"Evolution" vs. "Neo-Darwinism" vs. "ID"

[tjm190]

Science proposes explanations for occurrences, but Darwin didn’t turn anti-God until after his daughter died, which is why he made a point of specifying that evolution was a random process in his ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. But that’s neither really here nor there, since he wasn’t Catholic.

This is what is here and there: Do you, as a Catholic, believe that God created the Evolution Engine, or do you think that the Evolution Engine is purely random and God had no part in the design of the Engine?

I believe God acted through evolution- however, I also believe God acts through the weather.Neither of the mechanisms appear to be guided in the slightest.

 

[tabsie3210]

No, I’m not Catholic, I was just trying to answer his question. I’m sure he doesn’t mind the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

1. Just to clarify, I’m a she, not a he.
2. While I respect your right to your own opinion, I had asked to limit this thread to people professing Catholicism because, to put it bluntly, your (name removed by moderator)ut skews the views. Naturally, a non-Catholic doesn’t have the same core beliefs that all Catholics profess, meaning that, well, you really don’t do anything for the argument that Catholics need to profess God’s hand in all creation. Sorry, but unless you’re a Catholic, you don’t have the same conflict of Creed vs. scientific theory beliefs that we do.

 

[tabsie3210]

I believe God acted through evolution- however, I also believe God acts through the weather.Neither of the mechanisms appear to be guided in the slightest.

1. Does the belief that God acts through Evolution equal the belief that God designed Evolution? That’s not a smart-aleck question - I mean, do you believe that Evolution is somehow outside of God but he manipulates it, or are you okay with the idea that he actually created it?
2. I’m not asking about appearance of guidance and have no idea what that has to do with anything. My life doesn’t appear to be guided daily by God but I believe it is anyway.

 

[tabsie3210]

But that is the Standard Operating Method for science - natural explanations only. I don’t see any scientist catching flak for mixing science with their atheism. I don’t see any Universities distancing themselves from these people, but God forbid you should mention ID or Creationism and be a Professor today. You are immediately put on the hot seat.

It’s very relevant when the current global marketing campaign promotes atheism using the same mountains of evidence. As I’ve pointed out before, there is no connection between evolution and modern medicine. It turns out, its primary use is to promote an ideology. Here, To Catholics, it is promoted as the new circumcision. Like a virus, atheist evolution has infected politics as well.

You should understand that for those who view this life as all there is and God as not existing then having things their way via getting everyone to accept non-God evolution is part of the plan.

youtube.com/watch?v=F5QzQtwBseQ

Peace,
Ed

Ed:

1. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut because you and I seem to agree on a LOT of issues.
2. Atheists are sort of outside the realm of this discussion because what I’m focusing on here is how the Catholic community seems to be playing double-think; they want to look good so they say they believe in Evolution, but everyone else believes Evolution to be equal with Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is at odds with the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. So, yeah, Atheists get away with stuff that Catholic’s can’t because we profess a belief in God, but that’s not here nor there.

 

[tjm190]

1. Does the belief that God acts through Evolution equal the belief that God designed Evolution? That’s not a smart-aleck question - I mean, do you believe that Evolution is somehow outside of God but he manipulates it, or are you okay with the idea that he actually created it?

Yes and no- intelligent design suggests design is observable. The nature of God’s involvement in evolution is comparable to His with the rest of what we see- existent, but focusing on it doesn’t lead us to a greater understanding of the mechanics of it.

1. I’m not asking about appearance of guidance and have no idea what that has to do with anything. My life doesn’t appear to be guided daily by God but I believe it is anyway.

So God can guide things whilst those things don’t appear to have design?

 

[tabsie3210]

Okay! I need to take a deep breath here!

I’m sorry for how short these posts have sounded. Never try to write multiple posts when you’re busy running from your bedroom (one one side of the house) to the kitchen (on the other side of the house) to help your mother clean up after dinner.

I bet I sounded really short and I’m very sorry about that! I haven’t even gone back and re-read what I wrote yet but I got a sinking feeling when I was putting the last of the dishes in the dish washer, so I thought I’d stop over and say, “Yipes, that wasn’t my intent, I’m sorry!”

So, hopefully now that I can sit down a bit I can sound more civil.

