Intelligent Design, most scientific

[edwest2]

Anyone reading some of the replies here would draw improper inferences. Namely, science has something to say to the Church.

“Hey! Mr. Pope! I gots science here an we gots all dis evidence what you can’t ignore. Hey? Where ya goin’? I’m talkin ta you.”

That’s all I’m hearing, aside from the occasional reference to appropriate and relevant Church Teaching. My point is and will always be, aside from some people who are all too anxious to make sure that the ‘evils’ of religion never end up in a science classoom, God was intimately involved. But I’m hearing the exact opposite from some.

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

Anyone reading some of the replies here would draw improper inferences. Namely, science has something to say to the Church.

“Hey! Mr. Pope! I gots science here an we gots all dis evidence what you can’t ignore. Hey? Where ya goin’? I’m talkin ta you.”

That’s all I’m hearing, aside from the occasional reference to appropriate and relevant Church Teaching. My point is and will always be, aside from some people who are all too anxious to make sure that the ‘evils’ of religion never end up in a science classoom, God was intimately involved. But I’m hearing the exact opposite from some.

God bless,
Ed

You best read the topic “THANK GOD FOR EVOLUTION!” The Pope has something to say about science. Science is truth (scientific truth).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199764&page=42

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The books don’t mention God, which is my point. Evolution, as written in textbooks, is a Godless theory based on pure naturalism - everything came into being on its own. I think the average person would take that as No God Required - at all. Don’t you?

**Only you Ed. What it comes down to is you believe in evolution but refuse to acknowledge that and will continue to portray false arguments against it until such time as the world agrees to give in to Ed’s desire that you place in biology books, “some believe none of this could have started without God”. You refuse obstinantly to explain how this would square with separation of Church and state or how such a formula would be arrived at given the multiplicity of faiths and the need to give everyone a chance to give their theological take on it. You set up a straw argument in order to mislead only . It’s time to back up the rhetoric now with answers. **

The Catholic answer is events guided by divine providence. Period.

**And now for the 9th time we all agree. Still gonna start all over again? **

Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Anyone reading some of the replies here would draw improper inferences. Namely, science has something to say to the Church.

“Hey! Mr. Pope! I gots science here an we gots all dis evidence what you can’t ignore. Hey? Where ya goin’? I’m talkin ta you.”

That’s all I’m hearing, aside from the occasional reference to appropriate and relevant Church Teaching. My point is and will always be, aside from some people who are all too anxious to make sure that the ‘evils’ of religion never end up in a science classoom, God was intimately involved. But I’m hearing the exact opposite from some.

**You continue to accuse “some” who say that God has nothing to do with evolution. You never name some. you never reply directly to any “some” with quotes. That’s what so frustrating to us all, Nobody hear is an atheist as far as I can see, everyone believes in theistic evolution save you, except for the 9 times you’'ve agreed with it with God in the equation…which is theistic evolution. then off you go once again . YOU will not be logically consistent. You insist on straw arguments, you are simply stubborn and determined that somehow things are going to follow you views and you are willing to use rather devious means to get there. Name the people you claim are trying to promote atheism here…or stop making such accusations as pure hyperbole. **

Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian
So what’s the problem, then? For a theist, nature is God acting within His creation.

No, for the pantheist, such as Spinoza or Einstein, nature is God acting within His creation.

For a pantheist, not a theist. BTW, I see some have taken issue with your observation that Einstein was a Spinozan pantheist. Here’s a site, they might want to visit:
einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

You may be already aware of these statements, but others might want to see them.

For the theist, such as Augustine or Aquinas, nature is merely a method by which God uses his divine loving grace to create life.

Sounds like a Christian idea to me.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian mentions that those who say they have numbers to support ID, can’t seem to show them to us)

That’s because I don’t believe in the hard form of intelligent design, something which I’ve been clear about from the beginning too.

That’s why I didn’t say you did it. But I’m wondering why you don’t just go the full Monte, and call it “creation.”

