Intelligent Design

[Me1234]

You know the whole world was covered in water for a really really long time if you believe Noah’s flood happened. “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened” Gen 6:11. So a big long waterfall and since ‘from the great deep’ lava came up there was probably a lot of rocks moving around and mixture of stuff being moved everywhere through the whole Earth.
Floods that are that big and catastrophic move dirt bury and kill stuff. And to get the age of the Earth you have to use radiometric dating that uses two things for sure: 1) the amount of a given element variant, both parent and daughter in a sample at a given time and 2) the half-life of a given radiometric decay at a particular point in time in a lab environment. However, to extrapolate into the unknown past requires three main unprovable assumptions.

1. Initial conditions—it is assumed that when the rock was formed only the parent element (e.g. Potassium, Uranium, etc.) was present, and there was no daughter element (e.g. Argon, Lead) present;
2. Closed system—it is assumed that within any given sample, no parent or daughter elements ever entered or left the sample;
3. Constant Rate—it is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

Something as shaking as worldwide flood can make keeping organized really really hard, we can’t go back to the beginning to see how much god decided to make each element on earth: what ratio?, and we can’t really be sure something is billions of years old because we would need someone from that time to confirm it was in the exact same proportions when it was made.

Considering this if the world was not around for 4 billion years where did it get the time to do all this changing into new species. I don’t know about you but in the time we are in now I do not think I’ve heard of one species into another new species yet so I don’t think evolution had the time to work.

Everybody who has questions about evolution should go to this site: answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/radiometric-dating I love it! Although they have some protestant bible study stuff they have a lot of really good articles refuting evolution.

 

[buffalo]

More from the Pope:

The world is a product of the Word, of the Logos, as Saint John expresses it, using a key term from the Greek language. “Logos” means “reason”, “sense”, “word”. It is not reason pure and simple, but creative Reason, that speaks and communicates itself. It is Reason that both is and creates sense.
The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis.
As believers we answer, with the creation account and with John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey:

How do you get the idea that I believe that God never suspends the laws of nature and performs miracles? Of course He performs miracles (tomorrow we will celebrate a big one), and I never said anything to the contrary.

I also said clearly that in some instances God intervenes with special creation. As I said on p. 54 of this thread on the rational soul in answer to you (you seem to have forgotten that post):

I agree with you when it comes to the rational soul. The point is that the rational soul of humans is not something physical, and therefore cannot be explained by evolution, which solely guides the material processes under the laws of physics (which, in extension, are the laws of chemistry and biology). The rational soul is a direct creation by God, as the Church affirms, but as also can be deduced from philosophical reasoning.

In fact, next to cosmological arguments for the existence of God the Argument from Reason is essential for me as a rational foundation upon which my faith in God can rest securely.

So these things alone, special creation of the soul and sustaining creation in existence at every moment, clearly exclude a deistic God. (Apart from miracles which additionally enter the equation.)

I take your point< Al, that your view is not deistic! Nevertheless I think your view of divine Providence is too restricted as I shall explain:

The problem with the idea of a God who constantly intervenes in the material world (apart from clear miracles) is not just a scientific one, but it also opens a theological can of worms. If God constantly intervenes and steers things, why then did 99 % of all life go extinct over the hundreds of millions of years? Were these all God’s mistakes? And what about the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan? Were these also God’s mistakes? Why didn’t He intervene? After all, He could have given the tectonic plates a nudge here and there to release stress gently, instead of the violent release that we saw, and everything would have been fine. Or did God allow, or even cause, those earthquakes as a punishment? I trust that you do not subscribe to this dangerous and condescending theology a la Pat Robertson!

Thus, if you look at it closer, interventionist ID is not just bad science, it also tends to open the door to bad theology.

Of course I believe God intervenes in the world. He does perform physical miracles, though quite rarely it seems, and even here and there may change material events in a subtle manner in response to prayer. However, I do think He mostly leaves the laws of nature as they are and intervenes through the human soul. Not just by creating it for each human being, but also by influencing it, and thus human thoughts and deeds.