Bless y’all for your patience. Lord knows I’m running low on it these days. Gah, real life stinks.

 

[tabsie3210]

Yes and no- intelligent design suggests design is observable. The nature of God’s involvement in evolution is comparable to His with the rest of what we see- existent, but focusing on it doesn’t lead us to a greater understanding of the mechanics of it.

So God can guide things whilst those things don’t appear to have design?

Dear tjm -

I’m so sorry, I ended up sounding snippy!

I should have been a LOT more clear - a lot of people (like me) don’t worry about the appearance of Design in everything. We just go by faith and accept that God’s hand is in everything. However, I don’t diss Intelligent Design because I can see where they’re coming from. Now, I personally see design in all things that have evolved. I can look at a cat and say, “Yes, I can see how God designed the cat.” That would be obvious ID. On the other hand, I know of Catholics who don’t see design in all the critters that have evolved, but they believe (as I do) that God uses evolution. They don’t believe in ID per say, because they don’t see how a cat could be designed. To them, a cat looks like it just evolved in the most efficient way for its environment.

But they never question that God is the author of all things and is the author of Evolution itself.

However, in some cases, these same people who say they don’t question God’s hand in all things diss IDers because they say that IDers are looking for a God-of-the-gaps. They say the argument is unscientific. They say that only belief in Evolution is good, and belief in ID is bad.

But to me, that’s double-think, because if they believe that God has a hand in all things, then that means they believe that God designed evolution.

I call it the Evolution Engine because it’s a function that follows certain rules to produce critters that are best adapted to their environment. It’s an Engine, just like weather is.

So if God designed the Evolution Engine, then that means that all Catholics must, to at least an extent, have a belief in ID. Then I feel very put out that IDers are getting snubbed for being “undereducated” or “superstitious” or just plain wrong.

That’s where my irritation comes from. I really don’t care if you believe that Evolution shows signs of a designer. (That’s a generic “you” by the way, not a person you, just so you know). If you believe in God then you have to believe in a Desginer. So why look down on other people who believe in a designer? We’re just as guilty as they are, but we pretend not to be because we want to look good to the rest of society, which thinks we’re superstitous idiots.

So, by what you said, I would take it to mean you believe in an intelligent designer, even though you don’t believe that there’s necessarily evidence of ID. Evidence or not, though, there’s no reason to frown on ID if it’s truely presented as science, not God-of-the-gaps thinking. And since some atheists have successfully argued for ID, I don’t feel it’s God-of-the-gaps myself.

But in truth, you and I are IDers to an extent, or else we’re professing two contradictory philosophies at the same time. Does this make sense?

 

[tjm190]

Dear tjm -

I’m so sorry, I ended up sounding snippy!

I should have been a LOT more clear - a lot of people (like me) don’t worry about the appearance of Design in everything. We just go by faith and accept that God’s hand is in everything. However, I don’t diss Intelligent Design because I can see where they’re coming from. Now, I personally see design in all things that have evolved. I can look at a cat and say, “Yes, I can see how God designed the cat.” That would be obvious ID. On the other hand, I know of Catholics who don’t see design in all the critters that have evolved, but they believe (as I do) that God uses evolution. They don’t believe in ID per say, because they don’t see how a cat could be designed. To them, a cat looks like it just evolved in the most efficient way for its environment.

But they never question that God is the author of all things and is the author of Evolution itself.

However, in some cases, these same people who say they don’t question God’s hand in all things diss IDers because they say that IDers are looking for a God-of-the-gaps. They say the argument is unscientific. They say that only belief in Evolution is good, and belief in ID is bad.

But to me, that’s double-think, because if they believe that God has a hand in all things, then that means they believe that God designed evolution.

I call it the Evolution Engine because it’s a function that follows certain rules to produce critters that are best adapted to their environment. It’s an Engine, just like weather is.

So if God designed the Evolution Engine, then that means that all Catholics must, to at least an extent, have a belief in ID. Then I feel very put out that IDers are getting snubbed for being “undereducated” or “superstitious” or just plain wrong.

That’s where my irritation comes from. I really don’t care if you believe that Evolution shows signs of a designer. (That’s a generic “you” by the way, not a person you, just so you know). If you believe in God then you have to believe in a Desginer. So why look down on other people who believe in a designer? We’re just as guilty as they are, but we pretend not to be because we want to look good to the rest of society, which thinks we’re superstitous idiots.

