Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

[Techno2000]

As illustrated by the example of more and less hairy humans in Kentucky, the population of animals has a range of hair (or fur) thickness. We’re probably not talking full-up polar bear fur here, considering the previous environment. (A mutant with that much extra fur would indeed have to get very lucky on the timing of that ice age to come out ahead.) There just need to be some animals with enough extra protection (and the genes for same) that they are more reproductively successful than their less furry brethren.

The less furry brethren have been surviving for countless generations producing countless offspring, what exactly is causing them to all of a sudden be less successful at reproducing ?

 

[mVitus]

Dying from the cold?

 

[Wesrock]

Usagi:

As illustrated by the example of more and less hairy humans in Kentucky, the population of animals has a range of hair (or fur) thickness. We’re probably not talking full-up polar bear fur here, considering the previous environment. (A mutant with that much extra fur would indeed have to get very lucky on the timing of that ice age to come out ahead.) There just need to be some animals with enough extra protection (and the genes for same) that they are more reproductively successful than their less furry brethren.

The less furry brethren have been surviving for countless generations producing countless offspring, what exactly is causing them to all of a sudden be less successful at reproducing ?

The cold that they’re not insulated against. Their mortality rate and overall health becomes poorer. The ones with heavier coats fair better. Maybe not perfectly, but better. The averages/bell curve of furriness begins to shift over multiple generations as the heavy furriness genes are more widely spread through the surviving descendant population than light furriness genes.

Sudden climate shifts don’t happen overnight, either, generally. It’s not like this animal is just plopped down from temperate to tundra in an instant. You could have cyclical warming and cooling periods over thousand of years, maybe longer. You could have mountain ranges rise over millions of years, on one side the climate slowly becomes more tropical as it gets heavier rainful, the other side becomes more desert/savannah as rain clouds become blocked. The species on both sides deal with this over thousands or more generations, seeing their “averages” swing different ways. Maybe the mountain range keeps them from reproducing with each other for the most part. Maybe they eventually develop different mating triggers or behaviors in response to seasons and when they encounter each other again don’t typically mate.

 

[Usagi]

The environment has changed. Individuals with less protection against the cold are more likely to die before reproducing. That doesn’t mean it’s so cold that they all die, just that better protection against the cold is a survival advantage now, which because of the way heredity works means that it is more likely to be passed on and thereby spread through the population as generations pass.

EDIT: Or just read Wesrock’s far more awesome post above this one.

 

[o_mlly]

Are there any scientific truths contradicted by the Catholic faith?

Are there any Catholic beliefs falsifiable by empirical science?

If one answers “No” to both then it follows that the Catholic scientist has as much certainty about reality as the atheist scientist.

If one answers “Yes” to either question then examples of those alleged contradictions need reconciliation. There is only one truth.

Limited to only experiential knowledge, the atheist necessarily knows less about reality than the Catholic scientist who has the additional font of supernatural faith. (Both use natural faith in determining scientific truth.)

 

[Techno2000]

The environment has changed. Individuals with less protection against the cold are more likely to die before reproducing. That doesn’t mean it’s so cold that they all die, just that better protection against the cold is a survival advantage now, which because of the way heredity works means that it is more likely to be passed on and thereby spread through the population as generations pass.

EDIT: Or just read Wesrock’s far more awesome post above this one.

This is all nonsense, there are no animals today, out there, living in any environment where all of sudden cold suddenly kills the whole generation causing them to become extinct.

 

[Bradskii]

You ARE a troll as somebody said earlier. You must be. Nobody can be so dense. I honestly think it’s not possible. I’m going to flag your posts from here in.

 

[Techno2000]

Dying from the cold?

The cold is going to kill just about everything,in the environment, not just the less furry creatures.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I don’t wholly follow your logic. The Catholic Faith does not publish a list of scientific truths. However, I suspect that certain inferences in Humani Generis could constitute a denial of certain currently accepted scientific facts. If it is true (which I don’t think is currently really so) that “the Catholic Faith” insists that the human race arose from a single, exclusive pair of hominids, then that would probably be a “scientific truth contradicted by the Catholic faith”.

However, your second question is very odd. I think the Catholic faith believes in conventional science, which is certainly in principle falsifiable. However, many Catholic beliefs are not scientific at all, so of course they are not falsifiable by empirical science.

