ID and God-guided evolution?

[Coder]

The danger among these “gaps” is that, given enough time, science will explain them (though it is true not ALL phenomenal can be solved).

It’s not that we attribute only the complex and unexplained to God. Rather, science does not really explain anything even what we consider simple. Science observes patterns, develops theories that model these patterns, and uses these theories for practical purposes.

Consider a piece of wood. Science can describe it but science does not understand why it exists, where the matter that it contains comes from, or what matter really is.

With regards to ID, I consider all of creation including evolution (if confirmed) to be part of the mystery of the work of God (I am not sure how that relates to ID, I leave that to you and others).

 

[The_Catholic]

Those quotes indicate his religious opinions which influenced his science. I don’t see how quoting his actual words “slam” him – that’s what he believed. The fact that this is covered-up by the Darwin industry is a real problem as I see it. How and why he lost his faith is another issue. I’m not prepared to judge him on that matter.

I just wanted to provide a counter-balance to the adulation that Darwin usually receives here. Believe it or not, one of the most ardent pro-evolution Catholics here claimed that those quotes came from “Darwin haters” (so blinded by love of Darwin he was). But the fact is, those are Darwin’s own words – and they shocked a Darwin-apologist who had never seen them before.

I agree with that – I’d only say that the relationship between Creator and creature is very important and shouldn’t be obscured by false-science.

True – I would not be happy if he was lost.

Darwin’s words do not shock me because I have read it all before. You’re not “surprising” me in anyway. I’m very much aware that Darwin could not fathom the idea of an all powerful and loving God creating a world of such violent, blood, torture and death. But that wasn’t the PRIMARY influence for his ieda about the FACT of evolution. Also, once evolution becomes a process of it’s own free course, this takes away God’s hand in creating such a brutal evil place, for some people. It no longer holds God to be a monster, as some have suggested. While it is true that for a time, Darwin still believed that a “Creator” breathed life into the universe’s beginnings, he eventually fell away from even that.

Point is, his RESEARCH on NATURE is what caused him to understand evolution. And for one having faith problems with God, and then seeing how God (perhaps) guides nature, is it not natural for Darwin to think “natural selection” and “survivial of the fitest” act among themselves and by blind chance? Of course it was.

What you seem to want to do, like so many creationists, is list Darwin as a man of great evil, who had Satan on his side, and fooled the world into believing that God doesn’t exist. Those thoughts and reasons, having nothing to do with the terrible FACT of evolution, have been around since Pagan Rome.

Charles Darwin discovered a wondrous fact of nature, that life has evolved. Yet no one can ever focus on the scientist as that, it always has to be turned into the terrible evil Darwin, when all he did was discover a fact. He wasn’t perfect, neith are you, neither am I, we’re all affected by influences, but these influences vanish upon testing subjective and objective reality.

Both creationists and hardcore atheists are responsible for making the mess of this never ending creation-evolution debate. I’m convinced that if neither focused so much hatred and corruption upon it, it wouldn’t be such a major issue. Most theists would see evolution as another way God created the universe.

 

[The_Catholic]

It’s not that we attribute only the complex and unexplained to God. Rather, science does not really explain anything even what we consider simple. Science observes patterns, develops theories that model these patterns, and uses these theories for practical purposes.

Consider a piece of wood. Science can describe it but science does not understand why it exists, where the matter that it contains comes from, or what matter really is.

With regards to ID, I consider all of creation including evolution (if confirmed) to be part of the mystery of the work of God (I am not sure how that relates to ID, I leave that to you and others).

It exists because God created all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

[The_Catholic]

“Those quotes indicate his religious opinions which influenced his science. I don’t see how quoting his actual words “slam” him – that’s what he believed. The fact that this is covered-up by the Darwin industry is a real problem as I see it. How and why he lost his faith is another issue. I’m not prepared to judge him on that matter.”

They played a negative influence on him, of course, that’s natural and scientific, yup I said that bad word, scientific But his study on NATURE is what led him to discover the awe and wonder of evolution. Rather, instead of seeing it as God’s way, he thought is was by chance, eventually.

“I just wanted to provide a counter-balance to the adulation that Darwin usually receives here. Believe it or not, one of the most ardent pro-evolution Catholics here claimed that those quotes came from “Darwin haters” (so blinded by love of Darwin he was). But the fact is, those are Darwin’s own words – and they shocked a Darwin-apologist who had never seen them before.”

What you’re doing is the typical creationist propaganda, to label Darwin as a horrible monster who discovered a horrible idea. I believe Darwin was wrong that life is a purposeless accident, I think it is from God. Just as some fanatic “Christians” think to see visions by God that tell them to commit suicide, or other illogical random acts that cause atheists to label Christians and Theists as all the same. But we’re not, God is not.

