Intelligent Design, most scientific

[reggieM]

“Design” requires consideration

You’re just making assertions about things and skipping over the depth that the subject requires.

If you want to make a distinction between “creation” and “design”, then you should do so with some precision and detail.

It’s apparent to me that you’re arguing against the words “intelligent design” because you don’t like them for some reason. Your own beliefs include aspects of creationism, intelligent design and Darwinism.

I don’t mind if a person’s views aren’t totally unified and coherent, but I wouldn’t expect that person to argue bitterly against a theory which he includes in his own belief.

To design something is to create. The phrase “plan of God” has been common in Catholic theology since the apostolic age.

I don’t know what religious background you have or if you’re Catholic or not, but you’re pointing to theological issues which are important and I don’t think should be brushed off so easily.

From a Calvinist perspective, one could say that God predestined all things and there is no “plan” or “expectation” in God.

That’s not Catholic theology, however. Since mankind lives within time, with a future, and Christ entered into time – He did experience human expectations and desires for the future.

But more importantly, there need not be any distinction between the words “design” and “create”.

You’re making that distinction to distance yourself from “intelligent design”. Again, to me this indicates that you dislike something about that term so you’ve created a means of pushing it away.

To say that God created just four laws, but all the rest of the laws of the universe created themselves – clearly, this is putting a limit on the powers of God.

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

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
“Design” requires consideration

You’re just making assertions about things

Words mean things. If you don’t use them as they are, you will be continually misunderstood.

and skipping over the depth that the subject requires.

Seems that no amount of depth can redefine words acceptably.

If you want to make a distinction between “creation” and “design”, then you should do so with some precision and detail.

How much difference do you want? “Design” requires consideration by definition. Creation does not.

It’s apparent to me that you’re arguing against the words “intelligent design” because you don’t like them for some reason. Your own beliefs include aspects of creationism, intelligent design and Darwinism.

I’m not sure you realize what any of these are.

I don’t mind if a person’s views aren’t totally unified and coherent, but I wouldn’t expect that person to argue bitterly against a theory which he includes in his own belief.

I’m thinking if you got back to the issue, this would be going better for you.

To design something is to create.

Truly, only God creates. But an omnisicent being does not design; if He did, He would not be omniscient.

The phrase “plan of God” has been common in Catholic theology since the apostolic age.

In a matter of speaking. But if you think about it for even a moment, you realize that an omniscient being cannot truly plan.

I don’t know what religious background you have or if you’re Catholic or not, but you’re pointing to theological issues which are important and I don’t think should be brushed off so easily.

I’m thinking that these ideas you’re stating are not exactly Catholic orthodoxy. (I’m Roman Catholic, BTW)

From a Calvinist perspective, one could say that God predestined all things and there is no “plan” or “expectation” in God.

That isn’t really what the word means:

**Theology restricts the term to those Divine decrees which have reference to the supernatural end of rational beings, especially of man. Considering that not all men reach their supernatural end in heaven, but that many are eternally lost through their own fault, there must exist a twofold predestination: (a) one to heaven for all those who die in the state of grace; (b) one to the pains of hell for all those who depart in sin or under God’s displeasure. However, according to present usages to which we shall adhere in the course of the article, it is better to call the latter decree the Divine “reprobation”, so that the term predestination is reserved for the Divine decree of the happiness of the elect. **
newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

So applying it to His creation generally, rather than to the above, is incorrect.

Since mankind lives within time, with a future, and Christ entered into time – He did experience human expectations and desires for the future.

See above.

But more importantly, there need not be any distinction between the words “design” and “create”.

Again, words mean things.

You’re making that distinction to distance yourself from “intelligent design”.

If so, general usage does also. And general usage determines meaning.

Again, to me this indicates that you dislike something about that term so you’ve created a means of pushing it away.

Disrespectful of God.

To say that God created just four laws, but all the rest of the laws of the universe created themselves

So, if I build a saw, and then make a table with it, the table built itself?

clearly, this is putting a limit on the powers of God.

If so, so does Genesis, since God created the Earth and Heavens, and then the Earth brought forth life. Why is it wrong to accept that God uses nature for most things in this world?