If God is an infinitely loving Father He must intervene on every possible occasion to prevent His children suffering unnecessarily and dying prematurely. Wouldn’t you if you were in a similar position? It is obviously impossible to know the exact extent to which God does intervene but I believe there are far more miracles than meet the eye. We don’t know, for example, how many accidents and disasters have been prevented in uninhabited regions. We don’t know the exact extent to which animals or other persons suffer because we can judge only by external appearances. What we do know, as Leibniz remarked, is that houses are far more plentiful than hospitals! The vast majority of living organisms are not born disabled, diseased or deformed. If that were the case there would be excessive evil which would undermine belief in Design.

Yet God is constrained by the laws of nature He created. Excessive intervention would defeat the purpose for which He created an orderly universe - to enable His creatures to live independently. God permitted 99 % of all life to become extinct because it wasn’t essential for it to survive any longer - and perhaps because it was heading towards a dead end! Not only that. The value of life doesn’t depend on longevity; otherwise a butterfly would probably be worth far less than a slug! John Keats died at the age of 25…

The most significant fact is that God didn’t permit 99 % of all life to become extinct despite the huge odds against survival on this highly dangerous planet. We are here to tell the tale solely because He has ensured the development of life to its present stage. If we had been living here 250 million years ago could we have predicted our survival, given our increased knowledge of all the hazards to which we are exposed? The greatest miracle in the universe is the existence of the human brain which can hardly be deduced from the laws of nature. It presupposes a sequence of miracles rather than a series of random mutations. Survival value alone is certainly not an adequate explanation of development from microbes to mankind. Natural selection has to be supplemented by rational selection if it is to guarantee success to the level of beings created in God’s image…
…

 

[Nullasalus]

For what it’s worth, while I disagree deeply with Al, I respect his frank endorsement of evolution as - apparently - a tool God used, foreknowing the results. It’s a position I share, and more than that it’s one which I wish was spoken of more. Numerous TEs waffle on the question of God’s knowledge of evolution.

 

[ricmat]

If God is an infinitely loving Father He must intervene on every possible occasion to prevent His children suffering unnecessarily and dying prematurely. Wouldn’t you if you were in a similar position? It is obviously impossible to know the exact extent to which God does intervene but I believe there are far more miracles than meet the eye. We don’t know, for example, how many accidents and disasters have been prevented in uninhabited regions. We don’t know the exact extent to which animals or other persons suffer because we can judge only by external appearances. What we do know, as Leibniz remarked, is that houses are far more plentiful than hospitals! The vast majority of living organisms are not born disabled, diseased or deformed. If that were the case there would be excessive evil which would undermine belief in Design.

Yet God is constrained by the laws of nature He created. Excessive intervention would defeat the purpose for which He created an orderly universe - to enable His creatures to live independently. God permitted 99 % of all life to become extinct because it wasn’t essential for it to survive any longer - and perhaps because it was heading towards a dead end! Not only that. The value of life doesn’t depend on longevity; otherwise a butterfly would probably be worth far less than a slug! John Keats died at the age of 25…

The most significant fact is that God didn’t permit 99 % of all life to become extinct despite the huge odds against survival on this highly dangerous planet. We are here to tell the tale solely because He has ensured the development of life to its present stage. If we had been living here 250 million years ago could we have predicted our survival, given our increased knowledge of all the hazards to which we are exposed? The greatest miracle in the universe is the existence of the human brain which can hardly be deduced from the laws of nature. It presupposes a sequence of miracles rather than a series of random mutations. Survival value alone is certainly not an adequate explanation of development from microbes to mankind. Natural selection has to be supplemented by rational selection if it is to guarantee success to the level of beings created in God’s image…
…

Tonyrey - here is an article that relates to many of the questions you raise in your above post. What caught my eye was your comment that God must intervene (at the beginning of your post).

I’d also recommend the book “Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence” (Tan Books).

I haven’t been following this thread so perhaps your comments were tongue-in-cheek, or are fully elaborated elsewhere.

And so far as God being constrained by the laws of nature he created…huh?

God allows suffering in the world because it is (or at least can be) redemptive. We participate in our own redemption. A world with no crosses to bear is not what Jesus had in mind, it seems.

