Intelligent Design

[JDaniel]

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?

Al:

Well, I suppose that it shouldn’t have gaps of millions of years. I think that is far too wide. That leaves too much room for unfound fossils and DNA. The lineage between species is not as important as is the lineage within a species, such as Homo-. Don’t you think?

However, gaps of millions of years may well never be closed. And, postulation simply doesn’t cut it. Does it?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Al

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

Très lisse! Pourquoi pas?

 

[tonyrey]

Happy Easter everyone!

Happy Easter, Al!

So how do earthquakes and tsunamis fit into this picture?

JDaniel has answered your question very well. Why should we expect to be immune to all the consequences of the laws of nature? I would add that Mexico City - amongst others - is a horrific disaster waiting to happen (far worse than in 1985). It is a spectacular example of human folly with its skyscrapers and a population of 21 million people living in an earthquake zone…

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

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth! I entirely agree with you on that score but the immense complexity of the brain - considered by many scientists to be the most complex structure in the universe - is inadequately explained by its survival value. It seems more likely to be adapted to the incredible power and activity of the mind which must have stimulated its development. To derive the mind from the brain is to put the car before the driver!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth! I entirely agree with you on that score but the immense complexity of the brain - considered by many scientists to be the most complex structure in the universe - is inadequately explained by its survival value. It seems more likely to be adapted to the incredible power and activity of the mind which must have stimulated its development. To derive the mind from the brain is to put the car before the driver!

Perhaps you do have a point here, who knows? But a lot of the brain’s structure is explainable by evolution nonetheless, in my view.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Why should we expect to be immune to all the consequences of the laws of nature? I would add that Mexico City - amongst others - is a horrific disaster waiting to happen (far worse than in 1985). It is a spectacular example of human folly with its skyscrapers and a population of 21 million people living in an earthquake zone…

Yes, the tragedy in Haiti was also largely man-made, something that atheists lamenting the pointless cruelty of nature at the time tended to sweep under the rug. The shabby building standards and the deforresting, causing landslides to make the whole thing worse, led to a disaster that at Richter scale of “just” 7.2 (not to belittle though) should never have been of that magnitude.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tony

To derive the mind from the brain is to put the car before the driver!

Surely the Mind created the brain.

 

[ricmat]

ricmat;7795577:

The fact that the Church accepts evolution implies that a paradise on earth is a myth but that does not affect the historical fact that our ancestors deliberately chose to sin, as a result of which we have all been adversely affected even though we do not inherit their guilt.

It is not a fact that the church accepts that [random mutations filtered by natural selection] is responsible for the existence of man. God’s ways may be mysterious, but God is not “random.” Pope Benedict just reiterated this in his Easter Vigil address. I believe that Buffalo posted the link somewhere.

“Paradise on earth…” - perhaps it was another earth, and banishment was “to” what we call earth? Or maybe the entire nature of the cosmos was changed by God as a result of the original sin. I don’t know. But by the end of Genesis 1, everything was “good.” Do you want to throw out Genesis 1 in its entirety?

Polygenism is also contrary to the teachings of the church.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is not a fact that the church accepts that [random mutations filtered by natural selection] is responsible for the existence of man. God’s ways may be mysterious, but God is not “random.” Pope Benedict just reiterated this in his Easter Vigil address. I believe that Buffalo posted the link somewhere.

There are several errors or confusions in your statement:

1. God is not “random”: evolution is not random either. Natural selection acts on random mutations, but natural selection is not random, making evolution as a whole non-random as well.
2. God is not “random”: if God knew while planning the Big Bang how evolution would turn out, then for Him the result would not have been random. Also, a “random process” can be a tool for God. Motions of molecules within gas, or Brownian motions within fluid, are completely random, but do you think that these random processes lie outside God’s providence? They certainly do not.
3. Man is also not a random product of nature in the sense that the human soul is a special creation by God, as the Church teaches. It lies outside evolution. Therefore, the Church of course does not accept that man is a product of random mutations filtered by natural selection, and no believer may accept that either. The church does accept that believers may subscribe to the notion that the human body is a product of random mutations filtered by natural selection.