So, by what you said, I would take it to mean you believe in an intelligent designer, even though you don’t believe that there’s necessarily evidence of ID. Evidence or not, though, there’s no reason to frown on ID if it’s truely presented as science, not God-of-the-gaps thinking. And since some atheists have successfully argued for ID, I don’t feel it’s God-of-the-gaps myself.

But in truth, you and I are IDers to an extent, or else we’re professing two contradictory philosophies at the same time. Does this make sense?

Not at all- short responses and snippy ones are quite different!

Yes, belief that God created everything qualifies as ID to an extent- but I (we?) would not say God had any less of a hand in designing a star than life- as such, I would not identify anymore as an IDer with respect to life than anything else.

I frown upon ID because it implies that we can not understand the mechanism of evolution without a designer.

 

[tabsie3210]

Not at all- short responses and snippy ones are quite different!

Yes, belief that God created everything qualifies as ID to an extent- but I (we?) would not say God had any less of a hand in designing a star than life- as such, I would not identify anymore as an IDer with respect to life than anything else.

I frown upon ID because it implies that we can not understand the mechanism of evolution without a designer.

Personally, I don’t see ID as strictly about evolution/life. That’s something that bugs me. I see God’s design in the stars equally with biology or the weather or the way a volcano works.

To me, everything is a giant puzzle to be explored and put together, but it’s all logical in a way that I feel calls for a designer. That’s why I’m sympathetic to ID - I can personally see design in everything. Of course, that means that I feel we’re called to figure out how everything works, because someOne designed everything for us to take apart and discover.

Going to the Divine Watchmaker theory - I personally see a giant watch laying on the ground with a bunch of tools beside it (scientific laws and so forth) and a sign that says, “Figure this out,” posted next to the watch, so I believe we’re required to learn absolutely everything about, well, everything scientific.

The reason I’m not quite an IDer is that I feel that ID is very interested in finding evidence of a Designer, whereas I already see it, so I just want to see what the Designer built.

I’m so glad you didn’t think I was being uppity. Thanks for being so nice about my responses.

 

[edwest2]

Ed:

1. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut because you and I seem to agree on a LOT of issues.
2. Atheists are sort of outside the realm of this discussion because what I’m focusing on here is how the Catholic community seems to be playing double-think; they want to look good so they say they believe in Evolution, but everyone else believes Evolution to be equal with Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is at odds with the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. So, yeah, Atheists get away with stuff that Catholic’s can’t because we profess a belief in God, but that’s not here nor there.

How is it neither here nor there?

The current Biology textbook version of evolution is perfectly suited for non-theists. Life arose from non-life, which cannot be demonstrated. Then, the engine kicked on, spitting out organisms until man.

Let’s look at the theory. First, abiogenesis. Scientists have no idea how the first organism arose. They think it was a simple cell. However, such a cell would need a way to nourish itself, second, it would need the internal machinery to duplicate itself. However, today, we are being asked to accept the “natural,” non-God formation of this first cell as a given. Or simply, “trust us, it must have happened.”

Next, and please read the following carefully, the same science which can only observe, interpret and report is silent about God and the supernatural. It cannot bring God into the lab or question Him. The same with any supernatural event. No peer reviewed papers exist. None.

Then, certain individuals make a connection between science and the Bible and post here. They tell us the Bible is not a science book. Fine. Then, using science, they attempt to explain the supernatural and the work of God. How did they do this? An experiment in the lab? Of course not. They are attempting to impose their beliefs on us. Just because they think they can make certain connections between science and the work of God does not amount to a factual statement.

Forget for a moment what other people think. Think about what the Church teaches and why. What would a scientist learn from standing next to Jesus about anything? God used no devices or herbs or medicines to heal those around Him. He did not need a machine to feed 5,000 using a few loaves and fishes. And then some of the same people say we should be in awe of something they call evolution? I think a man that can tell a man with a withered arm to stand up and heal it instantly is a bit more impressive and a true representation of what God can do.

I am interested in things like the Galileo event but that one event does not define the Church and it certainly does not define the power of God.