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

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

 

[edwest2]

You are making assertions about God that are not evident in the Bible. God is perfect. Jesus Christ showed how God does things, irrespective of ‘natural’ laws and limits.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

See above. Besides, most of them weren’t all that mighty. Very large animals are relatively fragile things. If a T-rex stumbled while moving quickly, it was probably crippled by the fall, a fatal thing for a predator. Turns out that moderately-sized animals are more successful.

So then being “powerful” doesn’t necessarily mean “most fit” then, does it?

More importantly, those things which were more flexible in their lives were able to adapt more readilly to their environment without “power” being required as much the “survial of the fittest” presume.

It’s not about the “survival of the fittest”, an aspect of the theory of evolution that is very much puffed up beyond what can actually be demonstrated in science.

It’s about the “path of least resistance”, something which very much does speak accurately about evolutionary developments of life in both theory and practice.

But the real competition for primates were the smaller dinosaurs. Fortunately for us, some sort of disaster killed off all land animals larger than a few kilograms.

So then why did you say before that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong-- but that’s where the smart money is?

It seems to me that even a semi-casual inspection of both human history and evolutionary history clearly reveals that both the swift and the strong tend to destroy themselves whereas the meak are simply left behind to inherent the earth.

Survival of the fit. That is testable, and verified.

So is the path of least resistance too.

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system.

For example, water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance as it is pulled downward by gravity.

Electricity flowing through a circuit behaves similarly; while every available path has some current flowing through it, the amount of current through each path is inversely proportional to its electrical resistance.

Atmospheric disturbances (storms) flow on the path of least resistance by flowing toward zones of low barometric pressure, where lower air density offers less impedance to the storm system than higher pressure zones.

One major exception to this rule seems to be quantum theory, a state where particles behave in a probabilistic rather than deterministic manner.

Nonetheless, having said this, it has been clearly demonstrated in science how the path of least resistance can be very effective when mirroring evolutionary processes. In fact, the path of least resistance has done far more to verify evolution than those espousing a survial of the fittest mentality ever dreamed of verifying.

Furthermore, those who use these simulated evolutionary circuits freely admit that they don’t actually understand how their own programs work, which flatly argues against any broader interpretation that their work can automatically be considered necessary a proof for the “survival of the fittest” when, in fact, their designs work exactly according to the principles of the “paths of least resistance” in exactly the way they were designed to do in the first place.

I believe you’re starting to get it.

Gee thanks mister. You’re really such a smart person.

I already “got it” Barbarian-- which is exactly why I’m asking you these questions to begin with, the very same questions which you seem to be ignoring over and over again precisely so that you can continue to make claims which you can’t actually defend when pressed further for answers.

Not unless he forgot how to use a ruler. Do you know how experiments are designed to deal with human expectations?

Does God know how to use a ruler and measure things, or is this trait simply too human him?

 

[The_Barbarian]

You are making assertions about God that are not evident in the Bible. God is perfect.

And a perfect begin would be omniscient, no?

Jesus Christ showed how God does things, irrespective of ‘natural’ laws and limits.

Sure, He does. But notice that whenever He sets aside the rules He established, it is to teach us something. He does not need to tinker with nature. It works as He intended. Indeed, it is God how makes nature work.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So then being “powerful” doesn’t necessarily mean “most fit” then, does it?

Very true. The “nature red in tooth and claw” is not really what it’s about.

More importantly, those things which were more flexible in their lives were able to adapt more readilly to their environment without “power” being required as much the “survial of the fittest” presume.

Perhaps you should read Darwin’s book and see. BTW, Darwin wrote “survival of the fit.” Suffice to say, he didn’t view it as a slugfest for survival. Nor does modern evolutionary theory say that.

It’s not about the “survival of the fittest”, an aspect of the theory of evolution that is very much puffed up beyond what can actually be demonstrated in science.

It’s quite easily demonstrable; undergraduates do it in laboratory exercises.

It’s about the “path of least resistance”,

Don’t see how. Often, survival is a very arduous and difficult thing. The path of least resistance is to give up and pass away.
If you would start with Darwin’s book, read it carefully, and then see what modern theory has to say, you would be very much surprised.

Barbarian observes:
But the real competition for primates were the smaller dinosaurs. Fortunately for us, some sort of disaster killed off all land animals larger than a few kilograms.

