Intelligent Design

[grannymh]

It is my intention to respect the ban on evolution discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss this particular e-mail, they may do so on my thread in Back Fence Forum provided the guidelines in sticky notes are followed.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

The following e-mail is only presented as a sample of some of the thinking within the Intelligent Design community:

Thanks very much for your note. You asked me to answer two questions, and I will do my best:

1. Are there two sole parents of the human species?

I’m not a human geneticist, but it seems very unlikely to me. I don’t see how the existing degree of genetic diversity in our species could be accounted for by just two individuals.

1. Did the entire human species descend from two people?

I don’t think so, for the reason stated above. However, it depends what you mean by “descend.” For example, if you mean to ask whether all human beings alive today might be able to find two specific individuals in their ancestry, I certainly do believe that’s possible, even though it would not mean that our species started out with just those two. To explain when I mean, consider a hypothetical situation where 30 families, each with a different surname (Johnson, Miller, Smith, Jones, etc…) are living on an isolated island. As their children grow, they marry individuals from other families, and change their family names as we do, which means that each woman, as she marries, takes the family name of her husband. As you can well imagine, there might be a generation in which 3 or 4 of the families would only produce girls among their children. As a result, those family names would be eliminated from the island.

It might take a while, but eventually, the island might have just two or three family names. After a very long while, just one name might survive (let’s assume it would be “smith”).

Now, the inhabitants of the island would indeed be justified in thinking they had all descended from just two people - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, way back when there were 30 surnames on the island. However, that would really be just a consequence of how we determine the family names of married couples. In fact, their genetic makeup would be just as much descended from the Johnsons and the Jonses as from the Smiths.

So, yes, in this sense, given 6 million years, I don’t find it at all improbably that each living human being today can trace ancestry back to just two individuals.

I hope I’ve answered your questions.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, if God ‘swooshed down to Earth’ 4 billion years ago to put the first bacterium together, or if he designed the first blot clotting cascade, like Michael Behe suggests, that would certainly be interventionist, wouldn’t it?

AL;

Only if was apparent (somehow?) that He did tinker with those things. That said, I have read, albeit some time ago, a few writers who thought He was a ‘tinkerer God’. The next phase of creational roll-out does not imply tinkering. What it does imply is orderly ascesis; that is, an ordered growth in, or acquisition of perfections. So, you are correct if the IDer’s position is that along the way, whenever God spots imperfection on the ascent, He must intervene…

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If it came in His breath of creation it is not the same as intervening 1000 years later to make a fix.

Precisely!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Being an ID proponent cannot be considered automatic as you suggested to Al. “Al. If you are seriously suggesting that God, existing outside of time, used evolution as a tool - that is, God knew what the results of the evolutionary process would be and intended them - you must recognize that by the standards of quite a few people, you are an ID proponent, and you certainly reject “Darwinism”.”

Over time, I have been e-mailing people whom CAF posters have suggested as ID leaders/proponents. . I will post one of the return e-mails. In my humble opinion, ID is limited to the point that I cannot accept it even if in some respects it coincides with some of my ideas.

Granny:

I rather think what we are witnesses to is God’s instant of Creation, but calling it by the name of “evolution.” What is a Now for God is a continuum for humans. He is Infinite. Epistemologically speaking, it can’t be any other way. Can it?

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

I rather think what we are witnesses to is God’s instant of Creation, but calling it by the name of “evolution.” What is a Now for God is a continuum for humans. He is Infinite. Epistemologically speaking, it can’t be any other way. Can it?

God bless,
jd

All of this reminds me that I need to learn or relearn Thomistic philosophy regarding creation.

 

[JDaniel]

Consider the quantum effects of prayer on the universe.

Is an answered prayer interventionist?

Buffalo:

God knew we would pray that prayer. So, all He might have done is to say, “Just hold your horses; I’ve already taken care of that; it is a part of my plan, but it hasn’t come 'round to your eyes yet!”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is my intention to respect the ban on evolution discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss this particular e-mail, they may do so on my thread in Back Fence Forum provided the guidelines in sticky notes are followed.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

The following e-mail is only presented as a sample of some of the thinking within the Intelligent Design community:

Granny:

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that our illustrious moderator has any problem with reasonable discussions concerning evolution. Again, that is reasonable discussions: with a healthy dose of charitableness. Should anyone attempt to inflame, ignore that post: even if it’s me!

