Ignorance and evolution

[anthony022071]

It was so highly ordered, that until very recent times, it was thought to have been constructed. People saw a high degree of order and assumed that it must have been designed. But they were wrong.

It is not highly ordered – certainly not more than a snowflake is designed. A cell is highly ordered,because it is functional and is a living organism. Order does not consist of a mere consolidated mass or group of objects,no matter how much the it may look like it was constructed or designed by someone.

People used to think angels moved stuff around to make that happen. But we know better now. Every time we look at “design” in nature, and find out what it is, it’s not design.

Your going to deny design in nature,and yet affirm order?
If there’s no design in nature,nothing can be said to be set in order.

LIke humans. But there is a high degree of order, at numerous levels.

[More like a high degree of swirling chaos which leaves a path of destruction and makes people panic when its coming toward them.
If hurricanes became a constant feature of our environment we wouldn’t have orderly minds.[/COLOR]

Something much more subtle and wonderful than creationism can accept; God, at the moment of creation, produced a few simple rules (or maybe just one)

That isn’t subtle and wonderful,that’s rather crude and mechanistic – like the idea that God was the Great Mechanic who set the universe in order and then left it alone.

I happen to have a bit of experience in chaos theory. It is, ironically the source of much order in the universe.

Irrational matter doesn’t beget anything that can be called order. Chaotic matter can only continue along chaotic paths,because it has no intelligence.

Nope. It’s perfectly apropo. Plumbing, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.

So what if they are both methodically naturalistic?
The theory of evolution deals with the origins of life forms – and life is not naturalistic,but from outside of nature. Life is from spirit,and spirit is an unknown quantity that departs from life forms when they die.

Then you don’t understand science or plumbing. Both are methodologically naturalistic, seeking natural causes for natural phenomena.

No,science is seeking natural causes for phenomena which are at once natural and supernatural. But since modern science doesn’t recognize the existence of the supernatural,it doesn’t recognize the supernatural in nature.

 

[Peter_Wilders]

To my remark:

To attribute words to someone which were not theirs is already an error; it is a relatively greater one when it is a Catholic attributing words to the Vicar of Christ which were not his.

Orogeny replies:

He approved the paper and has not retracted or refuted anything found in it. They ARE his words.

I can only suggest he seeks guidance from a canon lawyer as to whether presidents of Vatican commissions are considered as authors of the documents they allow for discussion.

Responding to my subsequent remark:

The gravity of the error depends upon the intention of the accuser to mislead. It is not a question of whether the Pope agrees with the words, only he can say that, but whether he was their author; which we know he wasn’t.

Orogeny follows the same reasoning:

Wrong. He had authority over that paper and therefore they are his words.

I recommend he consult either a canon or secular lawyer. In a court of law to impute authorship to someone giving permission to publish, e.g. an editor, could constitute a serious act of deception, particularly where the person was the Holy Father.

In the light of such answers I see no future in continuing the exchange with him.

Sorry - Peter

 

[ricmat]

Hello everybody (again),

I’ve been out of the evolution threads for a while, so I don’t know if you’ve seen this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles. If you took the 3-4 evolution threads, condensed them, and repackaged them slightly, you’d come up with this article (which is very readable.) I’m not posting this article to debate on it, but just for your information.

PS this article also covers the relationship between science and religion…which occasionally comes up here.

Enjoy.

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0101.htm

 

[anthony022071]

Scientists are not failing to regard anything.

They are explaining the natural phenomenon and that is all they are capable of doing.

The natural phenomena of the origins of life forms can’t be logically explained apart from a creating intelligence extrinsic to nature.

Theology discusses how God is involved in creation.

That’s what I’m doing. God is always involved in creation. The life that permeates creation is from spirit,which is from outside of nature and from God.

The pope has said that this is the correct method of operation. I’m sure you don’t wish to oppose the Pope;s conclusion on this.

I don’t need to be told his position on the theory of evolution because I know it from his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”.

 

[Orogeny]

In the light of such answers I see no future in continuing the exchange with him.