 

[tonyrey]

If God is an infinitely loving Father He must intervene on every possible occasion

Thanks for your comments and reference to the article.

I entirely agree that “the suffering that people experience in disasters is absurd and pointless; on this point, the atheists are surely right”. In such an immensely complex system as the universe unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur sooner or later. Within the framework of Design there is an element of chance and disorder that God foresees and permits because excessive intervention would defeat the purpose for which He created an orderly universe. By “constrained” I simply mean that God is not inconsistent. What would be the point of establishing laws if they are to be constantly suspended?

I disagree with the conclusion of the article that “God is the one who is responsible for the existence of earthquakes and tsunamis, but it is our first parents who are responsible for the fact that they kill us”.** Suffering and death were caused by natural disasters long before human beings existed on this earth** - unless one is a Creationist who rejects scientific evidence…

 

[Sair]

Thanks for your comments and reference to the article.

I entirely agree that “the suffering that people experience in disasters is absurd and pointless; on this point, the atheists are surely right”. In such an immensely complex system as the universe unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur sooner or later. Within the framework of Design there is an element of chance and disorder that God foresees and permits because excessive intervention would defeat the purpose for which He created an orderly universe. By “constrained” I simply mean that God is not inconsistent. What would be the point of establishing laws if they are to be constantly suspended?

Forgive me for saying so, but this sounds like special pleading. Certainly within the framework of human design, there is the element of chance and disorder, but that’s because we’re not omniscient. Surely an all-knowing and all-powerful God would be capable of perfect design, thus not only fulfilling his own plans, but allowing creation to proceed without his direct intervention. The conclusion that God intended immense and often pointless or counterproductive suffering on the part of sentient beings seems inescapable.

I disagree with the conclusion of the article that “God is the one who is responsible for the existence of earthquakes and tsunamis, but it is our first parents who are responsible for the fact that they kill us”.** Suffering and death were caused by natural disasters long before human beings existed on this earth** - unless one is a Creationist who rejects scientific evidence…

I am in agreement here, insofar as we acknowledge the existence of sentient beings (entities capable of pleasure and pain) prior to the existence of humans; and it must be said that I find the doctrine of the Fall utterly distasteful and incompatible with the concept of a loving God. But if we acknowledge that God created the universe and even intervenes in it on occasion, again it seems inescapable to conclude that God is ultimately responsible for all the suffering that befalls sentient beings.

 

[JDaniel]

More from the Pope:

The world is a product of the Word, of the Logos, as Saint John expresses it, using a key term from the Greek language. “Logos” means “reason”, “sense”, “word”. It is not reason pure and simple, but creative Reason, that speaks and communicates itself. It is Reason that both is and creates sense.
The creation account tells us, then, that the world is a product of creative Reason. Hence it tells us that, far from there being an absence of reason and freedom at the origin of all things, the source of everything is creative Reason, love, and freedom. Here we are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis.
As believers we answer, with the creation account and with John, that in the beginning is reason. In the beginning is freedom. Hence it is good to be a human person. It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.

Buffalo:

The problem I have is the assumption that there was but a one-time chance phenomenon and from that alone life, in all of its diversity, began. One singular event in, perhaps, an infinity of events; at least according to the anti-theist evolutionists. But, that is not the case. That one singular event must then be extrapolated into a multitude of similar events. Unadulterated chance! Not randomness: chance. Chance is chaos not mathematical regularity. And the reality is that the anti-theist evolutionist speaks to many exigencies that have come to be without causes. Therefore, there would have to be millions of convergent chance events.

If one homogeneously mixes six thousand black beans with four thousand red beans, then any sample, from the barrel, numbering approximately 100, should consist of sixty percent black beans and forty percent brown beans. But, that is not what is being spoken of here. It is not randomness, rather, it is chance that is spoken of: a one time ever event - but then times the number of divergent organic and inorganic forms on this planet and in this universe. And all of this without “determination.” And, without the regularity of randomness. Just pure chance.

The fortuitous meeting of two people who knew each other twenty-five years earlier, in a small motel in the middle of the country, one checking out the other checking in, and each living on separate sides of the country, and having absolutely no ulterior contact before this. This is chance. This is really a violation of regularity.

