ID and Darwinism

[edwest2]

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?

The subject is Human Origin:

A) Man came about by a process of random mutation and natural selection. If we could “rewind the tape” of evolution, the outcome may have been different (Gould).

B) A Creative Reason brought man into existence through a process that may, or may not, resemble certain aspects of the theory of evolution.

What is the answer? A or B?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

The subject is Human Origin:

A) Man came about by a process of random mutation and natural selection. If we could “rewind the tape” of evolution, the outcome may have been different (Gould).

B) A Creative Reason brought man into existence through a process that may, or may not, resemble certain aspects of the theory of evolution.

What is the answer? A or B?

A
(actually Gould opined that the outcome would almost certainly have been different.)

 

[buffalo]

A
(actually Gould opined that the outcome would almost certainly have been different.)

So God didn’t know what Adam and Eve would look like.

 

[Namesake]

So God didn’t know what Adam and Eve would look like.

I don’t know, and not knowing doesn’t bother me.

 

[Awake]

So God didn’t know what Adam and Eve would look like.

I thought God was outside of time and thus knows everything that will happen.

 

[edwest2]

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

When scientists use their position and data to conclude that people suffer from a “God Delusion” or that their fellow scientists are “pod people” for considering the words of the Pope, then scientists have fallen into a belief system called scientism; i.e. all we know is the whole of reality. End of story.

Religion, on the other hand, is not just a set of rituals performed in a building. It contains data and reason, although from a supernatural source. For example, to become a saint, one needs two miracles attributed to that person. These are actual events that involve professionals, including doctors and scientists. Science can indeed declare these events are indeed not possible.

You should know that science is not a tangible object. It is a method human beings use to do something or examine something. It is up to the scientists to interpret the data and arrive at a conclusion.

Now, what does the Church, or any Catholic, have to say about the science regarding this subject?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Awake]

When scientists use their position and data to conclude that people suffer from a “God Delusion” or that their fellow scientists are “pod people” for considering the words of the Pope, then scientists have fallen into a belief system called scientism; i.e. all we know is the whole of reality. End of story.

Religion, on the other hand, is not just a set of rituals performed in a building. It contains data and reason, although from a supernatural source. For example, to become a saint, one needs two miracles attributed to that person. These are actual events that involve professionals, including doctors and scientists. Science can indeed declare these events are indeed not possible.

You should know that science is not a tangible object. It is a method human beings use to do something or examine something. It is up to the scientists to interpret the data and arrive at a conclusion.

Now, what does the Church, or any Catholic, have to say about the science regarding this subject?

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Peace,
Ed

Right, but are you challenging evolution from a scientific standpoint (saying that the methods that scientists use to observe evolution is incorrect) or are you challenging evolution from a philosophical standpoint (saying that while scientists may be observing evolution from legitimate means, it is incorrect because it goes against your view of Catholicism)?

 

[edwest2]

A
(actually Gould opined that the outcome would almost certainly have been different.)

By selecting this answer, you confirm the idea that man was only one of other possible results if we could rewind the tape on evolution. This is contrary to the idea that man was created by God and willed by God. This detaches man from the Creator and places him in Creation as just another animal. It rejects the idea that God can be detected by natural reason alone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

By selecting this answer, you confirm the idea that man was only one of other possible results if we could rewind the tape on evolution. This is contrary to the idea that man was created by God and willed by God. This detaches man from the Creator and places him in Creation as just another animal. It rejects the idea that God can be detected by natural reason alone.

All that is well in keeping with evolutionary ideas, nothing at all surprising there.

If you mean to prove that people who accept evolution, including human evolution, do not believe in the special creation of homo sapiens, that’s pretty much a given. So far you haven’t proven that we exclude God.

 

[edwest2]

All I’m saying is that the average person, religious or not, would be inclined to conclude that there is nothing supernatural about life and that nothing supernatural impinges on his or her day to day experience in any way. They would also likely conclude that they are a randomly formed animal.

Whatever you may mean by the word God, this is contrary to the God that can be detected by natural (i.e., non-religious) reason alone.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Right, but are you challenging evolution from a scientific standpoint (saying that the methods that scientists use to observe evolution is incorrect) or are you challenging evolution from a philosophical standpoint (saying that while scientists may be observing evolution from legitimate means, it is incorrect because it goes against your view of Catholicism)?

The problem is not the observations but the conclusions. Are human beings designed or the product of haphazard mistakes? Ask yourself. Are you just the end result of a series of random mutations and natural selections? Yes or no?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

All I’m saying is that the average person, religious or not, would be inclined to conclude that there is nothing supernatural about life and that nothing supernatural impinges on his or her day to day experience in any way. They would also likely conclude that they are a randomly formed animal.

That isn’t quite correct according to studies I am aware of. A minority of people in the USA accept evolution theory and a vast majority believe in God.

Whatever you may mean by the word God, this is contrary to the God that can be detected by natural (i.e., non-religious) reason alone.

I can’t imagine what the “natural reason” evidence could be for God. You seem to be conflating rational and supernatural. How does that work?

 

[buffalo]

That isn’t quite correct according to studies I am aware of. A minority of people in the USA accept evolution theory and a vast majority believe in God.

I can’t imagine what the “natural reason” evidence could be for God. You seem to be conflating rational and supernatural. How does that work?

Perhaps you should tune in:

FINDING GOD THROUGH FAITH AND REASON

	Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., lends insight into new evidence  		gathered from the fields of contemporary philosophy and physics which  		supports proof for the existence of God. The universe itself connotes  		the existence of a creator and the principle of intelligent design leads  		to logical conclusions about the nature of God.