So, my answers are ‘arguably yes’ and ‘yes of course’. So “examples of those alleged contradictions need reconciliation”. I think that’s true.

“Limited to only experiential knowledge, the atheist necessarily knows less about reality than the Catholic scientist who has the additional font of supernatural faith.” Thank you. I’m a Catholic scientist and that’s just what I think.

 

[Usagi]

The post you are replying to and the one above it literally said that NOT all the animals would die from the cold in our example. Not even all the short-furred ones.

This is the part of evolution that even young-Earth creationists agree on. Within a species, a trait can be encouraged or discouraged if organisms with that trait have more kids than ones without it. We humans take advantage of that all the time when we breed animals and plants, but it happens without our involvement, too. It’s why people of European ancestry are mostly “white” and people of African ancestry are mostly “black,” even though both science and Scripture agree that all humans have a common ancestry and started out in one place on the planet. Darker skin is advantageous in some places and lighter skin in others, so after humans have spread out and reproduced for many generations, you have populations that are all human but have notably different skin colors and other features.

 

[Usagi]

There are different degrees of cold. Can you not imagine a change in temperature that would kill less protected creatures but not more protected ones? At the risk of confusing natural differences with technological ones, this happens to humans every winter if they are insufficiently protected from the cold, whether they are sadly homeless or just stuck while traveling.

 

[Techno2000]

The post you are replying to and the one above it literally said that NOT all the animals would die from the cold in our example. Not even all the short-furred ones.

So, when does evolution come into play if the less furry ones, are still out there surviving and multiplying.

 

[Dan123]

There are different degrees of cold. Can you not imagine a change in temperature that would kill less protected creatures but not more protected ones? At the risk of confusing natural differences with technological ones, this happens to humans every winter if they are insufficiently protected from the cold, whether they are sadly homeless or just stuck while traveling.

I did all of this in chart form for him. I’m convinced he’s a troll.

 

[Techno2000]

Usagi:

There are different degrees of cold. Can you not imagine a change in temperature that would kill less protected creatures but not more protected ones? At the risk of confusing natural differences with technological ones, this happens to humans every winter if they are insufficiently protected from the cold, whether they are sadly homeless or just stuck while traveling.

I did all of this in chart form for him. I’m convinced he’s a troll.

Piranhas, Bass and Rainbow trout can all live in 75 degree water, if it gets too hot or too cold the Piranha or the Rainbow trout will die, but the Bass Will Survive. but that’s all your chart explains , it doesn’t explain how evolution actually works in real life.

 

[o_mlly]

The Catholic Faith does not publish a list of scientific truths

? The Catholic faith does not instruct in science but in revelation. She does publish a list of those beliefs. The question asks which of those published beliefs are contradicted by empirical science.

However, I suspect that certain inferences in Humani Generis could constitute a denial of certain currently accepted scientific facts.

Can you demonstrate the logic you used to make such inferences in Humani Generis?

If it is true (which I don’t think is currently really so) that “the Catholic Faith” insists that the human race arose from a single, exclusive pair of hominids, then that would probably be a “scientific truth contradicted by the Catholic faith”.

I am somewhat confused as to what you are saying above.

First, I agree with you. The Church does not teach “that the human race arose from a single, exclusive pair of hominids.” So this is not an example of any contradiction.

Second, (and, I think, to the points in Humani Generis), the historiographical sciences propose theories that give meaning by organizing events in a manner that shows coherence.

As a science, historiographers (paleontologists, geologists, historians, etc.) make observations and use inductive reasoning to put forth theories concerned with the origin and history of the cosmos and of living beings. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, historiographers must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity.

Secular historians often have more difficulty in defending their positions than their counterparts in the experimental sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.). Unlike the experimental scientists, secular historians may only refer to available recorded human testimony and artifact, while the experimental sciences can always refer to repeatable experiments.

Despite their difficult position, historians succeed in giving well-rounded explanations for past events but their explanations or meanings are necessarily more contrived than derived, somewhat subjective, and always dependent on the discovery of additional artifact or ancient manuscript. For these reasons, secular historians often disagree on their interpretations of the same evidence.

However, your second question is very odd. I think the Catholic faith believes in conventional science, which is certainly in principle falsifiable.

