ID and God-guided evolution?

[Contarini]

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.

I can’t see that religion has much to do with this one way or the other. Of course you can point to religious people who are cruel to animals. Most people in the United States profess some sort of religion.

The view you are describing–that animals are “mindless” machines–derives not from Christian revelation but from the philosopher Descartes. Unfortunately many Christians have adopted it.

However, you’re right that Christians do need to rethink our attitude to nonhuman animals. Many of us have–in fact, some Christians go much farther in this direction than I’m willing to do (as has been pointed out on this board, some Episcopal churches–though not many as far as I can see–give Communion to animals).

Edwin

 

[The_Barbarian]

“Intelligent design” is a specific scientific theory

Let’s take a look. From the Discovery Institute, the guys who invented ID, the self-admitted “governing goals” of ID:

**“To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies”

“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God” **

It’s a sort of half-philosophy, half-religion, with a pinch of politics tossed in. As Discovery Fellow Michael Behe admitted under oath, ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

It purports to explain certain phenomena found in nature by saying that they were designed by some intelligent being.

Problem is, it’s not testable. It’s a statment of dogma, not a testable hypothesis. They’ve tried, but so far, nothing they try works. Nothing will, because there is no way to make a testable religious dogma.

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.

There is a slippery slope here. If you want to put your religious beliefs into science, someone will pull out Occam’s razor and demonstrate that evolution by itself is as good as evolution plus God to explain the diversity of life. Bad idea.

 

[edwest2]

“evolution by itself is as good as evolution plus God”

This has always been my point. God is the useless appendage, tacked on to make evolution palatable to Christians. It is becoming more clear that God is not regarded as God. That is why this discussion continues.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

It is becoming more clear that God is not regarded as God. That is why this discussion continues.

Excellent point. I hate to get into that topic because the Darwinian-Catholics feel it is an insult to their faith. But one does not need to claim that he is holier than anyone else to observe that a certain teaching does not rightly consider the power of God and how overwhelming a truth and power He is.

Darwinism is built as a theory that does not regard God as God of all creation. For Darwinism, God is an appendage, off to the side. Natural laws do all of the creating, supposedly.

So, not only is God not regarded as God (since evolution is the same with God or without) – but God’s creation itself is not appreciated for what it is.

The “average person” for ages past, even before the Christian era, recognized the power of God at work in nature. This is true of even primative religions and tribal faiths – as well as within Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism and others.

The new scientism, however, teaches that God’s creation really isn’t that great. It’s not a big deal. “Natural laws” are capable of making all of the things of nature. These are just molecules (mainly, although some theists will toss in an undefined thing called a soul which contributes nothing to the nature of the creature) that arranged themselves. The “natural law” of selection and mutation (supposedly) just does all of this. It’s like gravity. A rock rolls down a hill. No big deal. In the same way, sharks, antelopes, carnivorous plants, beavers, dolphins, elephants, flowering vines, medicinal herbs, olive trees, fruits & vegetables, bumblebees, vultures, sea horses, chamelions, lizards, 350,000 varieties of beetles, etc., etc. – just happened like a rock rolling down a hill.

The average person sees nature as the glory of God – His splendor and His creative power.

The person corrupted by Darwinism cannot see this. Nature just “creates” all of this by itself. It was “predictable” supposedly.

The same is very true of the nature of man. It is so devalued through this theory. The dignity of man is reduced – and this also is obvious to anyone except those who have completely accepted the Darwinian fairy tale. I hear Catholics arguing that “we are animals”. Normaly people recoil at such things. But if your mind is sufficiently twisted by Darwinism you will actually argue to convince people that you are actually just an animal.

So, yes - definitely. God is no longer regarded as God. He doesn’t create, but just sits back and watches natural laws work by accident.

Amazingly, the most prominent scientist in the Vatican himself was subject to this kind of anti-God error when he claimed that God didn’t know that evolution would eventually create mankind.

Thankfully, this “scientist” was fired by Pope Benedict.

This tells us something. There has been a great deal of fear thus far in challenging Darwinian orthodoxy so even the recent Popes have been tolerant of the errors and have let them persist for fear of silencing a legitimate theory.

Then there’s the “Catholic” Kenneth Miller who is trotted out to prove that Darwinism is compatible with faith. Miller’s textbook featured this classic bit of “evolutionary fact”:

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

This is from the so-called Catholic Kenneth Miller. This is what his book taught students for years. It’s no surprise since that is Darwinian orthodoxy and Miller is a disciple of that teaching. (Consider the thousands of teachers and scientists who agree fully with what was written in that textbook).