“I agree with that – I’d only say that the relationship between Creator and creature is very important and shouldn’t be obscured by false-science.”

**False science? I forgot the world is still flat, hey even the Bible says it is **

peace

 

[The_Catholic]

You’re anthropomorphizing cats and wasps.

You wouldn’t say that is you were the mouse, or the wasps dinner :yup: :bounce:

lol

peace

 

[The_Catholic]

You’re anthropomorphizing cats and wasps.

I also wanted to say, this type of thinking is why alot of religious people are cruel and heartless to animals. Because they don’t matter much, they’re not created in God’s image. Let’s put a 6 foot bear in an eight foot cage, giving the mindless emotionless thing only 2 feet to move around. Let’s slowly mutilate a dog or a deer, to bring out a better flavor in the meat. let’s slaughter thousands of animals for clothing only. Let’s put one’s DOG to death because the next door neigbor had an animal fetish and molested it, never mind the dog had no part in the crime.

Some religious people see animals as emotionless mindless creatures, my old protestant sunday school teacher saw it that way. And this is EVIL!!

At least Darwin had enough emotion to notice a cruelity, and at least he reminds us that we are also animals too, and part of this world. Before you slander me, I know we’re beyond the animals, we’re created in God’s image, but our bodies and even minds share much of the same qualities of the earth.

I’m not against eating meat or hunting, Heavens no. I’m just saying that some people who are so caught up in “religion” rather than humility, treat the rest of this world cruely, especially animals where there should be no reason for it.

This is why my favorite St. is St. Francis of Assisi.

 

[reggieM]

I’ve been through many trials. I’m not as young and naive as you think.

I didn’t mean to imply that you were young and naive about these things. You do strike me as being young – but that’s a good thing as I see it. In any case, no disrespect was intended and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

God bless.

 

[reggieM]

Some religious people see animals as emotionless mindless creatures, my old protestant sunday school teacher saw it that way. And this is EVIL!!

I’m sorry that you were so involved with Protestant Fundamentalism, but thankfully you got out of it. It might take a long while to fully get rid of all of the errors and damaging teaching that came out of that group. Certainly, any cruelty towards God’s creation is not a holy attitude or action.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. Though i don’t follow why you asked this.

Always keep it in mind while discussing this topic.

 

[buffalo]

That’s the problem with ID - if He is an explanation for processes in nature, He ceases to be necessary when the process is understood. ID makes Him a “god of the gaps”. Philosophically, ID is dangerous nonsense ​

There will always be gaps unless you are God.

 

[reggieM]

You wouldn’t say that is you were the mouse, or the wasps dinner :yup: :bounce:

lol

peace

Well, it’s a good point, but at the same time, I don’t know what wasps and mice think about me. Perhaps the wasp thinks that God has been cruel to me because I can’t fly or that I don’t have a stinger. Perhaps a mouse is quite happy to only live two years and since I have to live longer, perhaps the mouse feels very sad about the cruelty that I have to face. The mouse may believe that I am envious of his or her life and wishes I could share the joys of being a mouse.
So, I won’t judge the mouse’s life with whatever joys or sorrows it may have. I can’t pretend to understand it or act like I know what’s best for the cat or the mouse in this case.

 

[VociMike]

Therefore, if the entire process is understood (as Darwinism claims) then God is unnecessary. Thus, Darwinism eliminates the need for God. That is what Darwin was trying to do.

Understanding something is not the same as accounting for something.

We have a pretty darned good understanding of gravity, but can we account for why gravity exists? I mean, account for it at the most fundamental level? Of course we cannot.

If I find the blueprints of the space shuttle, does that make the space shuttle self-constructing? Does that eliminate the need for designers who created the blueprints?

 

[The_Catholic]

I didn’t mean to imply that you were young and naive about these things. You do strike me as being young – but that’s a good thing as I see it. In any case, no disrespect was intended and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

God bless.

I’m 30 years of age, but I do suffer from a mental illness.

 

[reggieM]

I’m 30 years of age, but I do suffer from a mental illness.

Thanks, Catholic. You’ve done an excellent job on this discussion and I appreciate it. Youv’e got a difficult cross. Please be assured of my prayers for healing and peace for you. Our Lord suffered mental torment in the garden and through His life also.
I was going to say earlier and it is even more relevant now – our Catholic Faith can help in so many ways that we only discover a little at a time over life.
One of those things is the liberating power of the Faith – it frees us from the nit-picking things that we could fall into. That’s a problem with Fundamentalism in many ways – they get tied down to miniscule issues which can tear them apart.
In the true Church - we are blessed with a universal dimension.
Plus, we have the Blessed Sacrament – the infinite and loving presence of Christ with us in the tabernacle or at Communion.
That truly liberates us from some of the debates and arguments we can fall into.