Sorry - Peter

No reason to be sorry, Peter. If you don’t want to discuss this, I wouldn’t want to force you.

I stand by my position that Cardinal Ratzinger approved the letter and therefore the words belong to him. If he allowed a heretical position to be published, he certainly is responsible for it. Unless he didn’t know it was in there. In that case, he was irresponsible in allowing publication.

But if you insist that that paper shouldn’t be used in this discussion because it was only his permission to publish, not his actual words, we can look at other documents.

From “In the Beginning…” A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.

Please note that this is from a book authored by Cardinal Ratzinger. He clearly accepts evolution as a reality.

Now Peter, does Cardinal Ratzinger’s position that evolution is a reality contradict magesterial teaching? If so, what does that make him?

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow;3228506:

Scientists are not failing to regard anything.

They are explaining the natural phenomenon and that is all they are capable of doing.

The natural phenomena of the origins of life forms can’t be logically explained apart from a creating intelligence extrinsic to nature.

You are stating a theological belief not a given. You are confusing the two. Science investigates the natural world and properly takes no notice of the supernatural at all, simply because it is not the subject of empirical evidence. Science cannot “prove” anythng about God since it has no tools to do so. They are connected WE believe exactly because we are believers.

Theology discusses how God is involved in creation.

That’s what I’m doing. God is always involved in creation. The life that permeates creation is from spirit,which is from outside of nature and from God.

I agree. Perfectly true.

The pope has said that this is the correct method of operation. I’m sure you don’t wish to oppose the Pope;s conclusion on this.

I don’t need to be told his position on the theory of evolution because I know it from his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”.

Good choices. But I was referring to something Ed posted thinking it meant something else, which said very specifically that Science cannot and should not speak to the issue of God, that was reserved for the Church. If you understand this, then I don’t understand why and how you want God inserted into science. ?

The quote actually comes directly from “In the Beginning,” and is quoted by Org. in the above post. I an confused then again, why you are going contrary to benedict if you have read “In the beginning”

Please explain.

 

[edwest2]

SpiritMeadow;3228506:

Scientists are not failing to regard anything.

They are explaining the natural phenomenon and that is all they are capable of doing.

The natural phenomena of the origins of life forms can’t be logically explained apart from a creating intelligence extrinsic to nature.

Theology discusses how God is involved in creation.

That’s what I’m doing. God is always involved in creation. The life that permeates creation is from spirit,which is from outside of nature and from God.

The pope has said that this is the correct method of operation. I’m sure you don’t wish to oppose the Pope;s conclusion on this.

I don’t need to be told his position on the theory of evolution because I know it from his books “In the Beginning” and “Truth and Tolerance”.

Your thoughts are correct. You should understand that science, especially on this issue, is very often discussed along with its implications. Regarding fixing a pipe: the repair either works or it doesn’t. Evolution does not fall into that category. It is not plumbing. A correct reading of the Theory of Evolution shows that it is complete and functional through purely naturalistic means. No deity or supernatural event(s) is required. This has led some to believe that, like plumbing, it either works or does not. And like fixing a pipe, no miracles are required. This is a false view. It is spread knowingly and unknowingly by various scientists, both those with a clear anti-God agenda and those who limit their view of evolution to methodology and naturalism, i.e, “Genetics and environment, what else is there?” The “what else” is of key importance. In the public mind, such statements are viewed as authoritative, if not regarded as self-evident. And right now, in the United States, anarchy is good and religion is evil, so this atmosphere further fosters a belief that the natural world is all there is. This is fine for science, but even science is aware of the supernatural.

As Catholics, we know, or should know, that God’s divine providence is the rest of the answer. He is called the First Cause, and the Church considers many theories of evolution, not just one. However, as Catholics, this knowledge from God is actual knowledge, it is not just faith but is revealed to us by God. A God who still works miracles today in the world. The biology text books alone will not give you this knowledge.