 

[Awake]

The problem is not the observations but the conclusions. Are human beings designed or the product of haphazard mistakes? Ask yourself. Are you just the end result of a series of random mutations and natural selections? Yes or no?

Ultimately, yes, I am a product of random mutations. This doesn’t bother me and this doesn’t necessarily discount God.

To what extent do you reject evolution? Which, if any, of these assumptions do you reject?

-Organisms have different genetic makeup
-Organisms are constantly fighting for survival
-Random mutations may occur in an organism’s genome, which may help or hinder its quest for survival and reproduction
-Surviving organisms that reproduce will pass on their genes, often including any mutations
-Organisms with an advantageous genome for their particular environment will produce more offspring
-Organisms with a disadvantageous genome for their particular environment will produce less offspring and may become extinct

 

[buffalo]

Ultimately, yes, I am a product of random mutations. This doesn’t bother me and this doesn’t necessarily discount God.

To what extent do you reject evolution? Which, if any, of these assumptions do you reject?

-Organisms have different genetic makeup
-Organisms are constantly fighting for survival
-Random mutations may occur in an organism’s genome, which may help or hinder its quest for survival and reproduction
-Surviving organisms that reproduce will pass on their genes, often including any mutations
-Organisms with an advantageous genome for their particular environment will produce more offspring
-Organisms with a disadvantageous genome for their particular environment will produce less offspring and may become extinct

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

 

[Awake]

Did God know what Adam and Eve would look like?

Did God know what you would look like?

 

[buffalo]

Did God know what you would look like?

A question with a question?

Of course God knew what I would look like.

Did He throw dice and know the outcome?

 

[Awake]

A question with a question?

Of course God knew what I would look like.

Did He throw dice and know the outcome?

Well he left the choice up to your parents, who decided to have you. If you were born of any other couple, you would look different

If God knew in advance that your parents would get together and have you, I don’t see why he can’t know in advance what mutations will occur in an organism.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

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

If you properly understand the arguments, then this statement is nothing more than political pontificating. (Or, this is an inner tape recording made within your brain in a recent lecture where you heard a professor politically pontificating.)

This is a war between unbalanced political extremists over scientific paradigms. It appears to me from what I have read and learned that the war was probably started by lower life forms like Ted Haggard, who waltzed into a school somewhere and started making absurd, anti-intellectual claims about monkeys. These people are genuinely awful, so I can understand why they caused the reaction that they caused in Universities. After they harrassed enough people, scientists started hating passionately anything that even smacked of the idea of God, and started banning the inquiry into ID under the premise that ID was a political tool to thwart human inquiry.

Their argument is that if you believe there is a God, you will look for God in the evidence and will not properly conduct science because science has to have a testable question and an observable answer. Unless we find a spaceship in Atlantis that takes us to a Great Designer then ID appears invisible, hence, untestable.

And yet, I think they are wrong. I think that working from a non-random explanatory paradigm could yield significant and interesting scientific work, depending on how it is done.The inability to see God has done little to hamper the development of theology, so I see no reason why working from different assumptions in biology or physics would fail to produce meaningful science. We actually have lots of invisible assumption in science that we already work around, and nobody questions them. That’s just how paradigms work. They are constraints that allow certain types of questions in science to be asked. There is no reason to assume the ID paradigm is inherently fruitless.

Remember one of the lone ID scientists and his quote, “Beware of one hand clapping”.

Actually, the political pressure to squash ID is similar to the Church’s desire to squash heliocentrism in the 15th-16th centuries. Look how well that worked.

 

[Namesake]

If you properly understand the arguments, then this statement is nothing more than political pontificating. (Or, this is an inner tape recording made within your brain in a recent lecture where you heard a professor politically pontificating.)

This is a war between unbalanced political extremists over scientific paradigms. It appears to me from what I have read and learned that the war was probably started by lower life forms like Ted Haggard, who waltzed into a school somewhere and started making absurd, anti-intellectual claims about monkeys. These people are genuinely awful, so I can understand why they caused the reaction that they caused in Universities. After they harrassed enough people, scientists started hating passionately anything that even smacked of the idea of God, and started banning the inquiry into ID under the premise that ID was a political tool to thwart human inquiry.

Their argument is that if you believe there is a God, you will look for God in the evidence and will not properly conduct science because science has to have a testable question and an observable answer. Unless we find a spaceship in Atlantis that takes us to a Great Designer then ID appears invisible, hence, untestable.

And yet, I think they are wrong. I think that working from a non-random explanatory paradigm could yield significant and interesting scientific work, depending on how it is done.The inability to see God has done little to hamper the development of theology, so I see no reason why working from different assumptions in biology or physics would fail to produce meaningful science. We actually have lots of invisible assumption in science that we already work around, and nobody questions them. That’s just how paradigms work. They are constraints that allow certain types of questions in science to be asked. There is no reason to assume the ID paradigm is inherently fruitless.

Remember one of the lone ID scientists and his quote, “Beware of one hand clapping”.

Actually, the political pressure to squash ID is similar to the Church’s desire to squash heliocentrism in the 15th-16th centuries. Look how well that worked.

It is hard to know where to start rebutting this. Maybe just getting to the meat of what I think your post is about. Intelligent Design is actually a political premise for the eventual wedging of creationism into public schools. That is just the factual history of ID.

If there is valid science to be found in ID then let the science begin. Let Intelligent Design proponents offer their research to peer reviewed scientific journals for publication. That would go a long way toward giving IDers some scientific standing. After all, that’s what scientists do and ID should be willing to be exposed to the same rigorous examination, no?