ID and Darwinism

[edwest2]

That is the point.

View #1) You are an ambulatory bag of chemicals whose primary purpose in life is to reproduce. We then perform adaptive functions, raise our young and die.

View #2) We were designed by God, and so were the animals. Our image and likeness was selected by God, not random forces. Our similarity to primates in terms of physical construction does not include the ontological leap that allows us to be in communion with our Creator.

Evolution, on the other hand, assigns everything to the mind:

Religion? Product of a primitive mind.

Science? Product of a more advanced mind. Never mind that modern humans cannot replicate even a small scale model of the pyramids (the Japanese tried).

Design, properly understood, tells us that increasing complexity that is goal oriented cannot exist without an intelligence to guide it. The coded instructions had to exist first, and as Pope Benedict said, We are not haphazard mistakes.

What would really be a mistake would be to believe that human beings are the products of purely natural forces. Something most leading scientists believe but cannot demonstrate.

For Catholics, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the single most important historical event. But, as you’ll read in the Bible, as the disciples went out and told people about Christ, they also told them, if this didn’t actually happen then our faith is in vain.

Scientism, the belief that only our senses and instruments can tell us all about reality, must, as Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, be overcome.

Getting design without a designer is not only a neat trick, it’s not possible.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Theologically: After the fall, all things became broken.

Some Protestants think so, but even the most literal reworking of scripture won’t support that idea. Nor is it in the tradition of the Church.

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

No kidding. We are created, not “designed.” God is omnipotent, and has no need of consideration.

Finally, Cardinal Schoenborn states there is actual design in nature, and backs up his statements with things

Unfortunately, he goofed. Badly. Like most people who know little of biology, he made some assumptions that the evidence does not support.

If he used “design” in the casual usage of “intent,” I think it would be better to use the more respectful term “creation.”

I would of course be willing to look at any “things” he mentioned, and we could see what the evidence shows. Tell us about it.

 

[buffalo]

It should be pretty simple. ID is religion and has no place in science classrooms.

Right - only empirical proofs and experiments in science class. The philosophies belong in philosophy class.

 

[buffalo]

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

God indeed is the greatest. However, He can use design where He wishes.

For example - perhpas He designed the language of DNA. Any problem with this?

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Some Protestants think so, but even the most literal reworking of scripture won’t support that idea. Nor is it in the tradition of the Church.

No kidding. We are created, not “designed.” God is omnipotent, and has no need of consideration.

Unfortunately, he goofed. Badly. Like most people who know little of biology, he made some assumptions that the evidence does not support.

If he used “design” in the casual usage of “intent,” I think it would be better to use the more respectful term “creation.”

I would of course be willing to look at any “things” he mentioned, and we could see what the evidence shows. Tell us about it.

Is your claim that creation is void of design?

 

[edwest2]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Some Protestants think so, but even the most literal reworking of scripture won’t support that idea. Nor is it in the tradition of the Church.

From the Catechism: “Because of man, creation is now subject ‘to its bondage to decay.’”

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

No kidding. We are created, not “designed.” God is omnipotent, and has no need of consideration.{Quote]

If Cardinal Schoenborn tells me there is a designer then there is a designer. If Pope John Paul II tells everyone that to say otherwise would deny the way things appear to us, and would be an abdication of intelligence, I agree. If the Bible tells me that all things in creation know God and recognize his work so that we are without excuse, I agree.

Unfortunately, he goofed. Badly. Like most people who know little of biology, he made some assumptions that the evidence does not support.

I would rather believe the Cardinal than scientists on this point since science is blind to other areas of reason we still need.

If he used “design” in the casual usage of “intent,” I think it would be better to use the more respectful term “creation.”

He wrote that the immanent design in nature is actual design. See: Finding Design in Nature, New York Times.

I would of course be willing to look at any “things” he mentioned, and we could see what the evidence shows. Tell us about it.

Blind science, which can only examine certain things, is indeed blind to the rest of reality. Too many, deceived by an ideology, follow scientific conclusions and believe, falsely, - no God, no purpose, and no afterlife. They will likely die in their sins if the greater reality is not made known to them.

Is it false to raise men to the category of Modern High Priests.

Peace,
Ed.

 

[rossum]

God indeed is the greatest.

I hope you don’t say that in Arabic. Some posters here might take offence.

However, He can use design where He wishes.

Just as He can use evolution where He wishes.

For example - perhpas He designed the language of DNA. Any problem with this?

Perhaps He designed chemistry so that DNA would evolve. Which is greater, to design life or to design life that will assemble itself?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Just as He can use evolution where He wishes.

If God used evolution for anything then it is no longer a random, purely-natural process.

Perhaps He designed chemistry so that DNA would evolve.

As Charles Darwin points out, if God created the process then the mechanism of natural selection is superfluous (since it is Divine Selection).

Which is greater, to design life or to design life that will assemble itself?

For a human being, it’s a greater action to design life that can create other things. But human beings are not the creators in question here.