Pope John Paul II has recognized design in nature. It exists. Sadly, a mess has been created by a small group of anarchists and “Intelligent Design” as it is known in the United States has been discredited for many.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Regarding fixing a pipe: the repair either works or it doesn’t.

I can see you’ve never done much plumbing, ed.

Evolution does not fall into that category.

In a sense. It always works, after all.

It is not plumbing. A correct reading of the Theory of Evolution shows that it is complete and functional through purely naturalistic means.

So is plumbing. Or does you plumber suggest exorcising the demons of blockage?

No deity or supernatural event(s) is required.

Just like plumbing.

This has led some to believe that, like plumbing, it either works or does not. And like fixing a pipe, no miracles are required.

Not surprisingly, biology doesn’t need them, either. Every biological phenomnenon we have investigated has so far been entirely explicable in naturalistic terms. ID superstar Michael Denton now admits this fact:

"Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Michael Denton “Nature’s Destiny”

After seeing this last post of yours about anarchists and whatnot, I think your political ideology is at the root of your inability to accept science or the teaching of the Church.

 

[edwest2]

Catholics are taught to not believe in atheistic evolution. You seem to be promoting atheistic evolution.

“ID Superstar”? Who is this person and why should anyone care? He is promoting a false view of human origins.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It was so highly ordered, that until very recent times, it was thought to have been constructed. People saw a high degree of order and assumed that it must have been designed. But they were wrong.

It is not highly ordered – certainly not more than a snowflake is designed.

Another retreat? Like your ID’ers, people thought that the highly ordered structures of the Giant’s Causeway was designed, until they realized that there was a natural cause for it. Likewise, many of the features of living things ID’ers claimed to be designed turned out to have natural causes.

A cell is highly ordered,because it is functional and is a living organism.

Only functional and living things are “highly ordered?” If you insist on making up new meanings, you will be continually misunderstood.

Order does not consist of a mere consolidated mass or group of objects,no matter how much the it may look like it was constructed or designed by someone.

Again, if you invent a personal definition, you’re out on a limb by yourself.

Barbarian observes:
Every time we look at “design” in nature, and find out what it is, it’s not design.

Your going to deny design in nature,and yet affirm order?

Evidence, remember. ID’ers get to let their imaginations freely roam. Science depends on facts.

If there’s no design in nature,nothing can be said to be set in order.

Sorry. Unsupported assertions won’t help you, either.

But hurricanes are not a good example of “form” or “order” anyway. They are chaotic,volatile,and destructive.

Barbarian observes:
Like humans. But there is a high degree of order, at numerous levels.

More like a high degree of swirling chaos which leaves a path of destruction and makes people panic when its coming toward them.

I have to say, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The highly complex structure of a hurricane is quite orderly.
members.aol.com/minnyminew/weather_hurricanes_structure.htm

Barbarian observes:
Something much more subtle and wonderful than creationism can accept; God, at the moment of creation, produced a few simple rules (or maybe just one)

That isn’t subtle and wonderful,that’s rather crude and mechanistic

Horsefeathers. God isn’t some little Caananite fertility god, prancing around, making a tree here and a rabbit there. He’s the Creator. His creation was elegant and simple.

like the idea that God was the Great Mechanic who set the universe in order and then left it alone.

That’s more the ID’er ideology. They like to pretend that cells are mechanisms, for example, and they claim that ID is not a theistic religion.

Barbarian observes:
I happen to have a bit of experience in chaos theory. It is, ironically the source of much order in the universe.

Irrational matter doesn’t beget anything that can be called order. Chaotic matter can only continue along chaotic paths,because it has no intelligence.

You’ve been had by whoever told you that. Does this look orderly or chaotic to you?



I had noticed this happening in the 1970s myself, while working on Lotka-Volterra models. Turns out that the Feigenbaum number describes a high degree of order deep inside all chaotic systems. It has a number of practical applications:
portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=133067.133075

Barbarian observes:
Nope. It’s perfectly apropo. Plumbing, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.