So then why did you say before that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong …?

Sorry, I didn’t identify the source. Here’s the full quote:

**I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all. **
Ecclesiastes 9:11

It seems to me that even a semi-casual inspection of both human history and evolutionary history clearly reveals that both the swift and the strong tend to destroy themselves whereas the meak are simply left behind to inherent the earth.

So it would seem from the mammalian triumph after the elimination of the great reptiles. But they promptly became swift and strong. Something always becomes so. But you will always have the meek, also. Meek is also a good survival strategy, as the Preacher attests.

Barbarian observes:
Survival of the fit. That is testable, and verified.

So is the path of least resistance too.

Nope. Often difficult and arduous. The path of least resistance is extinction.

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system.

No sign of that, when oberving grouse in a lek, or populations changing to counter an environmental challenge.

Nonetheless, having said this, it has been clearly demonstrated in science how the path of least resistance can be very effective when mirroring evolutionary processes.

Well, let’s give it a try. What can you mirror for us? Is it developed enough to be quantifiable?

Furthermore, those who use these simulated evolutionary circuits freely admit that they don’t actually understand how their own programs work, which flatly argues against any broader interpretation that their work can automatically be considered necessary a proof for the “survival of the fittest” when, in fact, their designs work exactly according to the principles of the “paths of least resistance” in exactly the way they were designed to do in the first place.

Perhaps you should show us this theory, and make some testable predictions (hint: nothing already known) and we can test them.

Barbarian observes:
I believe you’re starting to get it.

Gee thanks mister. You’re really such a smart person.

I already “got it” Barbarian–

Well, let’s just say we now have evidence that your are starting to get it.

which is exactly why I’m asking you these questions to begin with, the very same questions which you seem to be ignoring over and over again precisely so that you can continue to make claims which you can’t actually defend when pressed further for answers.

You have answers. You just don’t like the ones you got.

(suggestion that a scientist fooled himself)
Not unless he forgot how to use a ruler. Do you know how experiments are designed to deal with human expectations?

Does God know how to use a ruler and measure things, or is this trait simply too human him?

You’re thinking of William Blake’s God of the Calipers?

http://sachem.suffolk.lib.ny.us/advisor/pix1/artistblake.jpg

Why would He have need of such things? The scientist who confirmed the selective pressure for size in sparrows does, but not God. I’ve noticed, BTW, that you haven’t answered most of my questions. Would you mind doing a few for us?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s the point. Analogous structures (produced by convergent evolution) demonstrate common descent because the details of these structures clearly show that they were descended from different organisms. Hence, the “carnassal teeth” and wolflike appearance of thylacines superficially look like those of a carnivore, but the teeth are the wrong ones, and the bones are those of a marsupial, and the animal has a pouch. And, of course, the DNA of thylacines is marsupial DNA. This is powerful evidence for evolution.

This is also powerful evidence that science does indeed allows forensic science to discern patterns in nature in order to infer design too.

The very method they use to verify evolution actually speaks volumes about the forensic science they speak out against when IDer’s attempt to infer design in God’s creation.

Nothing in Scripture or the Magesterium generally supports ID.

This is simply nonsense.

The Catholic faith has always spoken about God’s providential plan of salvation and clearly spoken of where God’s grace is perceived to interact with his creation in order to bring about changes in human history.

Why God wouldn’t also do this in his creation regarding the speciation of life on earth seems to be a slap in the face of the very role God has always been understood within Catholicism to act.

And all the evidence goes the other way. God does not do miracles because He has to tinker with creation to get it to work. He does it to teach us something important.

And yet the greatest miracle of all, the Resurrection of Christ, certainly “fixed” the wrong committed by Adam did it not?

To a lesser but no less important degree, did not Mary’s faithfulness to Gabriel’s message from God not likewise undo the faithlessness of Eve’s sin who was tempted by the adversary’s serpent?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t think you’re getting this.

Indeed, if you are insisting that God doing miracles automatically means that he has to “tinker” with creation to get it to work – and that he does it only to “teach us something important” – then I think your arguments against “intelligent design” border more on the Muslim concept of God’s transcendance rather than the Catholic concept of God’s transcendance.