 

[Nullasalus]

1. God is not “random”: evolution is not random either. Natural selection acts on random mutations, but natural selection is not random, making evolution as a whole non-random as well.

How can you define the mutations as “random”, given that God knew while planning how evolution would turn out according to you? You couldn’t be saying that God did not know what variation would take place, yes?

Also, in what way is the “selection” you believe in, “natural”? Remember that Darwin himself contrasted natural selection with artificial selection. But if God has ends in mind and is employing selection to achieve those ends - and that clearly seems to fall out of your perspective - then all selection is artificial selection.

It seems you yourself cannot claim to believe in natural selection and random mutation.

 

[buffalo]

How can you define the mutations as “random”, given that God knew while planning how evolution would turn out according to you? You couldn’t be saying that God did not know what variation would take place, yes?

Also, in what way is the “selection” you believe in, “natural”? Remember that Darwin himself contrasted natural selection with artificial selection. But if God has ends in mind and is employing selection to achieve those ends - and that clearly seems to fall out of your perspective - then all selection is artificial selection.

It seems you yourself cannot claim to believe in natural selection and random mutation.

This goes back to:

Did God know what Adam would look like? Did Adam look like God planned?

 

[edwest2]

ricmat;7795577:

I don’t believe God deliberately inflicts suffering on any of His children but He permits them to suffer when he knows it is the lesser evil.

Scientism is nonsense!
That is only possible if you were born before or during WW1 - which I consider very unlikely!
Science is based on faith in the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe - neither of which have a scientific explanation…
The fact that the Church accepts evolution implies that a paradise on earth is a myth but that does not affect the historical fact that our ancestors deliberately chose to sin, as a result of which we have all been adversely affected even though we do not inherit their guilt.

What does the Church accept? It is commonly thought that a blanket acceptance exists. It does not.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

It is very important to spread the message that while the Church has examined evolution, she has responded very carefully.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here Jesus refers to those who are eunuchs because they were born that way:

bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

We all carry the potentially fatal Original Sin. That is why Jesus had to die as a sacrifice so that sins would be forgiven.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

How can you define the mutations as “random”, given that God knew while planning how evolution would turn out according to you? You couldn’t be saying that God did not know what variation would take place, yes?

That the outcome of a random process (a chance process) is known to God does not make it non-random in the common sense of the term.

Here is what already in the 13th century the great philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas noted with admirable (and one might say, modern) insight:

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity, happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

(In the context, contingency can well be viewed as synonymous with chance.)

Also, in what way is the “selection” you believe in, “natural”? Remember that Darwin himself contrasted natural selection with artificial selection. But if God has ends in mind and is employing selection to achieve those ends - and that clearly seems to fall out of your perspective - then all selection is artificial selection.

But God created the natural world, and thus also natural causes (the secondary causes through which He acts and creates). That natural causes work towards God’s ends does not make them artificial, and natural selection does not become artificial selection. You seem dangerously close to make the atheist mistake to confuse “natural causes” with “godless causes”.

It seems you yourself cannot claim to believe in natural selection and random mutation.

Given the above, yes I can.

 

[Nullasalus]

That the outcome of a random process (a chance process) is known to God does not make it non-random in the common sense of the term.

Is the “common sense of the term” the term that most evolutionary biologists, and most people who discuss darwinism, use? Honestly, that seems not to be the case.

But God created the natural world, and thus also natural causes (the secondary causes through which He acts and creates). That natural causes work towards God’s ends does not make them artificial, and natural selection does not become artificial selection. You seem dangerously close to make the atheist mistake to confuse “natural causes” with “godless causes”.

What I’m doing here is using “natural selection” and “artificial selection” the way Darwin himself used the terms - and Darwin contrasted natural selection with artificial selection on the basis of foreseeing and intending results. Like it or not, Darwin was not some Thomist, using Thomistic senses of the words in question.

Further, you talk about making the same mistakes as “atheists”. The problem is that some of these “atheists” are evolutionary biologists - Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc.

Given the above, yes I can.

Yes, so long as you change the definition of a word, you can be correct in its usage regardless of how it sounds. “The President of the United States is a potato” so long as “potato” means “someone from Hawaii”.

