Intelligent Design

[Al_Moritz]

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

No, evolution is randon mutations plus natural selection, and natural selection is not random – as I said before.

God is not random. Correct.

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

Wrong, see my answer to Nullasalus.

 

[edwest2]

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…

Unfortunately, details are still being lost. From Communion and Stewardship:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

Pope Benedict is stressing that God must be involved and the “unguided” aspect cannot be demonstrated by science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

Nullasalus and Ricmat,

I would advise you to read the document “Communion and Stewardship” by the International Theological Commission, ratified by then Cardinal Ratzinger, especially from point 62 onward:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

From the document (emphasis mine):

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “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 Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

…]

1. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Aah, I see Edwest 2 had the idea to quote from “Communion and Stewardship” at the same time that I did!

 

[edwest2]

As the Pope has reminded all human beings, we are not the result of physics and chance chemical reactions. The Dictatorship of Relativism, of which Pope Benedict also spoke, requires that humans are identified as just another animal and nothing special. This allows some to opt out of God. This is intimately connected with the Church’s message of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not merely a label for a philosophy but an actual reality.

Critics of the Church sometimes say she is unwilling to accept reality as it is. On the contrary, the Church is professing reality as it is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Pius_XII

Pope Pius XII’s encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis, was the first encyclical to specifically refer to evolution, and took up a neutral position, again concentrating on human evolution:

“The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”[28]

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Pius_XII

Pope Pius XII’s encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis, was the first encyclical to specifically refer to evolution, and took up a neutral position, again concentrating on human evolution:

“The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”[28]

(Emphasis mine.)

Here is the entire quote:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

 

[Nullasalus]

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’ll brave those waters.

Now, you have said that God does in fact foresee the outcomes of evolution. You can say “unforeseeable” if you qualify that to mean “not foreseen by humans”. But many evolutionary biologists don’t just mean that evolution is “unforeseen from the human perspective” but allow that from another perspective it may all be foreseen. When they say variation is random, they mean random in the strongest sense of the word: Foreseen by no one, not even God. Guided by no one, not even God.

Now, if that’s the way you think evolution proceeds - in which case, I was incorrect about the view you take of evolution after all - I think you’re in more “dangerous waters” than me.

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

If God foresees X, and humans did not foresee X, was X utterly unforeseen?

Take whatever perspective you wish. The existence of one ‘foresee-er’ means that in a very real sense, what’s in question was foreseen.

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.

Completely random? Not even God knows where molecules will end up? Not even God knows, much less directs, the results of a process we model as Brownian motion?

I’d love to hear the answer to that. Much less how scientists, speaking as scientists, can claim to know what God does or does not know.

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

Except scientists often offer up their views as scientific, even if they are not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible for scientists to be mistaken, even deeply mistaken, when talking about these things. Just because a scientist says “random” doesn’t mean he’s using it in a valid way. Even if other scientists agree with him.

If scientists mean variation is “random”, and “random” only means, say… “random with respect to fitness” or “we limited beings are unable to predict it, but it’s entirely possible it’s all guided and purposeful after all”, that’s one thing. When they say “random” meaning “utterly unguided, even by God”, that’s another.

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?

Spare me this fakery. For Aquinas, ‘contingency’ did not speak against God’s omniscience or omnipotence. The view of randomness many evolutionary biologists, included apparently Darwin himself, does speak against that.

As I said: Evolutionary biologists are not thomists, and are typically not speaking with his categories or assumptions in mind when they describe these things. When Jerry Coyne says that evolution is unguided, he does not mean “Oh, well, when we’re considering primary and secondary causes, as Aquinas would say, it is entirely possible for God to work through secondary causes.” He damn well means, “God didn’t guide it in any way, shape, or form.” And more than a few Theistic Evolutionists mean exactly that too.

 

[edwest2]

More from Humani Generis:

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ll brave those waters.

