ID and Darwinism

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edwest2

Guest
ID, though attacked by some as being nothing and/or dead, is still bitterly attacked whenever it is mentioned. I agree with those interviewed in this article:

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-060-i

That there is a fear that if an Intelligent Designer is accepted, then the ‘power balance’ between religion and its influence and secularism and its influence will tilt toward religion. I see that here all the time. There are some interesting views given in the article, I’d be curious to hear what others think.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
ID, though attacked by some as being nothing and/or dead, is still bitterly attacked whenever it is mentioned. I agree with those interviewed in this article:

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-060-i

That there is a fear that if an Intelligent Designer is accepted, then the ‘power balance’ between religion and its influence and secularism and its influence will tilt toward religion. I see that here all the time. There are some interesting views given in the article, I’d be curious to hear what others think.
Click to expand...
It should be pretty simple. ID is religion and has no place in science classrooms.
 
edwest2 said:
no place in the science classroom?

This is a Catholic Forum, and what the article refers to is scientific claims regarding design, which I agree with.
Click to expand...
ID was invented to be a wedge to get religion into science classrooms.

As far as belief in ID from a religious point of view, hey, no problem. But try getting some bright grad students to apply for research projects in ID.
 
ID was invented for some nefarious purpose? I don’t think so. The Catholic Church teaches there is actual design in nature. This predates any current Institute or any perceived threat to “education.”

Peace,
Ed
 
Based on the reviews I’ve read, Mr. Stein has designed a polemic. The article I link to contains the kind of clear thinking that the Church teaches and others are becoming aware of. I’m not interested in demonizing anyone. I would like the Darwinist propaganda exposed for what it is; namely, a philosophical presupposition which, like a fictional story, can be molded to a desired outcome.

Pope John Paul II said to deny design in nature is to deny things as they appear to us. It would be an abdication of human intelligence. I think the non-political design argument is in line with Church teaching and with what we see around us. And it is not just an argument as in it being just a component or key to people saying, Oh yeah. Things really are designed. As one of the interviewees said, Getting design without a designer is a neat trick.

Peace,
Ed
 
I thought the article from Touchstone was very good.
The crucial issue always in this debate is whether material mechanisms have the creative capacity to bring about biological complexity. This claim cannot be a necessary truth, for otherwise we are talking metaphysics and not science. And since it is not a necessary truth, the question is open for scientific discussion, and design becomes once again a real possibility.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. We already know that intelligence can create things that appear to be designed. We notice that nature itself appears to be designed. Logically, the idea that intelligence was involved in the development of nature should not be ruled out.
It argues that the information we see in the biosphere is too complicated to have arisen by chance plus natural selection, and that something intelligent needed to bring all those complex systems into existence.
Click to expand...
I like the point here referring to “complex systems”. It’s not just the evolution of an individual organism that should be recognized, but the entire network of interrelated “systems” that can be found in the biosphere. These systems are not driven by natural selection and competition but mainly on complimentarity and fulfillment. That is why it “appears that nature was designed for a purpose” (Richard Dawkins) and not merely to destroy itself in a battle of competition, survival and extinction.
It’s funny—or sad—to see how “creation,” one of the loveliest words in the English language, becomes a byword in science when “-ist” is attached.
Click to expand...
In this case, scientism makes something that is beautiful become the target of hatred. All Catholics must believe in Creation.
If someone were to say I am advancing an unscientific agenda, my response would be: Mathematics is the foundation of science, and mathematics disproves many of the most important Darwinian evolutionary claims. I am being scientific, not unscientific, in rejecting Darwinism.
Click to expand...
Two points come to mind: Mathematics is the foundation of science (as is logic). The mathematics behind evolutionary claims is very weak.
I believe Darwinism is so appealing because it serves human pride. It facilitates the belief that there is no supernatural intelligence operating in our world. The absence of any such intelligence means that the human mind is the most intelligent and creative force in the known universe. Scientists, having mastered difficult masses of knowledge, and having proven their reasoning and thinking abilities under rigorous and competitive conditions, can fairly lay claim to being the most intelligent and creative among human beings.
Click to expand...
Anyone who has observed or read about the smug put-downs scientists inflict on each other in debates, and who has observed the obsessive drive of scientists to be the first to publish a discovery—thereby getting credit for having the sharpest and fastest minds—knows that the drive for the feeling of intellectual superiority is very strong in the scientific community.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (Paperback)

Excerpts:

“Let me be up front and state my own prejudices right here. I thoroughly believe that real science requires explanations that do not involve supernatural agents. I believe that the eye evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Furthermore, I believe that physicists and cosmologists must also find a natural explanation of our world, including the amazing lucky accidents that conspired to make our own existence possible.” (Page xi)

"In the past most physicists (including me) have chosen to ignore the elephant–even to deny its existence. … Evidence has been accumulating for an explanation of the ‘illusion of intelligent design’ that depends only on the principles of physics, mathematics, and the laws of large numbers. " (Page xi)

“On one side are the people who are convinced that the world must have been created or designed by an intelligent agent with a benevolent purpose. On the other side are the hard-nosed, scientific types who feel certain that the universe is the product of impersonal, disinterested laws of physics, mathematics, and probability–a world without a purpose, so to speak. By the first group, I don’t mean the biblical literalists who believe the world was created six thousand years ago and are ready to fight about it. I am talking about thoughtful, intelligent people who look around at the world and have a hard time believing that it was just dumb luck that made the world so accommodating to human beings. I don’t think these people are being stupid; they have a real point.” (Page 6)