It consists of four dimensions at least: space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) each (according to atheist proponents) infinite in extent and magnitude, yet each converging at the same point at precisely the same moment (and, from nothing). That is what we are told and expected to believe. So, it is not just the singular chance event we are to concede, it is a convergence of millions, or perhaps billions, of chance events that we are to concede to.

Just a few of the things that are supposed to have had fortuitous beginnings: (1) matter; (2) gravity; (3) time; (4) all of the separate conditions; (5) the evolution dynamic; (6) inanimate life; (7) animate life; (8) self-replication; (9) self-complexification; (10) speciation; etc., etc., etc. Then all of these, including all of their sub-categories times trillions of postulated planets where the same things are proposed to have occurred. That is a gross misunderstanding of chance. It is an illogical conflation of chance with regularity; of chaos with order.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

I entirely agree that “the suffering that people experience in disasters is absurd and pointless; on this point, the atheists are surely right”. In such an immensely complex system as the universe unfortunate coincidences are bound to occur sooner or later. Within the framework of Design there is an element of chance and disorder that God foresees and permits because excessive intervention would defeat the purpose for which He created an orderly universe. By “constrained” I simply mean that God is not inconsistent. What would be the point of establishing laws if they are to be constantly suspended?

Rather than forgive you - for which there is no need - I thank you for giving me the chance to clarify my view.

God could and is capable of perfect design because finite beings are necessarily imperfect in some respect or other. Only God is absolutely perfect because He is the only infinite Being. A perfect universe is a human concept that cannot be implemented, not because God’s power is limited but because it is self-contradictory. Every advantage we have has a corresponding disadvantage. There is a price to pay for very gift we enjoy - except perhaps our existence - but even that confers responsibility!

Even the archsceptic David Hume realised the universe functions according to natural laws rather than divine fiats. He conceded that some suffering is inevitable but argued that it is excessive. Yet how can we with our limited knowledge and intelligence determine that? Without experience of designing and creating universes we are hardly in a position to judge. What we do know is that very few people would agree with Schopenhauer that it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet.
It is inconsistent to enjoy life and complain it should be better without being certain it could be better!

I disagree with the conclusion of the article that “God is the one who is responsible for the existence of earthquakes and tsunamis, but it is our first parents who are responsible for the fact that they kill us”.** Suffering and death were caused by natural disasters long before human beings existed on this earth**

• unless one is a Creationist who rejects scientific evidence…
  I am in agreement here, insofar as we acknowledge the existence of sentient beings (entities capable of pleasure and pain) prior to the existence of humans; and it must be said that I find the doctrine of the Fall utterly distasteful and incompatible with the concept of a loving God. But if we acknowledge that God created the universe and even intervenes in it on occasion, again it seems inescapable to conclude that God is ultimately responsible for all the suffering that befalls sentient beings.

God is certainly ultimately responsible for everything! How can it be otherwise if He has created everything? He is** ultimately **but not directly responsible for all the suffering in the world - which makes all the difference. The onus is on the cynic to explain how it could be avoided without depriving life of all its richness, beauty, creativity and opportunities for initiative, courage, compassion and unselfish love.

 

[ricmat]

God is certainly ultimately responsible for everything! How can it be otherwise if He has created everything? He is** ultimately **but not directly responsible for all the suffering in the world - which makes all the difference. The onus is on the cynic to explain how it could be avoided without depriving life of all its richness, beauty, creativity and opportunities for initiative, courage, compassion and unselfish love.

Have you read “Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence?” God is ultimately responsible, yes. Everything that happens to us is either allowed by God, or directly an action of God.

When bad things happen to us (which God allows in his love) it is so that we can grow in love, or offer the suffering up for redemptive purposes. It is an aspect of God’s love that he chastises those he loves.