Now, you have said that God does in fact foresee the outcomes of evolution. You can say “unforeseeable” if you qualify that to mean “not foreseen by humans”. But many evolutionary biologists don’t just mean that evolution is “unforeseen from the human perspective” but allow that from another perspective it may all be foreseen. When they say variation is random, they mean random in the strongest sense of the word: Foreseen by no one, not even God. Guided by no one, not even God.

Now, if that’s the way you think evolution proceeds - in which case, I was incorrect about the view you take of evolution after all - I think you’re in more “dangerous waters” than me.

If God foresees X, and humans did not foresee X, was X utterly unforeseen?

Take whatever perspective you wish. The existence of one ‘foresee-er’ means that in a very real sense, what’s in question was foreseen.

Completely random? Not even God knows where molecules will end up? Not even God knows, much less directs, the results of a process we model as Brownian motion?

I’d love to hear the answer to that. Much less how scientists, speaking as scientists, can claim to know what God does or does not know.

Except scientists often offer up their views as scientific, even if they are not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible for scientists to be mistaken, even deeply mistaken, when talking about these things. Just because a scientist says “random” doesn’t mean he’s using it in a valid way. Even if other scientists agree with him.

If scientists mean variation is “random”, and “random” only means, say… “random with respect to fitness” or “we limited beings are unable to predict it, but it’s entirely possible it’s all guided and purposeful after all”, that’s one thing. When they say “random” meaning “utterly unguided, even by God”, that’s another.

Spare me this fakery. For Aquinas, ‘contingency’ did not speak against God’s omniscience or omnipotence. The view of randomness many evolutionary biologists, included apparently Darwin himself, does speak against that.

As I said: Evolutionary biologists are not thomists, and are typically not speaking with his categories or assumptions in mind when they describe these things. When Jerry Coyne says that evolution is unguided, he does not mean “Oh, well, when we’re considering primary and secondary causes, as Aquinas would say, it is entirely possible for God to work through secondary causes.” He damn well means, “God didn’t guide it in any way, shape, or form.” And more than a few Theistic Evolutionists mean exactly that too.

I am done discussing this with you. This post of yours is again full of confusion of science (of valid scientific, philosophically neutral, terms) with philosophy and vice versa. I have made my points, and other participants in and readers of this thread will appreciate them.

 

[Al_Moritz]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Pius_XII

Pope Pius XII’s encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis, was the first encyclical to specifically refer to evolution, and took up a neutral position, again concentrating on human evolution:

“The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.”[28]

(Emphasis mine.)

And here is Pope John Paul II (emphasis mine):

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.

…]

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

…]

1. The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and likeness of God. The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has given us a magnificent exposition of this doctrine, which is one of the essential elements of Christian thought. The Council recalled that “man is the only creature on earth that God wanted for its own sake.” In other words, the human person cannot be subordinated as a means to an end, or as an instrument of either the species or the society; he has a value of his own. He is a person. By this intelligence and his will, he is capable of entering into relationship, of communion, of solidarity, of the gift of himself to others like himself. St. Thomas observed that man’s resemblance to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, because his relationship with the object of his knowledge is like God’s relationship with his creation. (Summa Theologica I-II, q 3, a 5, ad 1) But even beyond that, man is called to enter into a loving relationship with God himself, a relationship which will find its full expression at the end of time, in eternity. Within the mystery of the risen Christ the full grandeur of this vocation is revealed to us. (Gaudium et Spes, 22) It is by virtue of his eternal soul that the whole person, including his body, possesses such great dignity.** Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God** (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides non retimere iubet”). (Humani Generis)

 

[ricmat]

Here is the entire quote:

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.

The above is hardly an endorsement of evolution. Of course we all come from pre-existing matter (hydrogen, carbon…) Of course we all come from living matter (our parents!). We “evolved” from our parents, right? Small changes to our DNA. Plus gamma rays, transcription errors, etc.