You are simply insisting that “intelligent design” automatically implies the harder versions of intelligent design that I’ve already noted. It doesn’t. Just as there are hard and soft versions of atheism, agnosticism, and deism-- there are also hard and soft versions of intelligent design and theistic evolution too.

The Wedge Strategy depends on peddling the soft version as a way of opening the way for a non-Christian form of ID.

Barbarian observes:
No. God created nature, and that remains His way of doing almost everything in our world.

…nature is a “method” which God uses his divine loving grace to create life. But, if this is the case, then the “primal substrate” upon which nature hinges is actually supernatural in nature too.

Yep. “Nature” is merely a place or a system that God produced for us to live out our natural lives in. It’s just a special subset of the supernatural.

The line is not as easilly drawn as you claim it is

Didn’t say it was easy. But the demarcation line is convoluted, not blurry.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. That’s why the vast majority of people who have done so, have so concluded. The deniers seem to do so for a pre-existing religious objection.

And yet you too accept your harder version of theistic evolution based on a pre-existing religious objection too, do you not?

I’m not a theistic evolutionist. Theism has nothing to do with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
I think anyone who wants to see, should check it for themselves; your characterization of it is not accurate.

I disagree. I’ve explained why I disagree too-- quite plainly for anyone to examine if they so choose.

I think it’s best to let anyone interested go take a look, then.

 

[reggieM]

reggie M: “I probably should ask how you know which laws of the universe God created, and how you know that God did not create evolution.”

Again, you stated that God did not create evolution. You also stated that God only created four laws. My question was, how do you know that God did these things?

God created all things. Some ex nihilo, and some by using nature to do so.

You believe that God did not create any designs in nature, but that God did create some things ex nihilo and others He created by using nature.

What evidence do you have for your opinions on that?

You accept that you are a creature of God, do you not? And did He not use nature to create you? Why is that so hard to accept?

I accept that I am a creature of God. I accept that God directly created my soul and evolution was not involved in that action. I accept that the design which is evident in my body and in my “personhood” were created by God. I do not see sufficient evidence to accept that human beings are “evolved apes”.

All of these things are very hard to accept for people who embrace Darwinian naturalism since that theory holds that God was not involved in the creation of human beings.

 

[reggieM]

No, it was much more fundamental (pun intended) than that. He created the four laws (or maybe just one) from which everything else came to be. He remains intimately involved in it, but does not arbitrarily deflect nature from its normal laws, unless He does so to teach us something.

This is the paragraph I was replying to.

 

[The_Barbarian]

reggie M: “I probably should ask how you know which laws of the universe God created, and how you know that God did not create evolution.”

Again, you stated that God did not create evolution.

God created nature, and then nature produced many things. But that doesn’t mean that God didn’t create what nature brought forth.

You also stated that God only created four laws.

No, God created many other things than nature. The remarkable thing is the parsimony with which He produced all things in nature. I have no idea whether all the other things He created apart from nature are like that.

My question was, how do you know that God did these things?

Faith, Scripture, teachings of the Church.

Barbarian observes:
God created all things. Some ex nihilo, and some by using nature to do so.

You believe that God did not create any designs in nature, but that God did create some things ex nihilo and others He created by using nature.

What evidence do you have for your opinions on that?

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

Genesis 1:24 God said, “Let the earth produce every kind of living creature in its own species: cattle, creeping things and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it was.

Barbarian on God using nature to create:
You accept that you are a creature of God, do you not? And did He not use nature to create you? Why is that so hard to accept?

I accept that I am a creature of God. I accept that God directly created my soul and evolution was not involved in that action. I accept that the design which is evident in my body and in my “personhood” were created by God. I do not see sufficient evidence to accept that human beings are “evolved apes”.

That is what the evidence shows. Would you like to learn about some of it?

All of these things are very hard to accept for people who embrace Darwinian naturalism since that theory holds that God was not involved in the creation of human beings.

