Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[StAnastasia]

Thanks for responding. I’m puzzled by your statement, however, that ID says that intervention should be undetectable by science. That seems to me to be the anti-ID position (as you mention later in your post above), not the ID position…But making a faith statement that “there would be no scientifically detectable way…” is actually not grounded in science Detecting God - that’s one thing. But detecting his impact on creation is another…The idea that ID proponents promote a lesser God because he wouldn’t stoop to tinker is something that Fr. Coyne (and his acolytes) may regret as they look back over their lives in the future. If you continue to brush elbows with him (in Rome?) then perhaps you could pass along my comment.

Sorry, ricmat, that post went through several editions, and I neglected to delete all double negatives. You are right: ID says the opposite than that intervention should be undetectable by science.

I do hope ID will be discussed in Rome, and if George Coyne is there I will certainly broach the subject with him. I would hope that eventually there will be some common ground discovered between the various flavours and degrees of interventionism. However, the CTNS-Vatican conference ran for ten years and six fat volumes, and no real consensus was reached as to how God acts in the world.

StAnastasia

 

[Detales]

The back and forth on here about creationism, ID, mechanism, etc, remind me very much of both a cartoon I saw once and a medievel novel I once read.

Novels weren’t very well developed at that time, and even any of the posts on here (almost) of any stripe is a greatly advanced expression compared to a novel of that time.

The cartoon was fun. It showed a group of mathemeticians standing around a large chalk board thickly covered with equations. Just before the = sign, the last term of the equation was “{and then a miracle happens}.” The answer on the other side of the = clearly had nothing to do with the mathematical necessity of the rest of the equation before the {and then…} term.

To me, that epitomizes the distinct roles of science and religion. The correctness and relationship of say, E=MCsqd within itself and to other formulae is a matter of science. The relationship of that equation to God is the provence of religion as we know it, at least in christianist terms. And so on with other sciences.

As StAnastsia said, there are six volumes containing ten years of debate about “how God acts in the world.” I doubt that we would do much better here than did the CTNS. That is where the midieaval novel comes in.

Imagine reading pages and pages that were not much more than elaborations and reductions of “… and then the fell Sir Pantsalot smote Sir Crospatch mightily, and Sir Pantsalot, smote back as mightily, and Sir Crospatch, though a fell knight as well, took the blow shivering yet smote back mightily and then mightily did Sir Pantsalot mightily smite again Sir Crospatch. They took again their same swords after resting and again they smote each other smiting mighty smites each one smitning the other. And then, for both knights were fell, once again Sir …” you get the idea. Pages and pages like that. To my ear, it gets to sounding like that on here sometimes.

I do appreciate what varous parties have to say, and have learned some, for sure, but really a lot on here comes off as apples and oranges over and over again, with emotions seemingly going up and hardening of the “arguees.” No basic fundamentales have been agreed upon that would facilitate a reasonable discussion.

And to me, none of these positions is satisfying, either “It just happened!” “God started it and it works!” or “It’s His train set and He can do whatever He wants with it.” And yet, the one solution that by Occam’s razor would be the one of choice {provided that one is capable of detatching from emotional and habitual adhesions to a favorite “reasoned” stance} hasn’t even been mentioned on here.

At any rate, why not just let the schools teach how things are observed to work as presently we best know how, keeping in mind that what is taught is working hypothesis and has in the past changed a la geocentricity, spontaneous generation, and phlogiston, and even the atom.

Let the attribution of unquantifiable God action remain as a religious debate. And let us also remember that St. Augustin, Darwin, Wallace, and others who were God fearing men, yet postulated that species, apart from the origin of Life being with God, did change over time in ways that can at least to some degree be reasonably seen as teleological attempts. Even if God gives things a nudge, they yet apear to work to physical observation in a certain way. So teach the observable as a pro tem in the schools, and if you wish to give the phenomenon a “hands on” Driver, teach it by all means at home. The observable working part can be seen everywhere unless someone screams “But you are not looking through MY glasses!!”.

The “attribution to God” part, as far as arguements here, is in either its existance at all, or in its manner of action, so subjective that introducing it into study is conterproductive of progress to the very system that might yet yield the very ultimate mystery that forces a reconsideraton of some aspect of the subjectives more into the quale of science. For now, let’s leave the {miracle} part out of the scholastic persuit.

It pains me to say that, because I think they are one and the same, but we are so fragmented in our thinking that semantically and grammatically there doesn’t yet seem to be a demonstrable fit between the two disciplines suitable to all observers as are such things as the laws of gravity and electricity, etc… This appears more, unfortunately, to be on the religionist side than on the science side.

Bindar Doondat

 

[reggieM]

Who has the convincing defense of Theistic Evolution?

Who has at least a partial defense of Theistic Evolution? Anyone? Any guesses?

Good questions, Granny. I would like to see such things myself also.

 

[reggieM]

 

[reggieM]

The idea that ID proponents promote a lesser God because he wouldn’t stoop to tinker is something that Fr. Coyne (and his acolytes) may regret as they look back over their lives in the future.

