Evolution refuting catholicism?

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

That is not "Intelligent Design " The particular proponents of Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) have a Fundamentalist agenda. ID – their concept – is not Catholic.

Do you have a source for this claim?

 

[Descipleof1]

DavidFilmer:

Well, I AM a scientist.

In physics, there are three LAWS (not “theories,” but LAWS) which are the fundamental basis of all physical sciences. These are called the LAWS of Thermodynamics. The word “thermodynamics” is intimidating to many people – it need not be – it is simply another way of saying “energy.” So, essentially, these are the three LAWS of energy.

The LAWS of thermodynamics are both simple and complex (much like theology). On a simple level, you may express the three LAWS thus: You cannot win (you never get more energy out of a system than you put in), **you cannot break even **(you always loose energy), and you cannot ever get out of the game (energy exchange is always taking place).
The Second LAW of Thermodynamics is of particular interest in the evolution debate. A Christian need not reject macroevolution because it is bad theology – s/he can reject it because it is BAD SCIENCE.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (also called the Law of Entropy, or the Law of Chaos) maintains that an ordered system will break down (fall into entropy, or chaos) unless there is an EXTERNAL (outside the system) application of energy.

Think of your own house. If you do nothing to it, what happens? Does it re-paint itself? Repair its own plumbing? Fix its own roof? Of course not! It would eventually crumble into dust (literally), unless YOU (an external force) exert energy to maintain it.

Ordered systems break down into unordered systems, unless there is an EXTERNAL (outside the system) application of energy. That’s the Second LAW of Thermodynamics.

Evolutionists claim that the unordered gave rise to the ordered. The unintelligent gave rise to the intelligent. Non-Life gave rise to life.

If any of you dispute entropy come over to my house and look at my garage, I just cleaned it a week ago, what a mess!

 

[buffalo]

Descipleof1:

DavidFilmer:

Evolutionists claim that the unordered gave rise to the ordered. The unintelligent gave rise to the intelligent. Non-Life gave rise to life.

Vern, wouldn’t this approach to evolution be un-Catholic?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

For one thing, it isn’t Catholic, but seeks to establish an authoritiative stance over the metaphysical aspects of creation – in other words, it seeks to seize the Church’s authority

Where the heck are you getting this from? It is Catholic dogma that the existence of God can be known, with certainty, with the light of unaided reason.

So, even without the grace of faith, a person can know that God created the world, and with a purpose, and not know the inner lie of God or what exactly His purposes are. (For this we need Faith.)

Cut these guys some slack (and Galileo, too ).

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

That is not "Intelligent Design " The particular proponents of Intelligent Design (capital I, capital D) have a Fundamentalist agenda. ID – their concept – is not Catholic.

Here are several links to the EWTn web site dealing with ID. I see no one objecting to ID as being anti-Catholic.

Catholics and evolution

Do I have to believe evolution?

Help for an Agnostic

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Vern, wouldn’t this approach to evolution be un-Catholic?

No, it would be false.

Note that the claim is that Evolutionists hold that "Non-Life gave rise to life."
The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Nor is it impossible for God to use the rules He created to create life.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

No, it would be false.

Note that the claim is that Evolutionists hold that "Non-Life gave rise to life."
The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Nor is it impossible for God to use the rules He created to create life.

Don’t we Catholics believe God is actve in His creation?

 

[vern_humphrey]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Where the heck are you getting this from? It is Catholic dogma that the existence of God can be known, with certainty, with the light of unaided reason.).

But not without the teaching authority of the Church – laymen can’t just come out and tell us what to believe about God based on their own study.

DominvsVobiscvm:

So, even without the grace of faith, a person can know that God created the world, and with a purpose, and not know the inner lie of God or what exactly His purposes are. (For this we need Faith.)

Yes, but that’s not what ID (capital I, capital D) is all about. It’s a basically Fundamentalist approach.

There’s nothing wrong with id (small i, small d) but don’t get led down the Fundamentalist garden path.

