Intelligent Design

[Valz]

Matt16_18:

Since good science is all about making predictions based on observations, a process that was indeed purely random would be, by definition, outside the scope of science.

Exactly! And Evolution makes predictions which are confirmed by observations, so it is science. Now, the randomness that you described is the very same randomness that operates in Evolution. It is not a total randomness. There are very specifict limitations as to what Evolution can and cannot do. Natural Selection can only work with what is available, it cannot make novel inventions if the material is not already there for selection.

Here is a good bit from TalkOrigins.
**
“The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.”**

*There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn’t understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. *

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Valz

 

[Matt16_18]

Valz:

The Bible in no place really denies death before the fall, when it mentions about sin entering the world, in the case of Paul, it speaks only in relation to humans and not animals and creation.

That is a novel interpretaion of Paul, and it is not correct. Paul specifically states that creation groans as it waits to be set free from corruption, and that creation was not originally subject to futility. For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Romas 8:19-21The Catechism cites this passage from Paul when it teaches that creation will be “restored to its original state” at the end of time. At the end of time, Death will be cast into the lake of fire, and creation will once again be free from the dominion of Death.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

THE HOPE OF THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

1042** At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed …

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.[639]1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.

footnote [639]: Rom 8:19-23.​

You are asserting the Catholic Church teaches that one is free to believe that death had dominion over creation in its original state (except for man). That cannot be, since the Church has always taught that creation will be restored to its original state, a state where there was no death, disease or decay.

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

Why would the Catholic Church have a problem with quantum mechanics? Classical mechanics posits a physical universe that sits “out there”, unaffected by observers, which is really a universe where God is superfluous. Quantum mechanics changes that paradigm.”We have to cross out that old word “observer” and replace it with a new word “participator”. In some strange sense the quantum principle tells us that we are dealing with a participatory universe”.

*Is Physics Legislated by Cosmogony? * C. J. Isham, R. Penrose Catholics should have no problem at all with this paradigm.

The above is true, but in addition, the fundamental machinery behind quantum behavior is measured as purely random probabilities for observed outcomes.

Define what you mean by “pure randomness”. No physical process is purely random. For example, the radioactive decay of Uranium 238 is said to be a random process, yet there is a well-defined probability distribution that predicts the half life of a given quantity of U 238. If the radioactive decay of U 238 was really a matter of pure randomness, it would be impossible to talk about the half life of 100 grams of U 238, since a purely random decay of U 238 would produce a half life that cannot be predicted.

I’m not following you. Radioactive decay is a perfect example of pure, quantum-mechanical randomness. We cannot say for sure when a particular atom will decay, but (for C-14, for example) for a sample watched for 5500 years, approximately half of the total population will have decayed. Perhaps you are confusing the word “random” with the notion of an equal likelihood of possible outcomes. Maybe a better verbage is to say that individual mutations, like quantum mechanical outcomes, are non-deterministic. It is true in nature that this is rarely the case — usually physical laws and situations favor one outcome over others. This is why, ironically, arguments made by so-called anti-evolutionists that statistics favor some kind of design over the “purely random” aggregation of molecules to form rudimentary proteins are so misguided. Certain combinations of molecules are much more likely to occur than others.

 

[Matt16_18]

Valz:

Here is a good bit from TalkOrigins.

Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with.

Here, the author is stating a religious belief. The author assumes that mutations in DNA are the product of meaningless random processes in nature, and he has no more basis for making that assumption than the person that says Satan brings about the mutations in DNA.

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

… the fundamental machinery behind quantum behavior is measured as purely random probabilities for observed outcomes.

Again, I ask you define what you mean by a quantum behavior that is purely random. If a quantum process was in fact, purely random, it would be impossible to define a probability function for that process.

We cannot say for sure when a particular atom will decay, but (for C-14, for example) for a sample watched for 5500 years, approximately half of the total population will have decayed.

Which is a prediction that can be made because the decay of C-14 is only pseudo-random, and not purely random. If that decay was purely random, we could not predict that the half-life of C-14 would be a 5500 years – it could be any length of time from a fraction of a nanosecond to trillions of years. A purely random radioactive decay process cannot produce a predictable outcome for either a particular atom or an aggregate of atoms.

Maybe a better verbage is to say that individual mutations, like quantum mechanical outcomes, are non-deterministic.

If anything, the fact that the decay of C-14 has a predictable half-life proves that this decay is a deterministic process governed by definable rules, and not a non-deterministic process.