This is important stuff. And, we have Al Moritz in the thread now. We must avail ourselves of his expertise and viewpoints. So far, he has been affirming most of what we have reasonably thought.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that our illustrious moderator has any problem with reasonable discussions concerning evolution. Again, that is reasonable discussions: with a healthy dose of charitableness. Should anyone attempt to inflame, ignore that post: even if it’s me!

This is important stuff. And, we have Al Moritz in the thread now. We must avail ourselves of his expertise and viewpoints. So far, he has been affirming most of what we have reasonably thought.

God bless,
jd

For me this discussion is very important stuff. It is time for me to choose an approach for an article regarding the true origin of Adam and Eve. I’ve posted several over the last couple of years.

By the way, I will soon be leaving home to go to a special Easter Vigil. A friend is coming into the Catholic Church tonight.

Blessings for a sacred Easter,
granny

 

[vz71]

It is not the province for science to examine the spiritual realm; therefore there is no failure when it comes to explaining functions of the human spiritual soul. What Catholic Apologetics needs to learn is how to defend the unique Catholic doctrines when the discussion points to recent scientific research.

But if a theory purports to explain the origin of a living thing and how it acquired the properties it has then it had better explain ALL of the properties of the organism.

The theory fails on the basis that it cannot explain what it claims to.

 

[vz71]

Catholic Theology does not claim to explain the origins of the American Revolution, hence it is not a failing of Catholic Theology that it fails to explain the origins of the American Revolution.

Evolution does not claim to explain the spiritual properties of human beings.

rossum

Your squirming again.
Catholic theology does not claim any explanations of the American revolution.
Evolution however claims to explain ALL the properties of all living things.
And that by default includes the spiritual properties.
If it cannot explain all of the properties then it fails.

 

[tonyrey]

Rather than replying directly to this post, may I point out that the actions of God are not an “either-or” situation. Furthermore, it is not to our advantage to assume that a single statement about God automatically implies a negative.

Regarding miracles. From a very incomplete research of the literature, I have come across how scientists sometimes explain the unexplainable. They use the term “extraordinary phenomenon.” This does not deny natural phenomenon. This does not imply a direct change of phenomenon. It simply says that there is an occurrence beyond ordinary phenomenon. This occurrence is extra to what normally happens.

God sustaining creation is found in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *paragraph 301 There is nothing about sustaining creation which would eliminate miracles.

While CCC 1257 relates to the Catholic Sacraments, its last sentence may help us to understand how God is not restricted in any way. “God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.”

One of the effects of ID for me personally is that I feel boxed in. This is because I know that general Christianity is not in perfect step with Catholicism. With ID emphasis on science, I keep wondering if it ever addresses the spiritual soul. However, this would mean monogenism which is not automatically accepted by some Christians, including some Catholics.

Within its own philosophical domain, intelligent design can demonstrate a creator. I simply believe that flat out Catholicism does more to explain life.

There seem to be two main objections to Design: (1) It explains too little and (2) It explains too much! The truth, as so often, lies between the two extremes. It explains the abundant evidence for purposeful activity, both human and non-human. It does not seek to explain the nature of the Designer.

Nor should ID be equated with Design. ID is limited to science, as far as I can make out, but Design is not. Design encompasses ID and takes into account scientific facts as well as the non-physical aspects of human nature, such as free will, moral responsibility and the capacity for love - which cannot be explained scientifically. It exists in the work of Plato and the Stoics and predates modern science by thousands of years. I cannot see why it should include monogenism because it is not committed to any particular view of evolution, apart from the rejection of NeoDarwinism. I hope that clarifies the situation.

BTW The OP is mistaken in describing Design as “a non-religious view on **creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution **and natural selection” because it encompasses evolution and does not entail creationism except in the sense of Creation by gradual evolution.