Just as there are both soft and hard forms of agnosticism (blending along with both soft and hard forms of atheism), there are also both soft and hard forms of intelligent design (blanding along with both soft and hard forms of theistic evolution).

The hard form of intelligent design insists that God had to step (out of necessity) into human history to fix mistakes that God “needed” to happen due his omnipotent design in order to get his will accomplished-- something which smacks of Calvinism and that I am personally strongly against.

The soft form of intelligent design insists that God freely chose to step (out of love) into human history to fix mistakes that God “permitted” to happen due to human freedom in order to get his will accomplished-- something which resounds within Catholicism and that I personally very much believe to be true.

Consequently, if indeed not one of the sparrows Jesus spoke of in Matthew 10:29 will fall to the ground apart from the will of our Father, and if not one of the same sparrows Jesus spoke of in Luke 12:6 is forgotten by God, then it stands to reason that God has indeed followed within the pattern of the softer form of intelligent design noted above.

Indeed, some softer version of it has always existed within Catholcism from her earliest roots within Judaism and, by God’s grace, I simply defy anyone who claims otherwise.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Hmm… do you have the context?

It’s in here which came from here.
The Barbarian : cf.:

In fact, such a thing could not have been produced by an intelligent designer.

Here you said that such a thing could not have been produced by an intelligent designer in response to the idea that many IDers originally claimed that their “calculations” had shown that this could not have happened on its own. But it did according to you. And you also claimed that anyone who looks at the evidence can see that there is no need for “intelligent design.”

This is the context of the “fact”, correct?

If indeed you are claiming that the evidence indicates there is no need for “intelligent design”, then where does this leave God as our “creator”?

How is this not merely another “God of the Gaps” argument as some atheists falsely claim, simply pushing God back further outside the very recesses of our own universes origins?

Then you’re beating a dead strawman, or you’ve somehow conflated methodological and philosopical naturalism. Big difference.

Then maybe you could explain this difference more clearly.

(conflation of science with atheism deleted)

Translation…

(I can’t actually answer this question therefore I will not answer it)

I’m still waiting any time you would like to address these questions…
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

So perhaps you could explain this distinction between “design” and “creation” in more detail so that we can examine you theodicy of God more clearly.

And perhaps you could also explain why you’re so uncomfortable with my assertion that the one who claims “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation is really not much of a different argument than those who say the “existence of evil” proves that God does not exist at all.

By the way, when one avoids even attempting to answer a question, it does not actually assist one when debating another except to reveal something which the person simply does not want to debate or else is not equipped to debate in the first place.

In other words, make an effort and not an excuse.

Sure seemed like it. Would you like me to restore the context for you?

Did I restore the context of the “fact” noted above for you clearly enough?

Seems to be conflating atheism with science. Common error. Or maybe…

Or maybe you could actually make an effort to answer my question above.

You think Catholics don’t accept miracles? Isn’t that God acting within His creation?

Of course I think that Catholics accept God’s miracles. I’m Catholic, remember?

I also accept the historically demonstrated fact that Catholics have made mistakes when it came to science, which is why Pope John Paul II made a successful public effort to clear Galileo Galilei’s name.

During this past time in Church history we allowed the view of the earth-centered universe of Aristotle and Ptolemy to prevent us from seeing the clearly authentic scientific truth of the sun-centered solar system.

During this modern time in Church history I think that some are allowing the young-earth creationist view of the deveolpment of life on earth to prevent us from seeing a clearly authentic scientific truth of evolution of life from common descent.

However, during this same modern time in Church history I also think that some are allowing the Darwinian view of the development of life on earth to prevent us from seeing a clearly authentic spiritual truth of God as our designer too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It’s an unfortunate confusion, perhaps unintentional on your part.

Or perhaps unintentional on your part?

Or maybe it is intentional?.

No wait, intentionality would actually require a design, something which we’re apparently not permitted to believe that God does after all, correct?

Omniscient. Never did any planing or designing.

You ignored the fact that an omniscient being does not plan, does not design. He is merely aware of His intent and of the consequences.

Fine. Let’s move into this area of theological discussion then.

If all you’re really saying is that God already knowing the future means that God cannot design something since he already knew it would be, then does this imply that God doesn’t actually have a choice in the things that he does precisely because he already knows the future?