But I’m glad to see that you (unlike many these days) agree that our souls are immediately created by God, and that the characteristics of our souls - intellect and free will, and the desire to find God did not just “emerge” via evolution.

BTW - I have 2 objections to “random.” One I have stated already. The other is that “random” just doesn’t work. Not enough time. Not enough probabilistic resources. Not even with the magic of natural selection (the mutations actually have to exist before they can be filtered). I’ve seen many many argue here that somehow natural selection actually creates new information or somehow magically overcomes the fact that the right mutations need to exist before they can be filtered.

If you care to read Signature in the Cell, it goes into a lot of detail (which I admit much of which is beyond me). But if you actually read it, or have read it, you’ll be the first of dozens of people I’ve recommended it to And if you have comments on it, I’d love to hear them - pro or con.

And with regard to contingency / randomness. You seem to be interpreting contingency = totally random. I don’t believe that’s what the commission had in mind when they wrote the document. And don’t tell me that it’s not random because natural selection is not random. If you don’t have the right “random” mutations to work from, natural selection is meaningless. Evolution, by it’s own definition, IS random, unguided, without purpose. Evolution wishes itself to be Godless. And it has convinced many that God does not exist. Be careful whose parade you find yourself marching in. Look around, who is marching next to you?

 

[ricmat]

Al - thank you for posting all the quotes from Humani Generis, etc.

I don’t mean to burst your balloon, but we’ve been there, done that. Many many times.

However, we forgive you since you have less than 30 posts

I do thank you for your polite posts, and your patience.

 

[Nullasalus]

I am done discussing this with you. This post of yours is again full of confusion of science (of valid scientific, philosophically neutral, terms) with philosophy and vice versa. I have made my points, and other participants in and readers of this thread will appreciate them.

Full of confusion that you, apparently, are either unwilling or unable to sort out for our benefit. And who could blame you: It’s not “the atheists” in the abstract who are abusing these terms, but evolutionary biologists claiming to act as valid scientific representatives of their field and of their theories.

Apparently, my confusion is this: If one believes that God foresees the results of evolution - if God knew what variation would develop, if God knew what selection would take place, and if God, being omnipotent, had the capacity to change these things - then it seems that in a very real and applicable sense, the variation is not random after all. It also seems a straight-up consequence of affirming that God foresaw and intended the specific results of evolution - not just human evolution, mind you, but even animal - that the ‘selection’ is then artificial. Selection was employed by a mind for a variety of particular, intended results.

These are remarkably tame observations, and it’s what a theistic evolutionist must grapple with. You cannot avoid this topic by giving a very special, crafted definition of words like ‘natural selection’ and ‘random variation’ and pretending that that’s what Jerry Coyne and others mean when they talk about these things. Nor can you just write them off as “atheists”, when they happen to be evolutionary biologists as well who consider themselves to be speaking for their field.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al - thank you for posting all the quotes from Humani Generis, etc.

I don’t mean to burst your balloon, but we’ve been there, done that. Many many times.

I assumed so, given the “sticky”: “temporary ban on evolution threads”.

But I also assume that you haven’t had many discussions where a Catholic has vigorously argued for evolution undiluted by “interventionist” Intelligent Design. And, oh horror, for an origin of life by natural causes.

I do thank you for your polite posts, and your patience.

You are welcome, and thank you too. As far as patience goes, you will just have witnessed that mine only goes so far…

 

[Al_Moritz]

As for “random” and “unguided”, here is what I wrote a while back:

The scientific concept of ‘randomness’

In the main mechanism of evolution, random genetic variation is followed by natural selection, which is not random – that is why, as pointed out above, it is false to call evolution as a whole a random process, or a chance process. Yet does not ‘random’ genetic variation imply unguided and unplanned events? That certainly is a wide-spread assumption, and needs to be addressed before we can discuss evolution and philosophy of belief.