You honestly believe that? No wonder you hate science. I’d hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

 

[wildleafblower]

I’m not a theistic evolutionist. Theism has nothing to do with evolution.

I agree with you. I’ve never come across any document within the Vatican:Holy See that mentions a ‘theist evolution’ or ‘theistic evolutionist’. Only ‘evolution’ and ‘theory of evolution’ and ‘evolution is a fact’.

 

[reggieM]

Post #135

Reg: Did God create the laws of evolution?

Barbarian: No, it was much more fundamental (pun intended) than that.

From today’s posts:

Reg: Again, you stated that God did not create evolution.

Barbarian: God created nature, and then nature produced many things. But that doesn’t mean that God didn’t create what nature brought forth.

Barbarian: He created the four laws (or maybe just one) from which everything else came to be.

Reg: You also stated that God only created four laws.

Barbarian: No, God created many other things than nature.

 

[reggieM]

Reg: All of these things are very hard to accept for people who embrace Darwinian naturalism since that theory holds that God was not involved in the creation of human beings.

Barbarian: You honestly believe that? No wonder you hate science. I’d hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

Well, I hate deceptions and sophistry. You asked me if I’d like to learn more about your opinions, and I certainly would like to learn more about your idea that Darwinian naturalism posits a role for our Creator. I’d also like to see your source of Church teachings that state that God “created four laws, or maybe only one” from which all other laws come. I assume that you believe that the other laws are the results of natural selection or some kind of random natural process.

Again, it would be great to learn where in Scripture and the teaching of the Church it states that some laws of the universe were not created directly by God. I’d also like to learn about which laws God created and which were “created by nature”.

 

[wildleafblower]

Nobel laureate and Pontifical Academy of Sciences ACADEMICIAN Christian DE DUVE (1) of Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology participated in The Cultural Values of Science, Plenary Session, 8-11 November 2002, Vatican City, 2003. His article **THE FACTS OF LIFE **begins on page 71 of this pfd:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...en/archivio/s.v.105_cultural_values/part2.pdf

Here are two excerpts from his article :

Pg. 75: * In recent years, opposition to the notion of a natural origin of life has been voiced by a very small but vocal minority of scientifically trained persons who, while subscribing to the notion of a LUCA appearing de novo on Earth and evolving into present-day living organisms, claim that these phenomena could not possibly have taken place by purely natural processes, but required the intervention of some nonmaterial guiding entity that forced the raw materials of life to interact so as to produce the first living cells and also, as will be mentioned later, directed the further course of evolution (Behe, 1996; Dembski, 1998; Denton, 1998). Known under the name of ‘intelligent design’, this theory, which is close to vitalism, has been magnified much beyond its merits because of its alleged philosophical and theological implications . I shall come back to it when discussing evolution. Let me simply state now that serious flaws have been detected in the scientific arguments brought forward in its support*.

Pg. 76: 5. The Theory of Evolution Is More than a Hypothesis- In those words, Pope John-Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in a solemn session, on 22 October 1996, expressed the acceptance of biological evolution by the Church. Considering the implications of this statement, the evidence that convinced the Pontiff must be truly decisive. And so it is. Actually, the Pope’s statement was overly cautious. **Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, implicit in the common descent of all living organisms and established with the same degree of certainty. **Thanks to the information provided by fossils and complemented by molecular phylogenies, we have a rough idea of the timing and manner in which evolution has proceeded. A schematic outline of its main steps is shown in Table 1. Bacteria were the sole representatives of life on Earth during more than one billion years. The first eukaryotes emerged around 2.2 billion years ago, probably as the outcome of a long evolutionary history of which no fossil trace has yet been found; they remained unicellular for more than another billion years. It is only after life had completed some three-fourths of its history on Earth that primitive multicellular plants, fungi, and animals first appeared, slowly giving rise to more complex forms.
I read on wikipedia “De Duve proposes that peroxisomes may have been the first endosymbionts, which allowed cells to withstand the growing amounts of free molecular oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. Since peroxisomes have no DNA of their own, this proposal has much less evidence than the similar claims for mitochondria and chloroplasts.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_de_Duve