Agreed. Fr. Coyne, apparently here, is speaking from a scientific perspective and stating that “God wouldn’t do it that way …”

Obviously, that’s a theological point of view interjected into this scientific discussion.

Stephen J. Gould fell into the same error himself with his “Panda’s Thumb” article. His point was to prove that an Intelligent Designer could have been involved in the development of nature because such a Designer “wouldn’t have developed an appendage like that”.

He did two things here – one, prove that ID theory can be evaluated by scientists and falsified (if that’s what he’d call that paper). Secondly, he shows how his own theological bias drove him towards a scientific conclusion.

The evidence for God’s existence (which includes evidence for the nature of His intelligence, being and actions are) is well-founded in reason and logic. That argument is not reserved to theology class.

Just as the existence of a First Cause can be established by logic and reason, so also St. Thomas’ fifth proof (the teleological argument) can be evaluated by scientific methods.

As repeated many times – it’s the same method SETI uses to determine if signals from space originate from an intelligent source. It involves pattern recognition and probability studies.

 

[reggieM]

StA and Reggie,

have y’all thought about putting your views in a pamphlet or book, or posted online somewhere? It sure would be easier for those of us watching from the outside to get the whole picture of your viewpoints/positions than reading the various posts on multiple threads. I’d like to read more of your stuff, but would really appreciate a consolidated place to do so. I’m gettin carpal tunnel trying to keep up.

Thanks for your suggestion, b-ulmen – I agree that it’s difficult to read the entire thread to get the main points.

I’ve actually thought about collecting the best material from the CAF evolutionary threads. There are some gems that are posted along the way, and I hate to see them lost.

The fundamental problem, as I see it (Granny has pointed to it directly also) is that the Theistic Evolutionary position is virtually identical with atheistic-Darwinism.

We can see it very clearly here on this thread. StAnastasia has not been able to give a clear idea about what God has actually done in His role as Creator and how He has intervened in the development of nature, life and the human person (we have Sacred Doctrine on that last part, but even that is denied by Theistic Evolutionists).

In all of these threads, we will find practically nothing, from the evolutionists, that discusses God’s role. It’s continually a defense of evolutionary theory from the materialist-atheist viewpoint.

Some go as far as claim that the development of nature is not different than a merely physical process and the study of it does not touch on the topic of God, no more than the study of mathematics or plumbing does.

As I see it, this is a perfect example of how impoverished the Catholic scientific culture has become. They can’t even see a role for God in the development of nature, life or human beings. By default, the atheist-materialist view is embraced and it serves as a philosophical foundation.

If we fall into the Satanic error of believing that God is merely a subjective notion and that God has no discernable influence on the development of nature, we’ll no longer have Catholicism, which is based on rationality, but rather something similar to the “sky fairy” religions that are so often mocked.

We have to repeat again and again – the existence of God is supported by reason and logic. The fact that anything at all exists, is evidence that there is a supreme Creator, the First Cause of all things. That First Cause is the perfection of Intelligence – Supremely Intelligent and powerful.

I cannot see how it would be possible for a Catholic to simply ignore or dismiss that fact when attempting to study the product of that Intelligence (e.g. all of nature) – but sadly, that happens all the time.

 

[reggieM]

However, the CTNS-Vatican conference ran for ten years and six fat volumes, and no real consensus was reached as to how God acts in the world.

I challenged the Catholic-evolutionists here on CAF to explain God’s role in the development of nature (origin of life, etc).

Apparently, this Vatican sponsored conference could not reach a consensus about that.

But at the same time, Catholic theologians assure us that they know all about evolution and that Intelligent Design theory is false.

Perhaps our contemporary theologians should work on studying “how God acts in the world” since it’s pretty clear that they don’t have a clue.

For myself, these theologians are useless and have proven themselves to be so over the past 30 years. Actually, just being useless would be step up for them. They’d at least stop destroying the faith and spreading the poison of confusion and uncertainty.

The old is passing away … there is a new generation of faithful young Catholics on the horizon and much to hope for.

 

[reggieM]

Stephen J. Gould fell into the same error himself with his “Panda’s Thumb” article. His point was to prove that an Intelligent Designer could **not **have been involved in the development of nature because such a Designer “wouldn’t have developed an appendage like that”.

Correction in that paragraph in bold.

 

[Monty_Arch]

In all of these threads, we will find practically nothing, from the evolutionists, that discusses God’s role. It’s continually a defense of evolutionary theory from the materialist-atheist viewpoint.

That’s because scientists do not discuss God’s role. Remember,
“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

 

[Monty_Arch]

Stephen J. Gould fell into the same error himself with his “Panda’s Thumb” article. His point was to prove that an Intelligent Designer could not have been involved in the development of nature because such a Designer “wouldn’t have developed an appendage like that”.

He did two things here – one, prove that ID theory can be evaluated by scientists and falsified (if that’s what he’d call that paper). Secondly, he shows how his own theological bias drove him towards a scientific conclusion.