“Design” requires consideration, something unnecessary for God.

Does this lack of consideration on God’s part mean that God has no choice?

It is, after all, a basic misrepresentation of what Catholics think of it. It is confusing God’s use of nature to serve Him, with deism.

Actually, deism is the belief that God wound up the clock and let the pieces fall where they may without interacting anymore within his creation-- and the hard version of theistic evolution is actually a softer form of deism in this regard by the way.

Soft forms of theistic evolution makes the allowance that God could have interacted with his creation but most likely did not except for specific miracles as noted for the salvation of humanity-- and this softer form of theistic evolution can make in-roads to softer forms of ID in my opinion…

Hard forms of theistic evolution, however, practically forbid the idea that God even thought of interacting with his creation but nonetheless assent that he revealed some miracles as noted for the salvation of humanity-- something which he already fore-ordained and could not retreat from precisely because he is incapable of “designing” anything outside what his will already has willed.

Ironically, noting the “winding up of the clock” of deism I mentioned above, and noting how much the hard form of theistic evolution blends into the deistic school of thought, I think that hard forms of theistic evolution really do branch into some form of “Watchmaker” mentality.

It’s not a “Blind Watchmaker” for sure. But it is a “Watchmaker” mentality of some sort, the definition of which eludes me at this time.

Moreover, it is obvious that miracles are what you assume we don’t think exist.

No. I think you do believe in miracles.

I just think your way of explaining why you believe in miracles has not been adequately explained yet.

It’s not that I don’t think you believe in miracles.

I know that you do believe in mircales.

I just think that your mode of thinking when talking about God’s inability to “design” within his creation restricts him in such a way that he is nearly indistinguishable from the god of the deists, except that he does sometimes perfrom miracles “within” creation-- albeit, solely for “tautological” purposes as you have already noted.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You’re just making assertions about things and skipping over the depth that the subject requires.

If you want to make a distinction between “creation” and “design”, then you should do so with some precision and detail.

It’s apparent to me that you’re arguing against the words “intelligent design” because you don’t like them for some reason. Your own beliefs include aspects of creationism, intelligent design and Darwinism.

I don’t mind if a person’s views aren’t totally unified and coherent, but I wouldn’t expect that person to argue bitterly against a theory which he includes in his own belief.

To design something is to create. The phrase “plan of God” has been common in Catholic theology since the apostolic age.

I don’t know what religious background you have or if you’re Catholic or not, but you’re pointing to theological issues which are important and I don’t think should be brushed off so easily.

From a Calvinist perspective, one could say that God predestined all things and there is no “plan” or “expectation” in God.

That’s not Catholic theology, however. Since mankind lives within time, with a future, and Christ entered into time – He did experience human expectations and desires for the future.

But more importantly, there need not be any distinction between the words “design” and “create”.

You’re making that distinction to distance yourself from “intelligent design”. Again, to me this indicates that you dislike something about that term so you’ve created a means of pushing it away.

To say that God created just four laws, but all the rest of the laws of the universe created themselves – clearly, this is putting a limit on the powers of God.

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

Good stuff reggieM. I agree strongly with what you’re saying here.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(Barbarian, saying why many evolved features could only have been produced by a Creator, not a lesser being)

Here you said that such a thing could not have been produced by an intelligent designer in response to the idea that many IDers originally claimed that their “calculations” had shown that this could not have happened on its own.

Yes, and I asked them to see the calculations (didn’t happen)

But it did according to you.

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

And you also claimed that anyone who looks at the evidence can see that there is no need for “intelligent design.”

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.

This is the context of the “fact”, correct?

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

If indeed you are claiming that the evidence indicates there is no need for “intelligent design”, then where does this leave God as our “creator”?

Our creator. Not some demiurge designer.

How is this not merely another “God of the Gaps” argument as some atheists falsely claim, simply pushing God back further outside the very recesses of our own universes origins?

I can’t see how it is. It demands that God be intimately involved in every detail of creation. How could it be otherwise?

(accusation of “philosophical materialism”)

Barbarian chuckles:
Then you’re beating a dead strawman, or you’ve somehow conflated methodological and philosopical naturalism. Big difference.