Dr. Alec MacAndrew wrote a splendid article **A different kind of transitional **which mentions endosymbionts! WOW! What a flash back in time for me.

evolutionpages.com/blog/2006_10_01_archive.html

P.s. Please note that George V. Coyne, S.J. (2) article MODERN COSMOLOGY AND LIFE’S MEANING appears on the above mentioned pdf which I located here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...nts/rc_acdsci_doc_190999_publications_it.html

We love you Father Coyne! You are always in my prayers.

Peace, joy, and love to everyone ~

Wildleafblower

1. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/deduve.html
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/deduve.html

2)vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/coyne.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/coyne.html

Boy, I wrote this a year ago. My obsersavtion is the Intelligent Design Movement emerges between the months of October and December again and again and again. It’s history for me. Done!

 

[reggieM]

It’s history for me. Done!

I find it unfortunate that your study of this topic is “done” since there has been considerably more information since 2003.

For example, two years after the quote you published, Cardinal Schonborn famously corrected the notion that the Catholic Church has an “acceptance” or “acquiescence” to evolutionary theory.

Quoting Cardinal Shonborn: "EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (Finding Design in Nature, NY Times, July 2005)

I think we all know what happened to Fr. Coyne as well.

“Pope sacks astronomer over evolution debate”

dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811

Pope Benedict XVI has sacked his chief astronomer after a series of public clashes over the theory of evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Reg: All of these things are very hard to accept for people who embrace Darwinian naturalism since that theory holds that God was not involved in the creation of human beings.

Barbarian observes: You honestly believe that? No wonder you hate science. I’d hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

Well, I hate deceptions and sophistry.

I’m accusing you of neither. I think you honestly believed that evolutionary theory says that. It does not.

You asked me if I’d like to learn more about your opinions, and I certainly would like to learn more about your idea that Darwinian naturalism posits a role for our Creator.

You’ve missed it again. No science can posit a role for anything supernatural, nor can it deny such a role.

I’d also like to see your source of Church teachings that state that God “created four laws, or maybe only one” from which all other laws come.

It’s in the same document that says God’s creation includes protons. Not everything that’s true is in the Magisterium.

I assume that you believe that the other laws are the results of natural selection or some kind of random natural process.

Again, if you think nature operates by random processes, you’ve completely misunderstood God’s creation. The other “laws” are merely consequences of the four forces.

Again, it would be great to learn where in Scripture and the teaching of the Church it states that some laws of the universe were not created directly by God.

Show me where the Church even mentions the four forces and the resulting physical phenomena. Not everything that’s true is in the Magesterium.

I’d also like to learn about which laws God created and which were “created by nature”.

I would like to see where you got that “created by nature” quote. That’s not a rhetorical statement. Show us.

 

[hecd2]

For example, two years after the quote you published, Cardinal Schonborn famously corrected the notion that the Catholic Church has an “acceptance” or “acquiescence” to evolutionary theory.

Refuted here:
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

Schönborn made many scientific and logical errors in this and his subsequent article in First Things.

Quoting Cardinal Shonborn: "The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

I can see how it must be galling for someone like Schönborn who believes in the power of the Argument from Design to find that some of those who devote their lives to studying the natural world doubt its merits. When scientists are doing science, they rightly restrict themselves to proposing only natural causes for the phenomena that they observe, an approach known as methodological naturalism. But that should not violate the right of scientists to take their experience of the world as a basis for a worldview that they express publicly Nor does it inherently invalidate their philosophical conclusions – scientists’ philosophical worldview has, prima facie, the same validity as anyone else’s.It seems to me that Schönborn wants to employ the theological equivalent of Maxwell’s demon – according to him, it’s fine to use our natural ability to observe the world and reason our way to a worldview, provided we reach the same conclusion that he does. However, by looking at the natural world and exercising their intellect, some scientists reach a different conclusion, namely that purpose and design cannot be discerned in the natural world. So it is not obvious that **the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world - **that sort of natural theology has long been discredited.