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM -

So what is the desired end result of this sort of thinking? If Christians accept they are nothing more than animals, that nature is all there is, then worshipping God becomes a bit pointless. After all, if the evidence points to nature, which has no intelligence or will or direction, then the explanation that we are the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have us in mind will take hold. This leads to nihilism and to the simple, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die philosophy.

Science is made more important than religion. The end result is that scientists become the high priests, but, because they are human beings, they will have no one’s interests in mind except for the highest bidder.

The Catholic Church will continue to endure, but we must all be aware to do what God wants us to do, not what the world wants. If something like evolution happened, God was intimately involved and not a bystander.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

Then there’s the “Catholic” Kenneth Miller who is trotted out to prove that Darwinism is compatible with faith. Miller’s textbook featured this classic bit of “evolutionary fact”:

This is from the so-called Catholic Kenneth Miller. This is what his book taught students for years. It’s no surprise since that is Darwinian orthodoxy and Miller is a disciple of that teaching. (Consider the thousands of teachers and scientists who agree fully with what was written in that textbook).

I can’t believe you are still trashing Kenneth Miller. What’s wrong with you guys? You don’t even know what your talking about. Go and read “Finding Darwin’s God” and in it, over the course of many many pages, you’ll see Mr. Miller giving the glory of creation to God, calling Him “the Creator,” using capitals on every “He” when speaking of God. He’s very respectful and never at all says we are cold, mindless beings with no purpose, in a cold meaningless universe. I wouldn’t be sticking up for him if he did. In fact, he believes, as all Catholics, that we are extremely important creatures in the eyes of God, and highly valuable, driven with purpose. He values ALL of life too, not just humans, but respects and gives honor and glory to God for ALL the creation. Stop with this nonesense propaganda.

Tell you what, the next time I speak with him I’ll ask him about that little paragraph you so proudly post on many threads I doubt very much those were his words, and if they were, then it’s crystal clear he has changed his mind, unless you want to label him as a liar.

Many Catholic anti-evolutionists are like some Protestants, they think so lowly of one who believes in evolution, that they disrespect God, limit God, and that they’re deluded and always wrong, no matter what! Just like Protestants will claim the Catholic Church is wrong…no matter what! So do you Catholic anti-evolutionists think people with hearts on fire for science, like Mr. Kenneth Miller, are always wrong, no matter what! I just don’t get it.

There is, as you so blindly ignore, a mountain of evidence for evolution, otherwise MOST Christians would reject it obviously. You’re going to have to get over the 6 day Genesis story of the Bible, it’s poetic and meant to be spiritual and teach spiritual truths, not science.

Understand that we pro-evolutionists believe God could of created the universe in a matter of minutes, seconds–a FLASH! by His direct power. We believe that He can do anything of the like, mountains, trees, complex organisms, things so beautiful we can’t comprehend them. We’re not saying life is no miracle, it’s a wondrous miracle, even those who do not believe in any God think life is wondrous, and give it their own meaning. It’s only those who care not about God, and hate Christianity and most religions, and want to think, to hope they won’t get judged; it’s they who say life is meaningless, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. That doesn 't fly with the common individual.

Evolution is God’s way, the path He set out for us. It’s no big deal. It doesn’t mean we value Him less. And what if we’re right, are you still going to complain to God’s face about how HE did it?Grow up and get over it my brother. :dancing: :extrahappy: :bounce: :whacky:

love you

 

[reggieM]

I can’t believe you are still trashing Kenneth Miller.

Ok, I shouldn’t make it seem like Mr. Miller is alone in what he had published in his textbook. He gave the mainstream evolutionary view. Here’s another textbook that says basically the same thing that Miller’s does.

“[by coupling the] undirected, purposeless variation [with] the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 5.

Here’s another one:

Humans…came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains…. Natural selection…explains…the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life."
– Campbell, Neil A., Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell. 1999. Biology. Fifth Edition, Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, 412-413.

Another textbook says the same thing – because this is standard Darwinian theory as it is taught. Darwinism teaches that we are the “products of a random process” and we are “not created for any special purpose or as a part of any universal design”. That supports what Miller’s book said – so he didn’t say something unusual or unheard of. This is the standard textbook teaching:

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance…. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.
— Curtis, Helena and N. Sue Barnes. 1981. Invitation to Biology. Third Edition, New York, NY: Worth, 475.

Another textbook …

The Darwinian view that… present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer…. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary…. Religion has been bolstered by… the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values…. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries…. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."
— Strickberger, Monroe. 2000. Evolution. Third Edition, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 70-71.