 

[JDaniel]

It is my intention to respect the ban on evolution discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss this particular e-mail, they may do so on my thread in Back Fence Forum provided the guidelines in sticky notes are followed.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

The following e-mail is only presented as a sample of some of the thinking within the Intelligent Design community:

Granny:

That email made good points. But, either thirty (+ or -) families climbed out of the primordial ooze, or only two humans were created. There is no reason to assume that the rules of genetics had to have been in place precisely as they are now, at the beginning of human expansion. The inevitable problem with that postulation is that it requires a concept of an almost simultaneous development of a variety of human species. But, from where? From the simians? Why then and not now?

An examination of the chimp shows that he can easily be a vicarious and vicious creature, that has no problem with murdering and consuming either his own kind, or another’s. So, we are left to assume that different species evolved into humans within a fair range of tolerance that would have aided “human” expansion without species annihilation. Of course, the reply to this is: given the time that was available for such to take place, there’s no reason to assume otherwise. Then, the problem becomes, where are the clear and uncontroversial intermediate steps? Or, at least, why do we not have clear and uncontroversial records of the intermediate steps?

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

But if a theory purports to explain the origin of a living thing and how it acquired the properties it has then it had better explain ALL of the properties of the organism.

The theory fails on the basis that it cannot explain what it claims to.

I cannot explain the current theory(s) adequately because of the evolution discussion ban. However, one of the reasons Catholic apologetics needs to be updated is because now natural science has proposed explanations of ALL the properties of a human organism. Research and quasi-research which demonstrate these explanations are all over popular media including the web. Two main ways are the stories about very smart animals and the stories about brains being examined by technology including that in the medical/psychological realm.

Catholic apologetics needs to recognize that dealing with creation in general does not always include the human person. Depending on whose opinion Biologos website features at a particular time, one can find a variety of ways of downgrading Catholic monogenism. In other words, in practical life, more individualized attention needs to address the origin of humanity as a separate category.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is peerless.

 

[grannymh]

There seem to be two main objections to Design: (1) It explains too little and (2) It explains too much! The truth, as so often, lies between the two extremes. It explains the abundant evidence for purposeful activity, both human and non-human. It does not seek to explain the nature of the Designer.

Humans have purposeful activity similar to non-human animals, e.g. both have to do some kind of “work” to find nourishment. But humans also have purposeful activity (intellect and will) which only belongs to their species. Apparently, I have missed some ID literature which deals with the human species in ways other than a general Christian philosophical view. I will do some more research when I return.

The nature of the “Designer” has to be addressed because it is essential to understanding the purpose of human life.

Blessings,
granny

*John 3: 16 & 17 *

 

[grannymh]

There seem to be two main objections to Design: (1) It explains too little and (2) It explains too much! The truth, as so often, lies between the two extremes. It explains the abundant evidence for purposeful activity, both human and non-human. It does not seek to explain the nature of the Designer.

Nor should ID be equated with Design. ID is limited to science, as far as I can make out, but Design is not. Design encompasses ID and takes into account scientific facts as well as the non-physical aspects of human nature, such as free will, moral responsibility and the capacity for love - which cannot be explained scientifically. It exists in the work of Plato and the Stoics and predates modern science by thousands of years. I cannot see why it should include monogenism because it is not committed to any particular view of evolution, apart from the rejection of NeoDarwinism. I hope that clarifies the situation.

BTW The OP is mistaken in describing Design as “a non-religious view on **creationism and the origins of man, as opposed to evolution **and natural selection” because it encompasses evolution and does not entail creationism except in the sense of Creation by gradual evolution.

You have some good points. I need to reread them later. However, monogenism has to be included if one believes that there is unity in humanity.

 

[grannymh]

Granny:

That email made good points. But, either thirty (+ or -) families climbed out of the primordial ooze, or only two humans were created. There is no reason to assume that the rules of genetics had to have been in place precisely as they are now, at the beginning of human expansion.

There are general, basic rules of genetics – at least that was what scientists predicted many decades ago. It is in applying some of these “rules” to medical research both from the viewpoint of a particular type of disease and the viewpoint of humans becoming victims, that either additional “rules” have existed unnoticed or that there have been developments and exceptions. As far as genetics of the first two parents, I agree with you that all the current genetic theories need not be assumed to have existed at the beginning.