Then maybe you could explain this difference more clearly.

Sure. Science is methodologically naturalistic. That is, it assumes all natural phenomenon have natural causes. It has to do this to work, it is inductive, drawing inferences of evidence. It cannot even comment on anything other than nature, but it certainly does not deny that there is. It’s a method, not a philosophy. (there are philosophies of science, but they are not science)

Ontological naturalism (what you called philosophic materialism) is the idea that nature is all there is or ever was. This is not even expressable in science, which cannot test such an idea.

I’m still waiting any time you would like to address these questions…

Again?

So perhaps you could explain this distinction between “design” and “creation” in more detail

What about my first explanation did you find unclear?

with my assertion that the one who claims “perceived randomness” proves that God did not act within his creation

I pointed out that God acts within His creation.

By the way, when one avoids even attempting to answer a question, it does not actually assist one when debating another except to reveal something which the person simply does not want to debate or else is not equipped to debate in the first place.

Does that mean you’re going to answer some of the questions I asked you?

Did I restore the context of the “fact” noted above for you clearly enough?

Those who care can go to the link and see what I said.

Or maybe you could actually make an effort to answer my question above.

You asserted that people think that God does not act in His creation. When you first did this, I pointed out that He does.

Barbarian observes:
You think Catholics don’t accept miracles? Isn’t that God acting within His creation?

Of course…

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

I also accept the historically demonstrated fact that Catholics have made mistakes when it came to science,

That’s how the process works. Mistakes are as useful as successes, if you learn from them.

During this modern time in Church history I think that some are allowing the young-earth creationist view of the deveolpment of life on earth to prevent us from seeing a clearly authentic scientific truth of evolution of life from common descent.

However, during this same modern time in Church history I also think that some are allowing the Darwinian view of the development of life on earth to prevent us from seeing a clearly authentic spiritual truth of God as our designer too.

If so, then the problem is ignorance of science. Even Dawkins, who can barely contain his anger at faith, admits that science can’t refute religion. Science is not a hammer with which to hit God.

And it’s easy to refute the arguments of those who want to make it so.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

(Barbarian, saying why many evolved features could only have been produced by a Creator, not a lesser being)

Yes, and I asked them to see the calculations (didn’t happen)

And it’s not going to happen either.

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.

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.

Many of these different beliefs blend into each other at various “points of contact” but use different philosophical arguments for arriving at there particular conclusions, sometimes even arriving at very similar conclusions while using opposing philosophical arguments.

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

Right, and I agree with this too-- that 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.

So where does one draw the line between that which is a supernatural means by which God creates and that which is a natural means by which God creates?

The line is not as easilly drawn as you claim it is and there are many blurry elements which simply require a more powerful explanation of God’s creative actions than we’ve so far grasped.

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 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.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Our creator. Not some demiurge designer.

See, this is where you yourself seem to revealing a bias here.

How is the idea of God lovingly and carefully interacting with his creation necessarilly akin to the demiurge designer of the gnostic heretics?

For Plato, the demiurge is a benevolent creator of the laws or the heaven or of the world in Timaeus. This is actually an ancient writing that the early fathers actually used to suggest that human reason could glimpse the creator of the universe via his creation too by the way.

Indeed, the early church did in fact find much fertile soil for Christinaity to spread within certain segments of the the wisdom and philosophy of the Greeks.

John Paul II seems to arrive at this conclusion…

The Gospel’s encounter with the Greek world proved to be exceptionally fruitful. Among those whom Paul succeeded in gathering around him, those who heard him at the Areopagus in Athens merit special attention.

An analysis of Saint Paul’s speech at the Areopagus reveals that it is a masterpiece of its kind. What the apostle said and how he said it illustrate his genius as a preacher of the Gospel. We know that the day ended in failure. As long as Paul spoke of an unknown God, his listeners followed him because they detected in his words something that spoke to their own religious sensibilities.

But when he mentioned the Resurrection, they immediately rose up in protest. The apostle then understood that the mystery of salvation in Christ would not be easily accepted by the Greeks, accustomed as they were to mythology and to various forms of philosophical speculation.

