your own Christianization of science, as this, I believe, is one of those crucial points where the integration takes place.

---

and by the way, to our previous discussion, I came across these passages as I was looking for the spiritual nature of human reason:

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ cooperation. This use is *not a sign of *weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles of each other, and thus of cooperating in the accomplishment of his plan.

308 The truth is that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures in inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates *in *and through *secondary causes: *“For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom, and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for “without a Creator the creature vanishes.” Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.