 

[Donald45]

**Response to Post # 209 ~ **Part 1

You disagree with me that “all scientific inquiry is restricted to the material world.” On what possible basis could one make such a determination? The material focus of science is not a product of arbitrary definition, nor is it externally imposed upon the scientific enterprise (as opposed to the novel definition of science suggested by ID theorists, and rejected by mainstream science). Rather, it is proper to science itself, as the result of the experience and critical reflection of the professional scientific community, many of whom have themselves been people of faith. It is a time-tested self-limitation that has demonstrated its fruitfulness in countless ways over time. One is not free to re-define such an established methodology for personal theological reasons.

You write of “materialism” as “an anti-God world view.” What you describe is philosophical naturalism (the idea that all of reality is natural), but this is not a necessary part of science. As a Catholic, I hold that there exist both immaterial (spiritual) and material (natural) realities. To acknowledge one does not thereby exclude the other. Yet, I also recognize that science, properly speaking, limits its investigations to the category of nature (material realities). This says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of immaterial realities, but only points to the limits of scientific inquiry to the realities of nature. Scientists refer to this self-limitation as methodological naturalism, and both theists and non-theists alike acknowledge it as an integral element in scientific methodology.

[See Part 2 below]

 

[Donald45]

**Response to Post #209 **~ Part 2

Clearly, you have trouble with the concept of “randomness” in science, and see it as a denial of the theological belief in divine providence. And so you seem to have adopted a false dilemma fallacy in order to deal with this seeming contradiction: "either randomness, or providence." However, this is entirely unnecessary when one properly understands both randomness as it is actually used by scientists, and providence as is is actually used by theologians. “Randomness” (“chance”) concerning, for example, mutations, is understood by scientists in a particular sense, that is, that they are “random” with respect to the specific needs of the organism. In other words, mutations don’t occur because the help an organism survive, rather they happen with no particularly observable beneficial goal or “purpose.” (In fact, many outside factors—environmental conditions, population dynamics, etc.—influence whether, or to what degree, a resulting trait may be beneficial within a population.) Although mutations/variations arise “by chance” (that is, unpredictably), they succeed or fail within a species by natural selection, which is the antithesis of chance. Thus, in this sense, evolution cannot be said to be a “random natural process.”

The scientific concept of chance is in no way antithetical to the theological idea of divine providence. Secondary (physical) causes do not rule out or deny primary (metaphysical) causality, though “science” is necessarily restricted to the former. Events occur “by chance” from the standpoint of human observation and experience, that is, from that of science. From a phenomenalogical viewpoint, things sometimes happen “randomly,” unexpectedly, unpredictably. Yet, this is not to say that they occur without cause. Even Scripture uses such phenomenological language when describing natural events. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus himself says that it was “by chance” that a priest happened to be going down the same road as the Samaritan (Lk. 10:31, RSV). Did our Lord, then, deny the theological principle of divine providence? Certainly not. Similarly, science bases itself on human observation, and such terms as “randomness” and “chance” reflect the unpredictability of many natural phenomena. This should in no way be seen as a threat to one’s theological convictions regarding divine sovereignty. But neither should those convictions be considered “scientific” conclusions.

Truly
Don

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

Clearly, you have trouble with the concept of “randomness” in science, and see it as a denial of the theological belief in divine providence. And so you seem to have adopted a false dilemma fallacy in order to deal with this seeming contradiction: “either randomness, or providence.”

What I am saying is that even scientists are prone to using the word “random” in sloppy ways that are encumbered with their own religious biases. “Either randomness or providence” is not necessarily a false contradiction; it all depends on how one is defining “randomness”.

I also recognize that science, properly speaking, limits its investigations to the category of nature (material realities).

I think that is a rather naïve view of science, a view that assumes that the observer is not entangled with what he observes. Paul Boynton: Many times in the past man has come across new ideas and thought to ask new questions which at the time didn’t seem to be valid questions. I guess at this time when we’re stretching out toward these new ideas of cosmogony, one probably has to ask the question whether or not cosmogony is really a part of physics, whether or not this is what one might say is the proper domain for investigation for physics. How do you feel about bringing man into the question while thinking along the lines that we always have in terms of physical laws?

John Wheeler: This business of bringing man into the story, that is the most striking feature of the quantum principle. As our Nobel prize-winning colleague, Eugene Wigner puts it, “No observation is completed until its result has entered the consciousness”. Or as Niels Bohr used to put it, “No measurement makes sense until you can communicate the result to others in plain language”. And this idea that giving meaning involves us in some strange way seems inescapable. We just don’t see a way to get out of it.