“Unlike the debate between ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ Thomas Huxley and [Samuel] Wilberforce, **the present argument is **not between science and religion but between two warring factions of science–those who believe, on one hand, that the laws of nature are determined by mathematical relations, which by mere chance happen to allow life, and those who believe that the Laws of Physics have, in some way, been determined by the requirement that intelligent life be possible.” (Page 6-7)
 
the present argument is not between science and religion but between two warring factions of science–those who believe, on one hand, that the laws of nature are determined by mathematical relations, which by mere chance happen to allow life, and those who believe that the Laws of Physics have, in some way, been determined by the requirement that intelligent life be possible.
Click to expand...
How odd, then, that we find advocates of the highlighted position on both sides of the divide. There have been, and are, many “Darwinists” who think that is true. Darwin’s last sentence in “The Origin of Species” says as much, as have many other “Darwinists” since.

However, there are very few people with much understanding of evolutionary theory, who think God has to step in and tinker with the system to keep it working. ID, in the form we see from Jonathn Wells, or Phillip Johnson, is intellectually and theologically unsupportable.
 
**If someone were to say I am advancing an unscientific agenda, my response would be: Mathematics is the foundation of science, and mathematics disproves many of the most important Darwinian evolutionary claims. I am being scientific, not unscientific, in rejecting Darwinism. **

Sounds like a testable assertion. If they are right, the whole science of population genetics comes crashing down. Have you noticed though, that those claiming that they have a “mathematical proof against evolution” never actually show it to us?

Like the guy who claims he’s found a limitless supply of free energy. Somehow, we never actually get to see how it works.
 
The_Barbarian said:
However, there are very few people with much understanding of evolutionary theory, who think God has to step in and tinker with the system to keep it working. ID, in the form we see from Jonathn Wells, or Phillip Johnson, is intellectually and theologically unsupportable.
Click to expand...
An omniscient God knows in advance whether an incoming cosmic ray will zig or zag, and precisely which bacterium it will hit and where. The Intelligent Designer does not know whether the cosmic ray will zig or zag and so has to nudge it to make sure it hits the correct target. I do not see the Designer as being much of a match for God.

rossum
 
The_Barbarian said:
How odd, then, that we find advocates of the highlighted position on both sides of the divide. There have been, and are, many “Darwinists” who think that is true. Darwin’s last sentence in “The Origin of Species” says as much, as have many other “Darwinists” since.

However, there are very few people with much understanding of evolutionary theory, who think God has to step in and tinker with the system to keep it working. ID, in the form we see from Jonathn Wells, or Phillip Johnson, is intellectually and theologically unsupportable.
Click to expand...
Theologically: After the fall, all things became broken. Man lost his physical perfection and broke his intimate connection with God.

Intellectually: It’s a neat tick to get design without a designer. I agree. We were designed.

Finally, Cardinal Schoenborn states there is actual design in nature, and backs up his statements with things Pope John Paul II said that agree with this.

Peace,
Ed
 
It’s true that many people are worried that if (religious based) non-science gets put into a science classroom, it could lower the standards of the scientific community. You don’t want the next generation of students going to college and rejecting what their biology classes teach them because they can’t let go of a straw-man version of evolution in their minds.

People are also worried that if you violate the separation of church and state in terms of education that it could open the doors to violate it in other areas. You don’t want laws based purely on religion to be passed. (Just imagine that it’s a religion you disagree with!)
Laws to protect religious worship; yes.
Laws to enforce some religious ideals; no.

A combination of random genetic mutation and non-random selection can literally design things without a designer.
To prove intelligent design, you need to explain the mechanisms of it. In other words, positive evidence of how the designer does it. A somewhat related example would be for evolution…we see remains of these creatures that don’t exist today, but how did the change happen? Then came modern genetics…

The only thing that is irreducibly complex that I can think of is God. (Seriously how can this supposed designer be less complicated in his mind than the things he designed? And where did this designer come from?)

Ed. Seriously, you seem to care a lot about evolution. I highly recommend you go to an accredited university and learn about it there, where you won’t get a straw-man version and/or a watered down version.
I seriously think evolution is something different than what you think it is. Learning from the PhD biology professors is probably a good way to go for you.
 
What has blinded people to other possibilities is the desired outcome - it all happened by itself, no God required. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not understand the subject.

Religion is criticized by those who say it constrains free inquiry by science. Yet on this forum, it is appropriate and necessary to discuss what the Church teaches. There is actual design in nature and God was the designer. As Pope John Paul II said, it would be an abdication of intelligence to ignore this, to deny things as they actually appear to us.

On the purely scientific aspect, the law of probabilities comes into effect. One beneficial mutation, but two or more randomly generated in a row to reach a beneficial and specific outcome? This does not appear to be possible on the macro level.

If the bias is a purely natural explanation, then, of course, the supernatural cannot have a role, but that does, in fact, exclude God. That must be dealt with by Catholics who are told God is a direct causal agent. If science insists on nothing being the cause of order out of disorder then Catholics are free to question that conclusion. God willed us. We are not the product of haphazard mistakes.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
As Pope John Paul II said, it would be an abdication of intelligence to ignore this, to deny things as they actually appear to us.
Click to expand...
That is a great point. Even Richard Dawkins states as a fact that nature appears to be designed for a purpose. He struggles to explain how evolution can create this “illusion”. But the human intelligence was created by God, and was created to recognize God’s designs in creation. Evolutionary theory cannot substitute for this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top