The inevitable problem with that postulation is that it requires a concept of an almost simultaneous development of a variety of human species. But, from where? From the simians? Why then and not now?

I am not sure you mean a variety of human species. Maybe you mean varieties of races? There is only one human species in many shapes, sizes, colors, etc.
These differences would develop over time.

An examination of the chimp shows that he can easily be a vicarious and vicious creature, that has no problem with murdering and consuming either his own kind, or another’s. So, we are left to assume that different species evolved into humans within a fair range of tolerance that would have aided “human” expansion without species annihilation. Of course, the reply to this is: given the time that was available for such to take place, there’s no reason to assume otherwise. Then, the problem becomes, where are the clear and uncontroversial intermediate steps? Or, at least, why do we not have clear and uncontroversial records of the intermediate steps?

God bless,
jd

What you are referring to is an outdated version of the diversity of life. And what I consider the new version–a poster on my nitty-gritty thread in Back Fence forum pointed out that what I call new has been around since the 1970’s .LOL

Technically, both versions of the diversity of life are almost identical except for some interesting tweaking.

Blessings,
granny

Then the angel said to the women in reply, "Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised just as He said.
Matthew, Chapter 28

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JDANIEL

Then, the problem becomes, where are the clear and uncontroversial intermediate steps? Or, at least, why do we not have clear and uncontroversial records of the intermediate steps?

Only our Mafia ancestors know where the bodies are buried!

 

[tonyrey]

You have some good points. I need to reread them later. However, monogenism has to be included if one believes that there is unity in humanity.

Even without considering the soul there is good reason to believe there was only one** human **couple to begin with. A distinguishing feature of being human is the awareness of sin which seems very unlikely to have occurred to many individuals at precisely the same moment. It also seems unlikely the individual who made such a momentous discovery would have kept it to himself or herself. The sin almost certainly involved more than one person but we can only speculate what it was. What is beyond doubt is that being human entails having a conscience and free will - which are supernatural attributes that cannot be explained scientifically. Even today there is a clear demarcation between normal human and non-human beings, quite apart from their ancestry. The unity of the human race is immune to attacks by NeoDarwinists!

 

[grannymh]

Even without considering the soul there is good reason to believe there was only one** human **couple to begin with. A distinguishing feature of being human is the awareness of sin which seems very unlikely to have occurred to many individuals at precisely the same moment.

The current naturalistic explanation for the awareness of “something bad” (not necessarily sin) occurred over time until the point where the group realized that some kind of order needed to be maintained. This group over time decided what would be best for the group to survive and also experience some sort of peace. Thus, over time and negotiation a specific culture was formed which may or may not have agreed with other kinds of group cultures.

It also seems unlikely the individual who made such a momentous discovery would have kept it to himself or herself. The sin almost certainly involved more than one person but we can only speculate what it was.

The current naturalistic explanation for the awareness of “something bad” (not necessarily sin) occurred over time until the point when the growing group of humans realized that some kind of order needed to be maintained. This group over time decided what would be best for the group to survive and also experience some sort of peace. Thus, over time and negotiation a specific culture was formed which may or may not have agreed with other kinds of group cultures.

What is beyond doubt is that being human entails having a conscience and free will - which are supernatural attributes that cannot be explained scientifically. Even today there is a clear demarcation between normal human and non-human beings, quite apart from their ancestry. The unity of the human race is immune to attacks by NeoDarwinists!

The current naturalistic explanation for conscience and free will is that these developed as the humans became conscious of their surroundings. There was a growing awareness of some things being beneficial and some things being harmful. But all this is attributed to the anatomy as it developed new skills needed for anatomical survival.

Scary isn’t it !!!

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[Nullasalus]

The current naturalistic explanation for

While I’ve no problem imagining that some of our traits developed through evolution, those sorts of explanations - which inevitably are based in evolutionary psychology - are extremely weak. They’re a hair away from simply gesturing at the air and saying, “I’m not sure, but I’m sure it was naturalistic whatever it was.”

And I think the ‘naturalistic’ explanation for free will is not to explain it, but to deny it. The same for a conscience, at least insofar as Catholics consider the term.