You also said above:

I disagree with the conclusion of the article that “God is the one who is responsible for the existence of earthquakes and tsunamis, but it is our first parents who are responsible for the fact that they kill us”. Suffering and death were caused by natural disasters long before human beings existed on this earth - unless one is a Creationist who rejects scientific evidence…

I assume that you are throwing out the “Creationist” accusation in the form of “anti-science 6 day creationist”. Catholics are in fact, creationists. We believe that God created the universe. If you are a Catholic and not a creationist, that would be very strange. For the record, I don’t believe in a 6x24hour day creation. But neither do I believe that science has a good handle on reality. It may someday, but not yet. Perhaps you believe that after the Boson-Higgs “God particle” is found that science will have all the answers. I don’t.

I’m an engineer, and have been studying science probably for longer than you’ve been alive. I have a hint for you - what science said yesterday is no longer true, and what it says is true tomorrow will make today’s scientific proclamations look silly as well. You seem to want to put your faith in science. IMHO that’s a mistake.

If you deny the existence of the original paradise which was all “good”, and you deny original sin and it’s consequences, then you are treading on very shaky ground theologically, or so it seems to me.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Happy Easter everyone!

I take your point< Al, that your view is not deistic! Nevertheless I think your view of divine Providence is too restricted as I shall explain:

If God is an infinitely loving Father He must intervene on every possible occasion to prevent His children suffering unnecessarily and dying prematurely. Wouldn’t you if you were in a similar position?

So how do earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this picture?

The greatest miracle in the universe is the existence of the human brain which can hardly be deduced from the laws of nature. It presupposes a sequence of miracles rather than a series of random mutations. Survival value alone is certainly not an adequate explanation of development from microbes to mankind. Natural selection has to be supplemented by rational selection if it is to guarantee success to the level of beings created in God’s image…
…

I do not see a compelling reason that the human brain should not be the result of evolution. It can have arisen by natural selection acting on a series of random mutations. After all, the brain of apes is not far below ours, so our brain is not that much more ‘special’. What makes us special is our mind, which is more than just our brain, even though our brain is an integral part of it. We are beings created in God’s image because we have a rational soul and free will. As you said yourself in a previous post, free will cannot reside in purely biological organisms. Perhaps you might enjoy my short article in which I argue for the essential connection between rationality and true freedom of rational judgment, which is not possible under physical determinism:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

 

[Al_Moritz]

In typical atheist fashion, all these atheists confuse science with philosophy (an eternal frustration in discussions with atheists on the web as well). As a theist you should be above that.

Above it? What the heck does that mean? Ignoring it? Pretending it never happens?

Sorry, I meant stand above that, be better than that.

For what it’s worth, while I disagree deeply with Al, I respect his frank endorsement of evolution as - apparently - a tool God used, foreknowing the results. It’s a position I share, and more than that it’s one which I wish was spoken of more. Numerous TEs waffle on the question of God’s knowledge of evolution.

Thank you.

 

[buffalo]

Happy Easter everyone!

So how do earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this picture?

I do not see a compelling reason that that the human brain should not be the result of evolution. It can have arisen by natural selection acting on a series of random mutations. After all, the brain of apes is not far below ours, so our brain is not that much more ‘special’. What makes us special is our mind, which is more than just our brain, even though our brain is an integral part of it. We are beings created in God’s image because we have a rational soul and free will. As you said yourself in a previous post, free will cannot reside in purely biological organisms. Perhaps you might enjoy my short article in which I argue for the essential connection between rationality and true freedom of rational judgment, which is not possible under physical determinism:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

			 					[Interview WIth Lynn Margulis](http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68)

And you don’t believe natural selection is the answer?
This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs you keep selecting the hens that are laying the bigger eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly eggs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.
and…
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity. …
The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism. It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.
The evolutionary biologists believe the evolutionary pattern is a tree. It’s not. The evolutionary pattern is a web…

Now what does IDvolution posit?
Abrupt appearance
Complexity right from the beginning
Life is front loaded with information
Stasis

 

[Charlemagne_II]

This from our Pope’s Easter Vigil homily:

“It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.”

 

[Nullasalus]

Sorry, I meant stand above that, be better than that.

Right, but I still have to ask: What do you mean? So we should… what, ignore the fact that so many atheists treat evolution in this way? Communicate it in this way? That, at the time of the NABT fiasco, they attempted to mandate this treatment in schools? That some TEs - Francisco Ayala, several people at Biologos - treat evolution in a similar way?