Stephen Jay Gould believed in nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA), that science and religion are two separate realms

In Dr. Gould’s view, science speaks with authority in the realm of “what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)” and religion holds sway over “questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.”

 

[StAnastasia]

Apparently, this Vatican sponsored conference could not reach a consensus about that…Perhaps our contemporary theologians should work on studying “how God acts in the world” since it’s pretty clear that they don’t have a clue. For myself, these theologians are useless and have proven themselves to be so over the past 30 years.

Reggie, if you have a problem with contemporary theology, why continue your useless yammering about it on Catholic Answers, where you will convert non one? If you sincerely believe you have a better way, why not earn some theological qualifications and participate in conferences to help bring about the change you desire? Or earn some biological qualifications and attend conferences to effect change in the world of professional biology? That would be far more constructive than flogging long-dead theologians and scientists, and continually grousing about living ones.

StAnastasia

 

[Orogeny]

You answered a simple question with a question.

It’s confirmed that there are scientists on the Dissent from Darwin list that have more scientific and academic credentials than you do.

Probably all of the scientists on that list have more scientific and academic credentials that I do. How many of the Steve’s do you better when it comes to scientific and academic credentials?

How about telling us your scientific credentials. I have very little. I have a BS in geology (minor in geophysics) with some graduate work. How about you?

And what does that mean?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Given that evolutionary theory is mainly a philosophical construct then that should be an appropriate response.

Well, you seem to be big on credentials lately. What are your credentials to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Temperature, humidity, dust, size, etc…

Which means it isn’t static, doesn’t it?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Stephen Jay Gould believed in nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA), that science and religion are two separate realms

In Dr. Gould’s view, science speaks with authority in the realm of “what the universe is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory)” and religion holds sway over “questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.”

As Catholics, we cannot accept that. Science must be subordinate to religion at the very least, in moral terms.

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, if you have a problem with contemporary theology, why continue your useless yammering about it on Catholic Answers, where you will convert non one? If you sincerely believe you have a better way, why not earn some theological qualifications and participate in conferences to help bring about the change you desire? Or earn some biological qualifications and attend conferences to effect change in the world of professional biology? That would be far more constructive than flogging long-dead theologians and scientists, and continually grousing about living ones.

StAnastasia

Why do you think I should accept your advice in these matters? On what basis would I do so?

 

[reggieM]

Well, you seem to be big on credentials lately. What are your credentials to make such a claim?

Peace

Tim

I am a member of this discussion forum and therefore give my opinion.

I have been big on credentials only to point out the absurdity of citing such things in order to establish some kind of authoritative hierarchy.

 

[reggieM]

Probably all of the scientists on that list have more scientific and academic credentials that I do. How many of the Steve’s do you better when it comes to scientific and academic credentials?

Credentials have very little to do with discovery of the truth, and that’s the point. The most highly credentialed scientists have been very wrong in the past.

How about telling us your scientific credentials. I have very little. I have a BS in geology (minor in geophysics) with some graduate work. How about you?

Probably my best academic credentials are 12 credit hours graduate level Philosophy and having graduated from a Catholic college I took theology and philosophy as part of the core curriculum. I took undergraduate elective courses in archeology (two semesters) and astronomy (two semesters). Aside from that, my science background is limited to high school courses.

And what does that mean?

I started on this topic when hecd2 ridiculed commentaries by philosophers on the nature of evolution. He asked what philosophy has to do with evolution. I pointed out that the conference he was commenting on invited 4 philosophers (out of 16 total participants).

Since he was so dogmatically certain that he was right, I asked what his credentials are (he does not have a biology background).

When the topic turned to the 700 scientists who Dissent from Darwin, I posed the same question, since that group was dismissed due to “lack of credentials”.

What it means? I think it shows that the list of 700 include some accomplished scientists and they can’t be dismissed as ignorant or incompetent.

Additionally, I simply cannot judge them based on your own assertions.

While you have more scientific credentials than I do, on what basis would I simply take your word for it, as against scientists who have more credentials than both of us do.

The final point is – the argument about credentials is not very valuable.

 

[Cpl_Ferro]

Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin:
Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

Just in time for Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species, a new nationwide Zogby poll of likely voters indicates overwhelming public support for teaching the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory. The poll shows similar overwhelming support for giving students and teachers the academic freedom to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.
According to Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West, the poll results may shatter some preconceptions held by those in the media about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian theory.

Next up, equal time in Chemistry class for Alchemy!

And, don’t forget, this week in History class we will be reviewing why the Holocaust didn’t happen!

 

[StAnastasia]

Why do you think I should accept your advice in these matters? On what basis would I do so?

You needn’t accept my advice at all. It just seems to me from what you say that you are regret the current state of both science and theology. The best way to change the state of a discipline is to become qualified to engage in the public discussion of ideas, such as science conferences or conferences like the one in Rome next week. If you don’t change it, who will?

StAnastasia