But that was not the question. Of course, some claims in conventional science are falsifiable. The question is what claims does the Catholic faith make that have been falsified by conventional science?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

I’m afraid you’ve lost me here, although |I would like to respond if I can.

“The Catholic faith does not instruct in science but in revelation. She does publish a list of those beliefs. The question asks which of those published beliefs are contradicted by empirical science.”

A list of beliefs? Can I take the creed as something like that. Let me take the first clause of these published beliefs and analyse them, if I may.

“I believe in one God” - Not at all falsifiable by empirical science.
“the Father” - Difficult. By normal definition a “father” is the biological parent of offspring, contributing 50% of its DNA by means of sperm. I don’t think the Catholic Church is using the word “father” in that sense. Without specification, empirical science cannot falsify metaphors.
“almighty” - As this is part of the conventional definition of God, it is not falsifiable.
“maker of heaven and earth,” - This rather depends on how one defines “maker”. However, if it can mean “prime mover” then this is part of the conventional definition of God, so is not falsifiable.
“of all things visible and invisible.” - Again, as the ‘prime mover’, I think this is part of the definition of God. A definition is a social convention. In some cases one could empirically demonstrate that no such convention existed, but not here, I think.

You see, your question genuinely does not make a lot of sense in this ‘revelatory’ context. I think it would be fair to say that these ‘published beliefs’ are not contradicted by science. However, as various Creationists are always ready to quote, Humani Generis says this: “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” This, I think, although perhaps not “disprovable” by conventional science, almost certainly contradicts it. There have been some well-meaning attempts to reconcile the gradual evolution of ‘man’ from a small population of ‘non-men’ (the current scientific view), with the birth of two such ‘people’ from whom all the others descended (Humani Generis), but such attempts do not sit easily with the real beliefs of either science or Pius XII.

Your characterisation of the difference between historical and empirical science is correct, I think.

“The question is what claims does the Catholic faith make that have been falsified by conventional science?” No; that was not your question at all. Your question was, as you can go back and check: “Are there any Catholic beliefs falsifiable by empirical science?”. Not falsified, falsifiable. Very different things. However, I’ve no idea what the answer is to your second question. Is it important?

 

[o_mlly]

To cut to the chase, I will paraphrase your answers. If I have misinterpreted them feel free to correct me.

First question:

Are there any scientific truths contradicted by the Catholic faith?

Humani Generis says this: “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” This, I think, although perhaps not “disprovable” by conventional science, almost certainly contradicts it.

So you say, “Yes, conventional science contradicts Catholic belief that all mankind descended by natural generation from one man.”

The conventional science for the first half of the 20th century believed the Piltown Man was the missing link. As mentioned in the prior post, historiographical sciences (physical anthropology) await the next dig or new found artifact to evaluate the current theories. Therefore, anthropological theories remain very much in the realm of doubt, e.g., the now in vogue theory that mankind had many rather than one ancestor. Because of this tentative nature as to the truth of things, I think the conventional anthropological science is less credible than Catholic teaching.

Are there any Catholic beliefs falsifiable by empirical science?

I think it would be fair to say that these ‘published beliefs’ are not contradicted by science.

Good.

Is it important?

Yes, it is important. Catholic scientists ought to avoid the scandalous theory of “Double Truths.”

Through faith, we know God’s Divine Providence has a plan for all creation as all His creatures move toward their ultimate perfection.

Intelligent Designer? Yes. Science will never disprove this deposit of faith. As there is no evidence that withstands examination to the contrary, Catholic scientists ought not create doubts.

 

[Dan123]

The chart showed members of the same species.

 

[Dan123]

The conventional science for the first half of the 20th century believed the Piltown Man was the missing link.

From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together”.[11] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1]

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On top of that, the reason it was met with skepticism is it didn’t fit the evolutionary model.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Therefore, anthropological theories remain very much in the realm of doubt, e.g., the now in vogue theory that mankind had many rather than one ancestor. Because of this tentative nature as to the truth of things, I think the conventional anthropological science is less credible than Catholic teaching.

You opinion is entirely valid. It is not one I hold myself, as I think the “now in vogue theory” will gain credibility rather than lose it as time goes on. You should be aware that although Piltdown Man certainly gained general credibility for a short while, it was at least contested from the moment it was discovered. Time will no doubt tell regarding the ‘group’ ancestry of ‘man’.