We’re not saying life is no miracle, it’s a wondrous miracle, even those who do not believe in and God think life is wondrous, and give it their own meaning. It’s only those who care not about God, who think they won’t get judged, that say life is meaningless, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. That doesn 't fly with the common individual.

I accept that there are some good believers like yourself who can still see the miracle of life and creation even while accepting Darwinian theory. But I really think you have a very difficult time explaining this since the standard Darwinian explanation is that everything was created by the natural law alone – it can all be explained without God.

When some say that ID is a “minority opinion” among scientists, I would say that the person who believes that God is responsible in some way for the creation and development of life is just as much a minority opinion itself:

One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.
— Graffin, Gregory W. 2004. Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View. Ithaca, NY: Polypterus Press, 42

 

[reggieM]

Understand that we pro-evolutionists believe God could of created the universe in a matter of minutes, seconds–a FLASH! by His direct power. We believe that He can do anything of the like, mountains, trees, complex organisms, things so beautiful we can’t comprehend them.

Well, that’s what I believe. The beauty of nature itself tells me that it was something far more than random mutation and natural selection that created it.

I also think that every Catholic must believe that God is directly involved in the development of life – at the very least with the creation of the human soul.

 

[The_Catholic]

“Another textbook says the same thing – because this is standard Darwinian theory as it is taught. Darwinism teaches that we are the “products of a random process” and we are “not created for any special purpose or as a part of any universal design”. That supports what Miller’s book said – so he didn’t say something unusual or unheard of. This is the standard textbook teaching:”

Yes, correct. Evolution deals with origins and that’s why there is so much conflict. And now-a-days, religion is not to be taught in the public classrooms. However if Darwin remained faithful to Christianity I am convinced this wouldn’t be such a big issue. And not only that, but if SDA Ms. Ellen White, SDA Mr. Price, and Baptist Henery Morris didn’t launch a crusade against evolution, claiming it was satanic, and dismissing nearly EVERYTHING scientists said, there wouldn’t be such a heated issue.

If Mr. Miller wrote those words, then I disagree with that. But that’s not what he believes, or wrote in his FDG book, or told me, exactly the opposite.

"I accept that there are some good believers like yourself who can still see the miracle of life and creation even while accepting Darwinian theory. But I really think you have a very difficult time explaining this since the standard Darwinian explanation is that everything was created by the natural law alone – it can all be explained without God.

When some say that ID is a “minority opinion” among scientists, I would say that the person who believes that God is responsible in some way for the creation and development of life is just as much a minority opinion itself:

Yes, probably the majority of scientists are agnostics or atheists, yet still, alot are orthodox Christians. And among Christians, the majority accept evolution, simply because, Truth cannot clash with Truth.

You know, I used to be a hardcore Creationists, I’d argue for hours with evolutionists. I used to say very similar things like you. You are bringing me back memories

 

[reggieM]

However if Darwin remained faithful to Christianity I am convinced this wouldn’t be such a big issue.

Do you think he would have kept his theory the same if he was a faithful Christian or would he have changed it? For myself, I’m really not attacking Darwin because he was an unbeliever, but I do think he was biased by his lack of faith and it showed up in his theory and writings – and that caused a major problem.

If Mr. Miller wrote those words, then I disagree with that. But that’s not what he believes, or wrote in his FDG book, or told me, exactly the opposite.

He did not write those words himself but they appeared in a book that he co-wrote.

You know, I used to be a hardcore Creationists, I’d argue for hours with evolutionists. I used to say very similar things like you. You are bringing me back memories

Well, maybe you weren’t totally wrong back in those days. Sola Scriptura is a serious error, of course. But I personally think that there are a lot more ways of looking at nature and God’s creation than what we have been given in the standard evolutionary theory.

… maybe you could put some of that kind of thing in the novel you’re writing. (If it’s a Catholic-oriented fantasy, let me know when it’s published because I want to buy a copy).

 

[The_Catholic]

Do you think he would have kept his theory the same if he was a faithful Christian or would he have changed it? For myself, I’m really not attacking Darwin because he was an unbeliever, but I do think he was biased by his lack of faith and it showed up in his theory and writings – and that caused a major problem.

If he was a faithful Christian, without a doubt. Throught “On The Origin Of The Species” he is constantly baffled by the wondrous, yet even brutal world of creation. I do think he would’ve contributed it to the Lord. The death of his daughter was the killer for his faith. Neither could he fathom Hell, where he assumed his father went to. Though I’m sure there was a bias in his theory, yet we all have bias’s and have to keep them in place. Darwin did this through study, and was more and more convinced that evolution had occured.

He did not write those words himself but they appeared in a book that he co-wrote.