While writing in the context of evolution and belief, the theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr notes in his essay “The Design of Evolution” about the strictly scientific term of ‘random’:

*“The word “random” is a basic technical term in most branches of science. It is used to discuss the motions of molecules in a gas, the fluctuations of quantum fields, noise in electronic devices, and the statistical errors in a data set, to give but a few examples. So if the word “random” necessarily entails the idea that some events are “unguided” in the sense of falling “outside of the bounds of divine providence,” we should have to condemn as incompatible with Christian faith a great deal of modern physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, as well as biology.

“This is absurd, of course. The word “random” as used in science does not mean uncaused, unplanned, or inexplicable.”*

The definition in mathematics and statistics is: “Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution”. (Source: The American Heritage Dictionaries.)

‘Random’ also means simply ‘by chance’ (in German, for example, the scientific-technical equivalent of the word “random” is “zufällig” – which directly translates into “by chance”). The classical example of ‘randomness’ is the game of dice.

Furthermore, ‘random’ is used as ‘unpredictable’: quantum mechanics, for instance, does not predict the outcome of particular experiments, but only their probability distribution. In mathematical statistics on the other hand, ‘Prediction of random variables’ is an important field.

Only in psychology the at times apparent use of the term as ‘purposeless’ forms an exception to these definitions in science.

When Nobel Prize winner Jaques Monod explains random mutation in chapter VI of his famous landmark book Chance and Necessity from 1970 (the single most gripping explanation of the phenomenon I have read), he uses terms to describe ‘random’ which satisfy scientific precision. He speaks of ‘chance’, of ‘independence’ between an error in the replication of the genetic message and its functional consequences on the level of the protein that the gene encodes, and he uses the words ‘coincidence’ and ‘unpredictable’.

However, even though Monod may be one of the pioneers of the propagation of atheistic evolutionism, he does not speak of ‘unguided’, ‘undirected’ or ‘unplanned’, which are either philosophical or everyday uses of the word ‘random’ – not scientific ones. In other words, Monod speaks like a true scientist when explaining a scientific concept.

Contamination of science with philosophy; confusion of the two disciplines

On the other hand, the letter of Nobel Prize winners to the Kansas State Board of Education from September 9, 2005, in a just campaign against ‘Intelligent Design’, states:

“Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”

Hold on, not just ‘unplanned’ random variation – questionable by itself as purely scientific statement – but an entire ‘unplanned process’? This shows how by now, decades after Monod, decidedly philosophical concepts have contaminated explanations of evolution that are supposed to be strictly scientific.

Historically this will have evolved in part deliberately due to certain world views, but for a substantial part it may also have been an unintentional development. A not too far-fetched analogy for the latter, I think, is the typical use of ‘lab jargon’ to name certain scientific concepts in everyday conversation between people in a laboratory – however, once a publication is written, sloppy terms are critically assessed and modified in order to satisfy scientific precision. Alas, this process of analytical evaluation has been watered down when it comes to scientists explaining evolution to the world (in scientific publications on evolution within the field of biology and biochemistry itself, this problem is not readily apparent). And no, please do not ask me how the letter managed to obtain the signature of no less than 38 Nobel Prize winners – this clearly is not one of science’s proudest moments.

(cont.)

 

[Al_Moritz]

(cont.)

At least the letter states that there is no “need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.” Ironically, even though this statement is correct, it squarely contradicts the two words “unplanned process” in the letter’s definition of evolution.

Of course, the scientists could have simply meant a ‘process unplanned by nature’. However, this would be rather pointless and is to be doubted, and in that case the inaccuracy of wording would be disappointing as well.

In any event, the contamination of scientific explanations of evolution by philosophy is not particularly helpful for science to win its case in the court of public opinion.