I don’t think it’s some kind of cheap trick to use a word as so many people do, or point out what people are actually promoting re: evolution.

Thank you.

No thanks necessary, just bluntly stating things as I see them.

 

[JDaniel]

All:

Indeed, He is risen!

God bless, Happy Easter,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Happy Easter everyone!

Al:

And to you!

So how do earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this picture?

I hope Tonyrey doesn’t mind too much. I’m sure he can give you a better answer to these questions than I can. But, if he does not mind, I’d like to mention a couple of things. First, life is more than just earthly life. The smallest part of eternal is that portion of our lives that we spend on earth. We call this earthly part of eternal life the carnate part. Beyond the carnate part is the spiritual part. The carnate portion is like a gnat on an elephant’s derrière, in terms of duration. It is our souls covered with skin. It may also be called the most moribund part of life. We can be killed. But, this is merely a minute point of departure into the spiritual part of our eternal life.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are the natural ramifications of matter. Matter shifts and changes. As it does, humans sometimes get in its way. It is not intentional; it simply occurs naturally. The multitude of life on earth along with the relative finite size of earth, plus the relative frequency of such random events, is bound to increase the bringing of life and killing in close proximity. Some might consider this a blessing though.

I do not see a compelling reason that the human brain should not be the result of evolution. It can have arisen by natural selection acting on a series of random mutations.

But, if you look at the current depiction from the fossil records, there are breaks in the linearity of the transition from a more primitive form to a supposedly more complex form. Those breaks are serious. Serious enough to relegate the concept of smooth transition to insignificance.

After all, the brain of apes is not far below ours, so our brain is not that much more ‘special’.

It’s extraordinarily “special” when you consider that there might not be the presupposed smooth transition.

What makes us special is our mind, which is more than just our brain, even though our brain is an integral part of it. We are beings created in God’s image because we have a rational soul and free will. As you said yourself in a previous post, free will cannot reside in purely biological organisms. Perhaps you might enjoy my short article in which I argue for the essential connection between rationality and true freedom of rational judgment, which is not possible under physical determinism:

Agreed.

God bless and Happy Easter to you, as well;
jd

 

[Al_Moritz]

This from our Pope’s Easter Vigil homily:

“It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason. And because it is Reason, it also created freedom; and because freedom can be abused, there also exist forces harmful to creation.”

Amen.

(Emphasis added: mine.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al:

And to you!

Thank you, JDaniel.

I hope Tonyrey doesn’t mind too much. I’m sure he can give you a better answer to these questions than I can. But, if he does not mind, I’d like to mention a couple of things. First, life is more than just earthly life. The smallest part of eternal is that portion of our lives that we spend on earth. We call this earthly part of eternal life the carnate part. Beyond the carnate part is the spiritual part. The carnate portion is like a gnat on an elephant’s derrière, in terms of duration. It is our souls covered with skin. It may also be called the most moribund part of life. We can be killed. But, this is merely a minute point of departure into the spiritual part of our eternal life.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are the natural ramifications of matter. Matter shifts and changes. As it does, humans sometimes get in its way. It is not intentional; it simply occurs naturally. The multitude of life on earth along with the relative finite size of earth, plus the relative frequency of such random events, is bound to increase the bringing of life and killing in close proximity.

I agree. I had only been responding to Tonyrey’s challenge that I portrayed God as, in his view, apparently not ‘interventionist’ or ‘caring’ enough.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But, if you look at the current depiction from the fossil records, there are breaks in the linearity of the transition from a more primitive form to a supposedly more complex form. Those breaks are serious. Serious enough to relegate the concept of smooth transition to insignificance.

What do you expect? Of course there will always be some breaks. The chances that something fossilizes are very slim, so it is quite something that we have the fossil record that we do have. Also, the record does fill gaps that creationists (in the common sense of the term since, yes, in the wider sense we are all creationists) predicted would never been filled. For example, in recent years finally fossils have been found for the predicted transition from land mammals to whales (info: a talk by Ken Miller that I attended).

Also: how smooth does the transition have to be to convince everybody?