 

[Coder]

It exists because God created all the matter and energy in the universe.

Yes, and scientists don’t know what anything really is. What is matter but a definition for theories? Same for energy. These are just definitions to fit mathematical models so that objects can be categorized and physical behavior predicted. Scientists don’t know what matter really is nor can science explain its significance.

Would evolution (if confirmed) until the ensoulment of man require any unusual guidance of God or would it just be part of the creation of God just as basic matter is?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Therefore, if the entire process is understood (as Darwinism claims) then God is unnecessary. Thus, Darwinism eliminates the need for God. That is what Darwin was trying to do.

That seems rather absurd, considering that Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

 

[edwest2]

The new atheists are doing just that. Darwin’s opinion is irrelevant.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

The new atheists are doing just that. Darwin’s opinion is irrelevant.

Excellent point. Darwin and his opinions are irrelevant. 70% of the scientific community identifies itself as atheist. This is the backbone of the new atheist movement. They took what they wanted from Darwin and they’re creating their own propaganda out of it.

 

[VociMike]

The new atheists are doing just that. Darwin’s opinion is irrelevant.

People have been using science to argue that there is no God for centuries. They made the argument using Newton’s cosmology. Does that invalidate the actual science done by Newton and those who followed?

 

[Contarini]

Ok, this is a subject that has confused me for some time. Among this forum there are individuals who deny “intellegent design” but acknowledge evolutionary theory. Yet those same individuals also believe that the evolution of life, every speck of it, was directed, formed and guided by God, and still is, as things continue to evolve.

So, why then are they so against intellegent design, claiming that we should be cautious on saying things are “intellegently designed” because of the somewhat faulty entities, and “red in tooth and claw” of nature? Is not intellegent design and a God guided evolution identical, except for the fact that ID believers think God poofed creation into existence and God guided evolutioners believe it took long periods of time for life to come about, but nevertheless, having the same result?

I personally do not think that God is responisble for every piece of creation, but that’s another subject.

“Intelligent design” is a specific *scientific *theory (its opponents claim that it isn’t, but that’s political rhetoric–in our relativistic society if they say “it’s a bad theory” people will not necessarily believe them, but oddly enough if they say “it isn’t a scientific theory at all” people take that more seriously). It purports to explain certain phenomena found in nature by saying that they were designed by some intelligent being. As a scientific theory, ID can go no farther than this. The being in question might be God or aliens or some other sort of nonhuman entity (an angel or a pagan god, for instance). Shucks, it might be humans from the future traveling back in time. ID doesn’t have answers to this.

This is completely distinct from the philosophical and theological belief that physical things show signs of order and purpose and point back to one Supreme Cause beyond the physical universe. ID doesn’t have answers to what the “designer” might be. Traditional theism doesn’t have answers to the mechanics of how specific organisms and physical structures came into existence. They go together nicely, but they are covering different ground.

A theistic evolutionist may or may not accept ID. To accept ID is to say that evolution has gaps that the theory itself cannot explain, but which must be accounted for by a designer. Many theistic evolutionists find it both scientifically and theologically preferable to say that evolution accounts adequately for the development of life on earth, but itself points to a Creator God as the source of the order and purpose inherent within the process. See Aquinas’s reply to Objection 2 in Part 1, Question 2, Article 3 of the Summa:

Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause.

(And no, of course Aquinas wasn’t talking about Darwin’s theory of evolution!)

As you note, evolution accounts for apparent instances of “inefficient design.” In Thomist terms, this is an instance of God allowing second causes (mutation, natural selection, etc.) to act according to their natures. Of course, the “designer” may have had good reasons for designing some features directly and letting others evolve. But if, as Christians believe, the designer is God, that doesn’t make as much sense as if the designer were some hypothetical alien with limited time and limited abilities. However, we shouldn’t expect everything God does to make sense to us. I don’t think this is a conclusive argument against ID. The main problem with ID as I see it is that it is an argument from the apparently unexplainable, and that’s a weak approach in science (since many things that appear unexplainable later turn out to have a scientific explanation). Furthermore, most scientists I talk to (Christian or otherwise) seem to think that the scientific arguments are themselves unconvincing (i.e., that the phenomena in question are not necessarily “irreducibly complex”). However, that’s most, not all. The biology professor at the college where I teach is a proponent of ID. So for me the jury is still out, but I’m a bit skeptical.

Edwin