For God, it is impossible to compare one action that requires infinite power with another one – since the infinite cannot be compared with anything.

 

[rossum]

If God used evolution for anything then it is no longer a random, purely-natural process.

Since God could use absolutely anything - chemistry, physics etc. then there are no “purely-natural” processes at all. So let us define sceince as the study of “apparently-natural” processes and carry on as before.

As Charles Darwin points out, if God created the process then the mechanism of natural selection is superfluous (since it is Divine Selection).

Which just makes the study of science in general, and evolution in particular, a study of the mind of God.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I hope you don’t say that in Arabic. Some posters here might take offence.

Just as He can use evolution where He wishes.

Perhaps He designed chemistry so that DNA would evolve. Which is greater, to design life or to design life that will assemble itself?

rossum

I said language not DNA itself.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps He designed chemistry so that DNA would evolve. Which is greater, to design life or to design life that will assemble itself?

rossum

Designed life that would self assemble.

Two points:

1. Who gave the spark to this designed life? Is this ID?
2. It seems that self assembly as the new theory is indeed taking hold.

 

[edwest2]

“design life” “assemble itself”

If life was designed to assemble itself then there is nothing random about mutation, and since nature has no intelligence, it cannot select what would have to be a long series of mutations, building one on another, toward a goal, which nature does not have.

So, if life was designed and the outcome was predetermined, then people like Stephen Jay Gould can’t say that “rewinding the tape” on evolution would lead to a different outcome. If God willed human beings to exist, then that is the answer. If a process occurred, then God willed that as well.

But if the ruling worldview is No God, then this concept is rejected.

However, the Church tells us there is actual design in nature. The Church also tells us God is a direct causal agent. This runs entirely counter to random mutations being selected by nature. It does not appear the majority of leading scientists would accept the idea that any supernatural force could be a factor, but the Church tells you this is exactly true.

There is actual design and God is the designer (not in an imperfect human sense, but perfectly, as God).

Peace,
Ed

 

[dotcomrefugee]

Please keep in mind, folks, that evolution is not pro-God or anti-God, but makes no comment on God.

While in the realm of theology, theistic evolution may be an option. But in the realm of science, it is not.

kk? kk.

 

[edwest2]

Please keep in mind, folks, that evolution is not pro-God or anti-God, but makes no comment on God.

While in the realm of theology, theistic evolution may be an option. But in the realm of science, it is not.

kk? kk.

Evolution is anti-God. It assigns all processes to a cold, uncaring universe that had nothing particular in mind, since it has no mind. Since all processes are defined as "natural, " the supernatural is automatically excluded.

My fellow Catholics need to know that a creative reason was behind all this. And sadly, most leading scientists reject God. Some are directly promoting atheism by using scientific information to compel people to believe there is no God, which one describes as an illusion. Another refers to “the alien hiss of religious lunacy” (Sam Harris), and there are others.

This anti-God worldview stands in the way of the Gospel and the salvation message.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Please keep in mind, folks, that evolution is not pro-God or anti-God, but makes no comment on God.

While in the realm of theology, theistic evolution may be an option. But in the realm of science, it is not.

kk? kk.

Keep in mind though Evolutionism is anti-God.

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

 

[Namesake]

Evolution is anti-God. It assigns all processes to a cold, uncaring universe that had nothing particular in mind, since it has no mind. Since all processes are defined as "natural, " the supernatural is automatically excluded.

The supernatural is excluded from all science. You cannot find a single reference to God in chemistry texts. Does that mean chemistry is anti-God?

 

[buffalo]

The supernatural is excluded from all science. You cannot find a single reference to God in chemistry texts. Does that mean chemistry is anti-God?

That is why science has difficulty drawing a complete conclusion. Therefore, science is woefully inadequate and should withdraw itself.

 

[Namesake]

That is why science has difficulty drawing a complete conclusion. Therefore, science is woefully inadequate and should withdraw itself.

Science does refrain from comment about the supernatural. That’s the rightful place of religion.

 

[Awake]

Evolution is anti-God. It assigns all processes to a cold, uncaring universe that had nothing particular in mind, since it has no mind. Since all processes are defined as "natural, " the supernatural is automatically excluded.

My fellow Catholics need to know that a creative reason was behind all this. And sadly, most leading scientists reject God. Some are directly promoting atheism by using scientific information to compel people to believe there is no God, which one describes as an illusion. Another refers to “the alien hiss of religious lunacy” (Sam Harris), and there are others.

This anti-God worldview stands in the way of the Gospel and the salvation message.

Peace,
Ed

I’m confused. Is your objection to evolution a scientific objection, or a philosophical objection?

 

[buffalo]

Science does refrain from comment about the supernatural. That’s the rightful place of religion.

It engages is methodological naturalism.

Nope - religion is “binding oneself to God”. Philosophy and metaphysics should be presented the data and evidence science gathers and form conclusions about its macro-meaning.