So what if they are both methodically naturalistic?
The theory of evolution deals with the origins of life forms

Actually, it’s about the way allele frequencies change in populations. One of the problems is, you don’t know very much about this stuff.

and life is not naturalistic,but from outside of nature.

Remember what I said about making unsupported assertions? Still applies.

Life is from spirit,and spirit is an unknown quantity that departs from life forms when they die.

Which is OK, for a new age religion, but it won’t work in science. Not testable.

Barbarian chuckles:
Then you don’t understand science or plumbing. Both are methodologically naturalistic, seeking natural causes for natural phenomena.

No,science is seeking natural causes for phenomena which are at once natural and supernatural.

Sorry. That’s wrong. Science doesn’t, and can’t examine the supernatural.

But since modern science doesn’t recognize the existence of the supernatural,it doesn’t recognize the supernatural in nature.

Science can understand nature because nature is accessible to investigation by the scientific method. Even though humans have souls, that’s outside of nature.

 

[Wolseley]

In the light of such answers I see no future in continuing the exchange with him.

Sorry - Peter

And another one bites the dust…

At the rate all of the “Creationists” (whether we are or aren’t) are getting fed up with the arrogance and condescention of the Darwinists and dropping out of these evolution threads, pretty soon the Darwinists will be the only ones left, all talking to themselves, amongst the chirping crickets.

Must be “natural selection” at work.

 

[Orogeny]

And another one bites the dust…

At the rate all of the “Creationists” (whether we are or aren’t) are getting fed up with the arrogance and condescention of the Darwinists and dropping out of these evolution threads, pretty soon the Darwinists will be the only ones left, all talking to themselves, amongst the chirping crickets.

Must be “natural selection” at work.

So why are you still posting to this thread?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

God is more important than science. Your assertions are simply your own beliefs. What is an IDer? I see no one walking around with badges proclaiming their personal beliefs to the world (Leftist, Liberal and so on).

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Catholics are taught to not believe in atheistic evolution.

A lot of us are wondering why you keep trying to bring it up. No one else seems to be interested in atheistic evolution.

“ID Superstar”? Who is this person and why should anyone care?

Michael Denton. His book “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis” is cited by Michael Behe as his inspiration. I thought you knew.

He is promoting a false view of human origins.

Not according to the Pope. But, of course, you don’t accept that.

 

[Wolseley]

So why are you still posting to this thread?

Peace

Tim

For the same reason people will stand and gawk at a train wreck, I guess. LOL.

Sorry I interrupted. Please continue.

(Wolseley goes back to reading “Forbidden Archaeology”)

 

[The_Barbarian]

Funny that; Phillip Johnson of the Discovery Institute described the effect of the Dover trial on ID as a “train wreck.”

This is more of a fender bender for ID; relatively speaking.

 

[anthony022071]

You are stating a theological belief not a given.

It had better be a given,if scientific theories are not to fall into logical absurdities.

You are confusing the two. Science investigates the natural world and properly takes no notice of the supernatural at all, simply because it is not the subject of empirical evidence.

The evolution theories are not merely a matter of observing empirical evidence,but of interpreting the evidence in such a way that effectually makes Chance a divinity,or Nature its own divinity – creating life forms on its own through selection,or choice. All of nature is subject to death,and yet we are to believe that nature is self-sufficient and originates its own species.

Science cannot “prove” anythng about God since it has no tools to do so. They are connected WE believe exactly because we are believers.

If science can’t prove anything about God,then why do theistic evolutionists believe that God creats life in the way that the scientists propose?

Good choices. But I was referring to something Ed posted thinking it meant something else, which said very specifically that Science cannot and should not speak to the issue of God, that was reserved for the Church. If you understand this, then I don’t understand why and how you want God inserted into science. ?

The quote actually comes directly from “In the Beginning,” and is quoted by Org. in the above post. I an confused then again, why you are going contrary to benedict if you have read “In the beginning”

Please explain.

