Evolution Not Intelligent Design

[yetjoe]

Any comments to this article by a Catholic scientist?

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18525

 

[Maranatha]

1. the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking

While I agree with this statement, it does raise a problem with many people who are less scientifically and theologically inclined. I would say that philosophy and science share a long border. Many people do not understand when one ends the other begins and their lack of understanding frequently causes a crises of faith.

Did this happen by chance or by necessity in this evolving universe? Was it destined to happen? The first thing to be said is that the problem is not formulated correctly. It is not just a question of chance or necessity because, first of all, it is both. Furthermore, there is a third element here that is very important. It is what I call “fertility” or “opportunity.” What this means is that the universe is so prolific in offering the opportunity for the success of both chance and necessary processes that such a character of the universe must be included in the discussion.

This seems to parallel the mystery of predestination vs. free will.

A good example of a chance event would be two very simple molecules wandering about in the universe. They happen to meet one another and, when they do, they would love to make a more complex molecule because that is the nature of these molecules. But the temperature and pressure conditions are such that the chemical bonding to make a more complex molecule cannot happen. So they wander off, but they or identical molecules meet billions and billions of times, trillions if you wish, in this universe, and finally they meet and the temperature and pressure conditions are correct. This could happen more easily around certain types of stars than other types of stars, so we can throw in all kinds of other factors.

I wonder how he reconciles his ideas about chance with Chaos Theory, since that theory postulates that we would find no chance if we could isolate all the seemingly random factors.

 

[Maranatha]

I don’t think I can follow the conclusions he draws. Apparently this text was adapted from a presentation and it may be missing something.

How are we to interpret the scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief. Do we need God to explain this? Very succinctly my answer is no. In fact, to need God would be a very denial of God. God is not the response to a need.

If I understand this correctly, ID here is being using as science and in that respect I agree.

He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.

He does not intervene but … participates …

 

[scriabin]

Michael Behe is the Catholic scientist who authored *Darwin’s Black Box, * the book that practically started the Intelligent Design movement; Kenneth Miller is the Catholic pro-evolutionist author of Finding Darwin’s God. Each book is an excellent read.

Both are Catholic, credentialed professors working in academia. Behe in biochemistry and Miller in cell biology.

There is compelling evidence for both arguments; and I would fault no one for taking either stance.

But the kind of gobbledygook double-speak from Fr. Coyne just gets my goat. He just *has * to refer to God as “him/her” doesn’t he? Fr/Sr Coyne makes creation out to be alive, working out a “certain vitality of its own, like a child does.” “We should not need God, we should accept him/her as he comes to us.”

What drivel.

He’s got a big ego to try to use his Vatican Observatory position to one-up a cardinal with his weak arguments.

Sorry I’m so negative; but, if you want to read excellent arguments for evolution, read the real stuff, not this yahoo’s idea of good arguments.