Let us reflect on Schönborn’s indignant objection to neo-Darwinists who draw theological conclusions from their understanding of the natural world (in his First Things article). Almost in the same breath that Schönborn promotes “the natural ability of the human intellect to grasp the intelligible realities that populate the natural world”, he rebukes neo-Darwinists for making theological assertions in “bold and completely unqualified” ways.So, if it is not the natural ability of the human intellect that qualifies people to reach philosophical conclusions, then what is it? Biologists and scientists in general have at least as much understanding of the natural world as Schönborn does, and, I would venture, considerably more.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (Finding Design in Nature, NY Times, July 2005)

But Schönborn is not a philosopher of science or a scientist and he has no authority to define what is and is not science, so his statement here carries neither intellectual nor authoritative weight.

I think we all know what happened to Fr. Coyne as well.

Is that a threat? I believe that the good father retired because he is suffering from terminal cancer - are you suggesting that any cleric making absolutely valid criticisms of a meddlesome cardinal ought to be silenced? - that would be contemptible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[reggieM]

Barbarian stated:

“then nature produced many things”

Barbarian then demanded that I show where he said that.

He said it when he said:

“then nature produced many things”.

 

[reggieM]

It seems to me that Schönborn wants to employ the theological equivalent of Maxwell’s demon – according to him, it’s fine to use our natural ability to observe the world and reason our way to a worldview, provided we reach the same conclusion that he does. However, by looking at the natural world and exercising their intellect, some scientists reach a different conclusion

I think the Cardinal made it clear that some scientists reach conclusions that are incompatible with Catholic teaching. So, yes, he said that iit was fine to observe the world and reason our way to a worldview. He merely pointed out that a certain evolutionary-Darwinist worldview is false.

his statement here carries neither intellectual nor authoritative weight

Perhaps the Cardinal’s views carry no authority for you. I don’t think the same can be said for Pope Benedict, since they are quite close and share a theological background.

Is that a threat?

Yes, I certainly think it is a major threat for clerics who pretend that there are no serious philosophical errors present within Darwinist naturalism, as well as a host of errors given in modern science itself. Pope Benedict’s decision to remove Fr. Coyne gives some solid evidence for that threat.

are you suggesting that any cleric making absolutely valid criticisms of a meddlesome cardinal ought to be silenced?

I don’t believe that the Holy Father silences clerics who are making valid criticisms. Therefore, the actions that Pope Benedict took against Fr. Coyne must have been based on good information and reasoning – and thus, Fr. Coyne appears discredited.

 

[reggieM]

reggieM: My question was, how do you know that God did these things?

Barbarian: Faith, Scripture, teachings of the Church.

reggieM: I’d also like to see your source of Church teachings that state that God “created four laws, or maybe only one” from which all other laws come.

Barbarian: It’s in the same document that says God’s creation includes protons. Not everything that’s true is in the Magisterium.

— I will help summarize the above.

Barbarian claimed that God created “four laws or maybe just one”, and all others came from those.

I asked Barbarian how he knew that and he said from Faith, Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

I asked Barbarian to show me where in Scripture or the teachings of the Church it says that God created four laws.

Barbarian replied that not everything that’s true is in the Magisterium.

In conclusion – when asked to explain how he knows what laws God created, Barbarian claimed something and then immediately denied it.

I appreciate the replies and the time taken in this discussion.

 

[reggieM]

When scientists are doing science, they rightly restrict themselves to proposing only natural causes for the phenomena that they observe

It would seem unjustified then for scientists to draw theological conclusions from their scientific observations.

Let us reflect on Schönborn’s indignant objection to neo-Darwinists who draw theological conclusions from their understanding of the natural world

I would think you would be equally indignant since you’ve asserted that scientists restrict themselves to proposing natural causes.