One must not make the profound mistake of confusing the mandatory naturalistic operating and observation principle of science (methodological materialism) with a mandatory naturalistic philosophy. This mistake is made by atheistic ‘evolutionism’, which draws metaphysical conclusions from scientific facts that go beyond what science can tell us, yet are presented as scientific conclusions, or as the only conclusions that science allows for. The influence of this philosophy seems tangible in above letter, even though, as I pointed out, for a substantial part there the confusion of science and philosophy also may have been unintended.

From the other side of the fence, the mistake of confusing science with philosophy is made by the Intelligent Design movement as well, with a completely different outcome. This movement claims that science unduly works from within a naturalistic, even materialistic philosophy. Hence it strives to offer an ‘alternative’ science which tries to explain things by ‘whatever means necessary’, including causes lying outside the natural laws as we know them. That is flagrant nonsense. Science does not work within a philosophical worldview, but from an operating principle: that of investigating natural causes to natural effects. If the natural sciences would consider other than natural causes (i.e. causes that emanate from the laws of nature as we more and more know them) they would not only deny themselves, they would also loose the extraordinary, even spectacular, explanatory power they have demonstrated over the last centuries. It would have a devastating effect.

Ultimately, however, the misuse of scientific facts by certain prominent evolutionists for the promotion of materialistic and atheistic world views “because this is what science tells us”, thereby severely overstepping the boundaries of science into the realm of philosophy while giving the appearance to remain within them, is – even though perhaps unintended – not in agreement with the essence of science as well.

 

[tonyrey]

*
"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…

Unfortunately, details are still being lost. From Communion and Stewardship:

“In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).”

Throughout this thread (and on others) I have been arguing that natural selection is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the development of life and rational beings. It is absurd to derive purposeful persons from purposeless processes!

 

[Nullasalus]

You are welcome, and thank you too. As far as patience goes, you will just have witnessed that mine only goes so far…

What’s being witnessed is that if a conversation doesn’t go the way you like - if there are flaws in your claims that highlight some inconvenience or even incorrectness on your part - then the conversation comes to an immediate end. And the person bringing it up is treated as somehow being uncivil for daring to point out these problems. C’mon, man. You can do better than this.

You’re making it sound as if biologists from Richard Lewontin to Jerry Coyne don’t flat out say that as far as science is concerned, evolution is unguided - or that what they mean by unguided isn’t “No mind - not even God’s directed or guided evolution, either in the selection or variation, in any way, shape, or form. Even, perhaps especially, in Aquinas’ sense of the words.” Michael Ruse, meanwhile, argues that the only way to combine Darwinism with Christianity without forsaking Darwinism is to imagine that God created a multitude of universes where evolutionary processes may or may not eventually result in something even vaguely rational, intelligent and moral. And he speculates on this on Biologos, TE central.

What’s starting to become clear is this: If the issue is bashing ID proponents, or some vague ‘atheists’, you’re game. When it comes to pointing out the flaws in TE views, or the intellectual sins of evolutionary biologists, you don’t want to talk about this at all. And who can blame you, I suppose? You don’t want to happen to you what’s happening to Nick Matzke.

Edit: Yes, Al, the NABT fiasco was exactly that - a fiasco, an example of abuse of science for philosophical ends. The problem is that it seems numerous scientists, and quite possibly Darwin himself, continue to be guilty of these abuses. And all of this still doesn’t touch on my points about artificial selection and non-random variation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Evolution, by it’s own definition, IS random, unguided, without purpose. Evolution wishes itself to be Godless. And it has convinced many that God does not exist. Be careful whose parade you find yourself marching in. Look around, who is marching next to you?

Wrong. The basic scientific term “random”, which has no philosophical connotations on its own, does NOT mean unguided (see what I wrote above).

And “Evolution does not wish itself to be Godless”. Not when you are talking about the strict science of evolution. That some scientists want to go beyond that and bring their own philosophy into their scientific proclamations, is another story. Only because others confuse strict science with philosophy does not mean we have to do the same “in retaliation” and falsely claim that the science of evolution is “Godless”.