If a process similar to evolution occurred, it is reasonable to conclude, as Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope John Paul II concluded, that the immanent design of the living things around us is actual design. Jesus Christ could have chosen an entirely different form but He came as a man into this world.

I do not want to look good. Pope Benedict said, referring to the secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II, “But it also true that the theory of evolutuon is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” A lot of bad comments were left after the end of that article from various people. Saying anything less than you believe everything about evolution is a fact leads to insults.

Read Communion and Stewardship and the encyclical Humani Generis. Once you know what the Church actually teaches about this subject, you will understand why Catholics are in the position we are in. For example, Adam and Eve are our first parents. Period. Eve was formed by God from Adam’s side, period.

We are the Church that follows the way, the truth and the life, not the Church of Ok, we’ll believe it so we can look good to the world.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tabsie3210]

Dear Ed,

I’m sorry. That was really short and, after re-reading, sounded snippy.

What I should have said was, “I want to focus this thread on making people who profess to be Catholics understand that they can’t dismiss ID out of hand because they believe in ID, or else they’re playing fast and loose with the Catholic creeds that say that we believe in one God who is the creator of Heaven and Earth.” Atheists don’t share our creeds, since they don’t believe in any God, and therefore are sort of outside the scope of my kvetching. I’m mostly ranting about how we Catholics who believe in evolution can get snotty with other Catholics who believe in ID, and forget that we, too, believe in ID.

I just was meaning that I wanted to focus my rant on people I felt the need to rant at. Mea culpa.

 

[tjm190]

I grow tired of the “hey! you didn’t say God did it you closed-minded bigot!” argument. Science teaches stars form naturally, and even though I believe God has a hand in such things, I don’t object. Because the mechanism by which stars form is natural.

“But it also true that the theory of evolutuon is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

I’ve already explained why this quote is of little meaning in the debate- did you have a problem with my explanation, did you not understand, or have you forgotten.

 

[tabsie3210]

I grow tired of the “hey! you didn’t say God did it you closed-minded bigot!” argument. Science teaches stars form naturally, and even though I believe God has a hand in such things, I don’t object. Because the mechanism by which stars form is natural.

“But it also true that the theory of evolutuon is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

I’ve already explained why this quote is of little meaning in the debate- did you have a problem with my explanation, did you not understand, or have you forgotten.

Please forgive me - I’m supposed to be going to bed and instead have gotten involved in this thread, but I’m tired, so I may have missed something. I’m not entirely sure if this is directed at me or not, because I don’t recall saying that “Evolution isn’t scientifically proven.”

I mean, I know there’s an evolution just like I know there’s a God behind it.

What I am having an issue with isn’t people who believe in Evolution as a natural function of God’s design, but people who look down on ID and scoff because it’s not “scientific” when all I have seen is decent science. I just think ID focuses more on the designer than on what was designed, which is why I don’t 100% identify with it.

To me, you made yourself clear in that you acknowledge that there’s a Designer of evolution, which is what I wanted Catholics to acknowledge - we have to remember that we profess God’s existence, so we have to be careful not to fall into the Neo-Darwiniian trap. Unfortunately, a lot of Catholics seem to jump head-first into the trap because they don’t want to look unscientific.

 

[tjm190]

Please forgive me - I’m supposed to be going to bed and instead have gotten involved in this thread, but I’m tired, so I may have missed something. I’m not entirely sure if this is directed at me or not, because I don’t recall saying that “Evolution isn’t scientifically proven.”

I mean, I know there’s an evolution just like I know there’s a God behind it.

What I am having an issue with isn’t people who believe in Evolution as a natural function of God’s design, but people who look down on ID and scoff because it’s not “scientific” when all I have seen is decent science. I just think ID focuses more on the designer than on what was designed, which is why I don’t 100% identify with it.

To me, you made yourself clear in that you acknowledge that there’s a Designer of evolution, which is what I wanted Catholics to acknowledge - we have to remember that we profess God’s existence, so we have to be careful not to fall into the Neo-Darwiniian trap. Unfortunately, a lot of Catholics seem to jump head-first into the trap because they don’t want to look unscientific.

Twas directed at ed- he and I are not exactly strangers with respect to this line of discussion.