I think it’s clear that if God foresees all, then God also foresees the variation - it is not “random” from His perspective. Even you seem to admit this. But if it’s “not random from His perspective”, it is not “random”, period.

I also think it’s clear that when someone uses selection to achieve specific results, it is - by any common usage of the words - artificial selection.

So here’s the situation: Given the above, no, you can’t say you believe in natural selection and random variation. The question is, who is using the words in the most typical and common ways given the vocabulary of evolutionary biology? I think I’m occupying the high ground on that question.

 

[tonyrey]

What does the Church accept? It is commonly thought that a blanket acceptance exists. It does not.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

It is very important to spread the message that while the Church has examined evolution, she has responded very carefully.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed, for the references.

“The Vatican, however, warns against creationism, or the overly literal interpretation of the Bibilical account of creation.”

“The comments of this Pope, like those of John Paul II, best adhere to the doctrine of theistic evolution, which sees God creating by a process of evolution.”

These statements by the Pope tally with my statements…

 

[ricmat]

What does the Church accept? It is commonly thought that a blanket acceptance exists. It does not.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4

It is very important to spread the message that while the Church has examined evolution, she has responded very carefully.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I agree with all you said.

The quote you attributed to me in your post above was actually said by somebody else.

I’ve frequently quoted the US Catechism for Adults which also makes it quite clear that there is no blanket acceptance of evolution - particularly not the “random” kind.

 

[ricmat]

There are several errors or confusions in your statement:

1. God is not “random”: evolution is not random either. Natural selection acts on random mutations, but natural selection is not random, making evolution as a whole non-random as well.

The mechanism of evolution is “random” mutations - meaning, not guided, not directed, without purpose. Therefore, evolution per the common definition is random.

1. God is not “random”: if God knew while planning the Big Bang how evolution would turn out, then for Him the result would not have been random. Also, a “random process” can be a tool for God. Motions of molecules within gas, or Brownian motions within fluid, are completely random, but do you think that these random processes lie outside God’s providence? They certainly do not.

God is not random. Correct.

If God is behind the motions of molecules in gas, then by definition, they are not random.

God calls us to see his handiwork in all of nature. God would not hide behind a veil of randomness, making it appear that he is not involved.

1. Man is also not a random product of nature in the sense that the human soul is a special creation by God, as the Church teaches. It lies outside evolution. Therefore, the Church of course does not accept that man is a product of random mutations filtered by natural selection, and no believer may accept that either.

Correct.

The church does accept that believers may subscribe to the notion that the human body is a product of random mutations filtered by natural selection.

Please provide a reference where the church teaches that we may believe that the human body is a specifically a product of random mutations filtered by natural selection. God doesn’t work via “random”. That’s complete nonsense. Random is the opposite of purpose, the opposite of guided, the opposite of intent. God didn’t know what he was doing? That’s apparently what Fr. Coyne believes (and was rebuked for such by Cardinal Schoenborn).

 

[Al_Moritz]

I
What I’m doing here is using “natural selection” and “artificial selection” the way Darwin himself used the terms - and Darwin contrasted natural selection with artificial selection on the basis of foreseeing and intending results. Like it or not, Darwin was not some Thomist, using Thomistic senses of the words in question.

Here you are confusing the human perspective with God’s perspective.

So the term “unforeseeable”, cor example, cannot be used as well because for God everything is foreseeable? You are getting into dangerous waters here.

I think it’s clear that if God foresees all, then God also foresees the variation - it is not “random” from His perspective. Even you seem to admit this. But if it’s “not random from His perspective”, it is not “random”, period.

Here you are confusing God’s perspective with the human perspective.

As I said before:

Also, a “random process” can be a tool for God. Motions of molecules within gas, or Brownian motions within fluid, are completely random, but do you think that these random processes lie outside God’s providence? They certainly do not.

(And don 't forget, “random” is a valid scientific term, independent of any philosophical inclinations of the scientists that use the term.)

And regarding my quote of Aquinas above, then you also deny that something like contingency exists since from God’s perspective everything is by necessity, given that He foresees everything? Do you want to correct Aquinas too?