DominvsVobiscvm:

Cut these guys some slack (and Galileo, too ).

Okay, okay – you got me.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Don’t we Catholics believe God is actve in His creation?

Don’t we Catholics believe in baptism?

Does that mean we have to accept the Baptist doctrine, hook, line and sinker?

Intelligent Design is a Fundamentalist movement. Before extolling any religious doctrine, always check for the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Don’t we Catholics believe in baptism?

Does that mean we have to accept the Baptist doctrine, hook, line and sinker?

Intelligent Design is a Fundamentalist movement. Before extolling any religious doctrine, always check for the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.

Seems to me some notable Catholics are involved, ie Father Coyne. If it is fundamantalist as you claim and it leads to a better understanding to origins what is your real problem with it?

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Seems to me some notable Catholics are involved, ie Father Coyne. If it is fundamantalist as you claim and it leads to a better understanding to origins what is your real problem with it?

Father Coyne is not in league with Behe, Dempski and Wells.

And ID is not science – it is no more science than “Chariots of the Gods.” Yet its proponents CLAIM to be using science to discern the Intelligence behind the design. This smacks more of the DaVinci Code than of Catholicism.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Father Coyne is not in league with Behe, Dempski and Wells.

And ID is not science – it is no more science than “Chariots of the Gods.” Yet its proponents CLAIM to be using science to discern the Intelligence behind the design. This smacks more of the DaVinci Code than of Catholicism.

I didn’t claim he was in league. I stated he was involved in the discussion per my previous post.

Science limits itself by definition as it demands empirical evidence. That is a limit of science. It cannot explain the supernatural.

Can you find the truth without science? Can science validate the truth? Should we only teach science at the expense of truth? Are we so sure of random evolution we cannot even open our minds to ID?

From the ID site you gave me.

** Objectivity** results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

Response to Resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that seeks to Censor Intelligent Design

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

I didn’t claim he was in league. I stated he was involved in the discussion per my previous post.

Science limits itself by definition as it demands empirical evidence. That is a limit of science. It cannot explain the supernatural.

Can you find the truth without science? Can science validate the truth? Should we only teach science at the expense of truth? Are we so sure of random evolution we cannot even open our minds to ID?

Can we turn over both science and faith to a bunch of people whose motives and methodology are questionable?

Have you read criticisms of Behe’s approach?

Keneth Miller has a cogent critique in Natural History Magazine (article available at actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)

“Ironically, Behe’s own example, the mousetrap, shows what’s wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain.”

buffalo:

From the ID site you gave me.

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from? We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

It is one thing to say you’re being objective and neutral, another thing entirely to behave that way. The Intelligent Design crew use flawed arguments to creat religious dogma – and they aren’t authorized by the Church to do that.

Once again, when dealing with and extolling religious ideas, look for the nihil obstat and the imprimatur.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

Can we turn over both science and faith to a bunch of people whose motives and methodology are questionable?

Have you read criticisms of Behe’s approach?

Keneth Miller has a cogent critique in Natural History Magazine (article available at actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html)

“Ironically, Behe’s own example, the mousetrap, shows what’s wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain.”

It is one thing to say you’re being objective and neutral, another thing entirely to behave that way. The Intelligent Design crew use flawed arguments to creat religious dogma – and they aren’t authorized by the Church to do that.

Once again, when dealing with and extolling religious ideas, look for the nihil obstat and the imprimatur.

Does the Church have a document supporting evolution with an impramatur?

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Does the Church have a document supporting evolution with an impramatur?

You’re implying the Falacy of Two Alternatives – if we don’t support Intelligent Design we HAVE to support an atheistic explanation for life on earth.

That is, of course, not true. It is perfectly possible to believe God created the universe and all life and NOT follow Behe, et al.

The Intelligent Design use bad science in an attempt to impose dogmas on the rest of us. That is not a Catholic position.

When the Church decides the issue – and it is NOT the issue Behe, et al are pushing – there will be a document with an imprimatur.