Nevertheless, he did not lay down his weapons. After his setback at Athens, he nonetheless continued with holy stubbornness to proclaim the Gospel to every creature. This holy stubbornness finally led him to Rome, where he met his death.

Having said this, Plotinus identified the demiurge as nous (divine reason), the first emanation of “the One” (see monad), which seems to be similar to how you are suggesting that God works by the way.

Going one step further, in gnosticism, the material universe is seen as evil, and the demiurge is the evil creator of the physical world. However, the early church actually combatted the Gnostic heretics when they tried to incorporate Christian teaching into their spiritually void concepts of God.

Now, in our modern day, you seem to be saying that any adherance to God being a “designer” is now akin to the demiurge of the gnostic heretics, which is simply not true.

Your own version of theistic evolution, for example, seems to roughly correspond to Plotinus’ concept of the demiurge-- which is not necesarilly a bad thing.

And the intelligent design movement itself seems to correspond more accurately to Plato’s thoughts on the demiurge, something which the early Church did indeed see as a “shadow” of the Christian concept of God as a benevolent creator.

You are not saying that God as suggested within the intelligent design movement is inherently evil. However, you are indeed saying quite bluntly that to suggest God “designs” should be considered an evil thought without explaining exactly why this is so, except to suggest that God “designing” automatically means that he “makes mistakes”.

To boldly conflate “all forms” of intelligent design automatically with the demiurge of the gnostics (as opposed to Plato’s or Plotinus’ concept of the demiurge) is an unsustainable conflation that is simply not justified by an examination of the early church’s development of doctrines of “God as creator” as she sojourned throughout Greek civilization.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

There’s a big difference betwen these two views too by the way.

 

[Good_Fella]

Did you make a living cell too?
God bless,
Ed

Let mad scientists beware! And that includes Dr. Frankenstein:

Then the Lord God said, “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad. Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.” {Genesis 3,22}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[edwest2]

God made all things by the power of His Word. Period. Long-winded attempts to twist that into, “No, he did it like this,” will not get you anywhere.

God made everything out of nothing. Fact. God is perfect. Fact. Evolution, as written in textbooks, occurs all by itself. FACT.

God, an Intelligence, designed perfectly. Do not compare Him to some human being who goes around practicing trial and error.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

God made all things by the power of His Word. Period. Long-winded attempts to twist that into, “No, he did it like this,” will not get you anywhere.

God made everything out of nothing. Fact. God is perfect. Fact. Evolution, as written in textbooks, occurs all by itself. FACT.

God, an Intelligence, designed perfectly. Do not compare Him to some human being who goes around practicing trial and error
Ed

Sorry Ed, but this discussion has passed you by. these two guys are having an intelligent conversation that we can all benefit from. Your little asides with NO documentation whatsoever really add nothing. The same tired argument about science book not referring to God enlightens exactly no one since science books are supposed to refer to God. You claim you read biology or some sort…care to quote where it talks about God? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and only claim you have said this now at least 6 times. Evolutionary science doesn’t refer to God. I’ll tag it every time from now on. Do you have anything new to contribute?

 

[edwest2]

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?

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

God bless,
Ed

 

[wildleafblower]

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

Einstein wasn’t a pantheist. An excerpt from a recent article from TIME magazine:

*Viereck began by asking Einstein whether he considered himself a German or a Jew. “It’s possible to be both,” replied Einstein. “Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind.”

Should Jews try to assimilate? “We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform.”

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”

Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.” (Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, “What I Believe,” that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”(*Einstein & Faith, A combination of awe and rebellion helped shape not only Einstein’s science, but also his spiritual journey, ultimately determining the nature of his faith By WALTER ISAACSON, TIME Magazine, Thursday, Apr. 05, 2007)
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

I Einstein. He was a brilliant scientist & wonderful human being from what I’ve read about him!

 

[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?

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

God bless,
Ed

Good grief Ed you’ve admitted 8 times now that evolution probably happened in some form. Quit beating the 'God ain’t in the book" God isn’t in any of my cookbooks either. You have yet to propose how its to be included in a fashion that would satisfy all God believers. We’ll ignore atheists for the moment. And again I ask you why you feel parents and the Church are incapable of explaining God’s movement as Creator. Again you take this elitist position that everyone but you is too dumb to draw the “proper” inferences.