People seem to believe that accepting the random clause in darwinism necessitates rejection of God’s influence- but again, all natural mechanisms appear unguided from the scientific perspective- why single this one out as anti-God.

 

[edwest2]

I grow tired of the “hey! you didn’t say God did it you closed-minded bigot!” argument. Science teaches stars form naturally, and even though I believe God has a hand in such things, I don’t object. Because the mechanism by which stars form is natural.

“But it also true that the theory of evolutuon is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

I’ve already explained why this quote is of little meaning in the debate- did you have a problem with my explanation, did you not understand, or have you forgotten.

This quote provides the Catholic Answer, which is what this forum is about. “Naturally” always means without God. I reject that idea.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjm190]

This quote provides the Catholic Answer, which is what this forum is about. “Naturally” always means without God. I reject that idea.

Peace,
Ed

So you don’t believe God plays a part in all things? Or does nothing happen naturally?
And the Pope’s personal opinion on whether or not evolution is valid or complete is not relevant to the debate, any more so than a scientist’s views on the Real Presence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This quote provides the Catholic Answer, which is what this forum is about. “Naturally” always means without God. I reject that idea.
Peace,
Ed

This is fallacious. That a thing occurs naturally only means that present events - in the immediacy of being physical - occur due to the actions of secondary causes. This does no mean that secondary causes is all that is required in order for there to be events. The Divine sustenance of physical events is also a necessary cause since a thing cannot be real or continue to be real with out that which is absolute reality; and thus this act is also a continuous act of creation. It is the kind of cause that acts without undermining the existence of freewill and natural events. But that’s not a cause that science can recognize due to its transcendental qualities.

In any case, the view that there are no natural events, or events that are not caused by God directly, is heretical and pagan in my opinion, and only inflames the problem of evil, since it would mean that God is orchestrating all events including our own personal choices. God would even be behind the so called natural disasters that kill thousands of people, and all accidents or terrorist acts such as train crashes and planes crashing into buildings. He would be directly responsible when animals eat people and when fathers rape their sons and daughters. This is the act of a malicious puppeteer. This is not the Christian God that i know and believe in. I think you need to rethink what it is that you actually believe, before making comments.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Either God was there and arranged things or he wasn’t.

First of all, what do you mean by arranging things?

Also, elsewhere in one of your posts you seem to say that God would not have predictive knowledge of events if they were all random or had the element of chance in them. This seems to imply that can only God know somethings because he orchestrated all events to necessarily have a particular out come; thus knowing the end of all things. But God doesn’t have knowledge on the basis that he can predict the outcome of events according to some secret mathematical formula upon which the universe is based. Neither is it a matter of God “seeing” events before they occur that allows God to have absolute knowledge. But rather, God knows all events because God is “reality”, God is that by which things can have reality, and thus it cannot be true or rather it is logically impossible that God doesn’t know a being or an event that participates in the real. God knows what exists or will come to exist, because God is absolute existence; God is that nature in which things come to exist, without which potential existence would be impossible. God isn’t a being that potentially acted in the past and predicts the future. God is pure actuality irrespective of time and change. God is absolutely real and is the ground of all truth and is thus transcendent of all contingent knowledge and truth and is therefore transcendent of time and space. It is impossible for God not to know all things. Therefore chance events is a not problem for Gods knowledge

 

[MindOverMatter]

The idea that God is the cause of his own knowledge is true insofar as he doesn’t gain knowledge through the observation of created things, but rather, he knows all things because he knows himself.

 

[StAnastasia]

[In any case, the view that there are no natural events, or events that are not caused by God directly, is heretical and pagan in my opinion, and only inflames the problem of evil, since it would mean that God is orchestrating all events including our own personal choices. God would even be behind the so called natural disasters that kill thousands of people, and all accidents or terrorist acts such as train crashes and planes crashing into buildings. He would be directly responsible when animals eat people and when fathers rape their sons and daughters. This is the act of a malicious puppeteer. This is not the Christian God that i know and believe in. I think you need to rethink what it is that you actually believe, before making comments.

While I am no great fan of Richard Dawkins, the “malicious puppeteer” has aptly been described by Richard:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This is of course blasphemous, which is why Christians must strive to distance themselves from any portrayal of God as orchestrating terrestrial and human events.

StAnastasia