I’m not going contrary to the pope – I’ve been using some of his arguments as a point of departure for my own. The pope was not making an argument for the reasonableness of evolution theories.
He was being “generous” for the sake of intellectual engagement,just as he is generous with the ideas of dissident theologians and atheistic philosophers.

“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 mythical 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 than ever before.”

(“In the Beginning”,page 56)

 

[inthecloud]

Evolution is certainly disputed by many serious scientists. To dismiss the criticism of Darwinian theory entirely (as Barbarian does here) really is not objective or fair-minded as I see it.

The fact sir is that even in Darwinian evolution have flaws, evolution is a fact. The changes are in the way to explain it.

A lot of us are wondering why you keep trying to bring it up. No one else seems to be interested in atheistic evolution.

The fact is evolution is neither theistic or atheistic because proving or disproving there was God behind it is beyond the scope of natural science no matter how Mr Dawkins or Answers in Genesis push for the contrary.
The believer or non believer can interpert nature in different ways, but evolution is not more atheistic that gravity or mathematics.

 

[anthony022071]

But I was referring to something Ed posted thinking it meant something else, which said very specifically that Science cannot and should not speak to the issue of God, that was reserved for the Church. If you understand this, then I don’t understand why and how you want God inserted into science. ?

The pope didn’t say in that quote that science should not speak to the issue of God.

Science should at least admit that the world is rationally structured.

“Natural science,which has built a new world,rests upon a philosophical foundation whose origin must be sought in Plato. Copernicus,Galileo,and even Newton were Platonists. Their basic assumption was that the world is mathematically and rationally stuctured and that,starting from this assumption,we can decipher it and by experiment can make it equally comprehensible and useful.”

…“All our ideas about natural science and all practical applications are based on the assumption that the world is ordered according to rational,spiritual laws,is imbued with rationality that can be traced out by our reason.”

…“The Logos,Wisdom,about which the Greeks spoke,on the one hand,and the Israelites,on the other,has been taken back into the material world and cannot be addressed outside of it. Within the specific path followed by natural science,this limitation is necessary and right. If,however,it is declared to be the absolute and unsurpassable form of human thought,then the basis of science itself becomes contradictory;for it is both proclaiming and denying the power of reason. But above all,a self-limiting reason is an amputated reason.”

…“science becomes pathological when it takes leave of the moral order of human life,becomes autonomous,and no longer recognizes any standard but its own capabilities.”

(Truth and Tolerance,pages 157-158)

 

[SpiritMeadow]

anthony022071;3229291:

Your thoughts are correct. You should understand that science, especially on this issue, is very often discussed along with its implications. Regarding fixing a pipe: the repair either works or it doesn’t. Evolution does not fall into that category. It is not plumbing. A correct reading of the Theory of Evolution shows that it is complete and functional through purely naturalistic means. No deity or supernatural event(s) is required. This has led some to believe that, like plumbing, it either works or does not. And like fixing a pipe, no miracles are required. This is a false view. It is spread knowingly and unknowingly by various scientists, both those with a clear anti-God agenda and those who limit their view of evolution to methodology and naturalism, i.e, “Genetics and environment, what else is there?” The “what else” is of key importance. In the public mind, such statements are viewed as authoritative, if not regarded as self-evident. And right now, in the United States, anarchy is good and religion is evil, so this atmosphere further fosters a belief that the natural world is all there is. This is fine for science, but even science is aware of the supernatural.

As Catholics, we know, or should know, that God’s divine providence is the rest of the answer. He is called the First Cause, and the Church considers many theories of evolution, not just one. However, as Catholics, this knowledge from God is actual knowledge, it is not just faith but is revealed to us by God. A God who still works miracles today in the world. The biology text books alone will not give you this knowledge.

Pope John Paul II has recognized design in nature. It exists. Sadly, a mess has been created by a small group of anarchists and “Intelligent Design” as it is known in the United States has been discredited for many.
Ed

Ed you are all confused on who you are talking to. I"m in black the red is anthony. I have not a clue what you are talking about but the usual science won’t tell the world that God exists and it makes me mad and I"m gonna say science is garbage! so there!