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Science limits itself by definition as it demands empirical evidence. That is a limit of science. It cannot explain the supernatural.

Exactly! Which is why ID is not science.

Can you find the truth without science?

Yes.

Can science validate the truth?

Yes (natural truths).

Should we only teach science at the expense of truth?

Ah Ha! A trick question! The inference here is that science does not equate to truth. But it does when it comes to natural events.

The question is should we teach ID as science and the answer is NO. It is no more science that world geography is science.

Are we so sure of random evolution we cannot even open our minds to ID?

You have been corrected before regarding pure randomness of evolution. ID science is an oxymoron. As you noted, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural (God), therefore, any attempt to included the supernatural by definition disqualifies it as science.

By all means, keep an open mind. I know God created everything. I just don’t need science to know that.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

You’re implying the Falacy of Two Alternatives – if we don’t support Intelligent Design we HAVE to support an atheistic explanation for life on earth.

That is, of course, not true. It is perfectly possible to believe God created the universe and all life and NOT follow Behe, et al.

The Intelligent Design use bad science in an attempt to impose dogmas on the rest of us. That is not a Catholic position.

When the Church decides the issue – and it is NOT the issue Behe, et al are pushing – there will be a document with an imprimatur.

No. You are wrong. I am not implying that at all. It is not one or the other. We do know we cannot be Catholic and believe in atheistic, materialistic or naturalistic origins, for they all remove God. That definitely eliminates those.

What is left is theistic evolution or design. Do you believe God has designed anything?

Letting God start life and see where it goes by chance eliminates God’s active participation in sustaining creation.

I have not seen anywhere where ID is IMPOSING dogmas on us. One could argue that the education system has been imposing evolution as the only answer by limiting debate. In any case I appreciate your insider information as to the certainty of where the Church will ultimately stand. I will anxiuosly await this document.

 

[buffalo]

Orogeny:

Ah Ha! A trick question! The inference here is that science does not equate to truth. But it does when it comes to natural events.

/QUOTE]

Well it only can show us the truths we can comprehend. There can be more truth that we cannot know because of our own limited intellect.

I don’t remember ever stating that ID was science. I proposed that since science is a foundation, we can also teach and debate higher truths that stand on the foundation of science.

We cannot visualize more than the three dimensions, but we can mathematically posit more than three.

 

[buffalo]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

One of World’s Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

…At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

No. You are wrong. I am not implying that at all. It is not one or the other. We do know we cannot be Catholic and believe in atheistic, materialistic or naturalistic origins, for they all remove God. That definitely eliminates those.

Perfectly true – as far as it goes.

buffalo:

What is left is theistic evolution or design. Do you believe God has designed anything?.

Yes – but that’s a far cry from accepting Intelligent Design as espoused by Behe, et al.

buffalo:

Letting God start life and see where it goes by chance eliminates God’s active participation in sustaining creation.

Congratulations – you just advanced an argument, that by reducio ad absurdum denies the existance of Free Will.

Evolution – and all the processes of the universe, random or not – procede by God’s will and plan.

buffalo:

I have not seen anywhere where ID is IMPOSING dogmas on us. One could argue that the education system has been imposing evolution as the only answer by limiting debate…

You, yourself posted this:

“In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”

Now, we have seen that Intelligent Design is neither science nor objective. It is simply the opinions of Behe, et al, cloaked in pseudo-science. And with that they seek to tell the rest of us the purpose of God.

As for teachng evolution, teaching science as science is not imposing anything – do you also object to teaching physics, including the Uncertainty Principle, or Chaos Mathmatics?

buffalo:

In any case I appreciate your insider information as to the certainty of where the Church will ultimately stand. I will anxiuosly await this document.

It doesn’t work like that, and you know it. I don’t have to show that a religion that is not in communion with the Catholic Church is heretical by a specific document.

On the other hand, if YOU know where the Church will ultimately stand, and you can document that to justify your adherence to this doctrine, I anxiously await your document.