Well, maybe you weren’t totally wrong in those days. Oh ha, ha, ha! Sola Scriptura is a serious error, of course. But I personally think that there are a lot more ways of looking at nature and God’s creation than what we have been given in the standard evolutionary theory.

… maybe you could put some of that kind of thing in the novel you’re writing. (If it’s a Catholic-oriented fantasy, let me know when it’s published because I want to buy a copy).

My story, well I’m not sure how far it’s going to fly. There is ALOT of blood shed in it, death, betrayal, even a few “steamy” (not pornographic, more like Solomon’s writings) but there is also a high value of spirituality, courage, sacrafice, faith, trust, and learning. It’s a war between good and evil.

There’s also a clear picture of Christianity in it, though it’s not entirely “christian-oriented.” It’s more spiritual than religious. But you can definitly see the similarities to my our beliefs.

Ha, I even have an Elf by the name of “Lord Athanasius”

 

[edwest2]

The question has to be asked. What is the purpose of all this scientific information? The truth matters? Yes, the truth. When Pope Benedict writes that we are not haphazard mistakes, this is ignored. Why?

It is clear that there are books written by qualified people that make claims about God and religion. These claims make God and religion superfluous, or excess to requirements.

Those who promote evolution accept the entire evidence, correct? Well then, let’s get this straight: evolution without God works as well as evolution with God, correct? So the mountains of evidence are not around to prove a great truth but are merely brought up here (endlessly) to explain God and the Bible out of existence, correct? God and the Bible are just an artifact of an ongoing purely natural process, correct?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

The question has to be asked. What is the purpose of all this scientific information? The truth matters? Yes, the truth. When Pope Benedict writes that we are not haphazard mistakes, this is ignored. Why?

It is clear that there are books written by qualified people that make claims about God and religion. These claims make God and religion superfluous, or excess to requirements.

Those who promote evolution accept the entire evidence, correct? Well then, let’s get this straight: evolution without God works as well as evolution with God, correct? So the mountains of evidence are not around to prove a great truth but are merely brought up here (endlessly) to explain God and the Bible out of existence, correct? God and the Bible are just an artifact of an ongoing purely natural process, correct?

Peace,
Ed

Completely INCORRECT brother We are here because God WANTED us.

There is more to God, perhaps, than what or how much you assume.

 

[edwest2]

Hmm. No, it does not appear to be the case being made here. If I was a Protestant or some fundamentalist, I would be taught that the earth and man was created in six days. If I “accepted” evolution, then I would believe I was lied to. But, as reggieM documented, if I accept evolution and keep reading the textbooks, I will be told that God is superfluous.

This is ideology. The mountains of evidence become such that scientists are saying that God, and religion were both artifacts of a purely natural process. Something man needed in the old days before new, new knowledge was discovered. This is supported by Evolutionary Psychology.

In both cases, the result is the same: atheism. Cardinal Schoeborn was right to warn Catholics that there is too much ideology in science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Catholic]

Hmm. No, it does not appear to be the case being made here. If I was a Protestant or some fundamentalist, I would be taught that the earth and man was created in six days. If I “accepted” evolution, then I would believe I was lied to. But, as reggieM documented, if I accept evolution and keep reading the textbooks, I will be told that God is superfluous.

This is ideology. The mountains of evidence become such that scientists are saying that God, and religion were both artifacts of a purely natural process. Something man needed in the old days before new, new knowledge was discovered. This is supported by Evolutionary Psychology.

In both cases, the result is the same: atheism. Cardinal Schoeborn was right to warn Catholics that there is too much ideology in science.

God bless,
Ed

Of course there is much ideology in science, there is also much in religion. Science has commited frauds, bias’s, and murder has been even done in the name of science, but so hasn’t it all in religion.

I agree that I don’t like how the general scientific world in about every common science book found in the classrooms, pretty much preach that it all “just happened.” But what else shopuld they say? First of all most will get in trouble if trying to apply it to God, or the Christian God. Second of all, sadly, you’re not allowed to teach religion in public schools.

However, if a private Catholic school is teaching evolution and giving no claim to God, I definitely have a problem. I mean, come on!!

Over all, I’ve heard that most scientists are not trying to undermine religion, and don’t even like in the least wgat Dawkins and Dennett are trying to do in the name of science. Most just want to investigate and study, and not form an agenda.

Although, regarding psycology evolution, I have no problem accepting that in “some” ways. I think the reason why we humans look beyond the realm of the physical is not because we have a soul, our soul is for our eternal existense with God. I think it’s that our brains are so remarkably evolved comapred to the other animals that we do have the ability wonder such things.

Actually, it has been noted that even monkey’s will do odd “human-like” things such as watch and enjoy a sunset.