From a transript of an interview with Professor John Archibald Wheeler, formerly Joseph Henry Professor of Physics at Princeton University

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

I strongly disagree that the Catholic teaches that death was part of God’s creation from the beginning. Please show me any evidence that you have that supports this novel theological innovation!

On Pre-Fall Animal Death ~ Part 1

It depends on what one means by “death.” While the spiritual death of humans was precipitated at the Fall, the Church does not rule out the possibility of pre-fall animal death. Take Romans 5:12 as one example. This is a prooftext often employed by opponents of evolution. Yet, from the immediate context, we see that St. Paul is concerned with human “death” as a punishment for sin, not with biological death in general ("…death came to all men because all sinned" [through Adam]). Note here that humans are the only species capable of “sin.” To deny pre-fall creature mortality on the basis of Rom. 5:12 is to overinterpret the text, since nothing is said one way or the other about animal death.

A proper understanding of such texts does not require a dismissal of the substantial evidence for animal death attested by the fossil remains in the lower sedimentary strata long before the appearence of man (take into account the world’s petroleum deposits, formed from the decomposition of long-dead life forms).

Consider the fact that God’s warning to Adam (“when you eat of it, you will surely die” - Gen.2:17) would have been incomprehensible if Adam had never observed the death of any plant or animal. Also, since, upon eating, Adam did not then die physically, it is most likely a reference to spiritual “death” (that is, ethical/relational separation from God due to sin).

Furthermore, since this world has always been a temporal creation, it is problematic to assume that Adam and Eve would have lived “forever,” even if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit (note that they never did partake of the tree of life).

In fact, we know that death existed in the vegetable kingdom before Adam’s sin because God created plants as food for humans and animals (Gen. 1:29-30). If the death of plants was a good and necessary part of the balance of nature in Eden, why should not the death of animals serve a similar useful purpose? In addition, without animal death, reproduction would rapidly cause overpopulation and ecological chaos.

[See Part 2 below]

 

[rossum]

Matt16_18:

Here, the author is stating a religious belief. The author assumes that mutations in DNA are the product of meaningless random processes in nature, and he has no more basis for making that assumption than the person that says Satan brings about the mutations in DNA.

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of “random” in the context of “random mutations”. It is not the cause of the mutations that is random, but the effect that is random.

Any individual mutation will have a cause, such as radiation, a chemical present in the cell of just a mistake in the machinery of DNA transcription. In principle we could identify which cause was responsible for a particular mutation, though it would not be easy. No assumptions have been made. Experiments have been done to show increased mutation rates in the presence of radiation, some chemicals and where DNA transcription machinery has been damaged. Scientists do not like to make asumptions, and they have not done so in this case.

What is random is the effect of the mutation. Evolution does not pre-plan mutations. An organism cannot say “There is a drought on, I need to have a mutation to help my descendants survive on less water.” In a drought situation there will be just as many mutations tending to conserve water as there would be during a flood.

The effect of the mutations is random, and it is the effects which are sorted by natural selection. In a drought organisms with water conserving mutations have an advantage, in a flood they do not.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

On Pre-Fall Animal Death ~ Part 2

How, then, to understand Romans 8:18-22? Consider the following scenario:

Before the Fall, God commanded man to exercise a wise stewardship (“dominion”) over the whole of creation (Gen. 1:27-28). After the Fall, God used very different words to describe man’s relationship to nature: “The fear and dread of you” (Gen. 9:1-2). Mankind has ever since been a source of ecological disaster for this planet. Man-made deserts replace fruitful soil teaming with life; man’s selfish exploitation of nature has driven thousands of species to extinction, and thousands more are threatened with demise. Ecologists warn that another century of such irresponsibility may ruin the earth irreparably. No wonder, then, that “the whole creation has been groaning” under the “futility” to which fallen man has subjected it.

For more on the topic of pre-fall animal death, I’ll list a couple of web references. While I don’t agree with everything on this site, there’s some interesting info in these two articles:

reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/creature_mortality.shtml
reaspns.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml

Also, see Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Answers & the Accuracy of Genesis (Navpress, 1998), chapter 12. While I think Ross is overly literalistic in his exegesis of Scripture, he has some interesting insights that may be compatible with Catholic teaching. Take the wheat, leave the chaff.

Truly,
Don

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

Again, I ask you define what you mean by a quantum behavior that is purely random. If a quantum process was in fact, purely random, it would be impossible to define a probability function for that process.

Right. I don’t think I was clear. “Random” here is in the sense that, among many possible outcomes, one may not predict in advance which will happen for an individual trial. It does not necessarily mean that each outcome is equally likely. Quantum processes are purely random in that one may not predict the specific final state of a process, but only infer the probability of the final state by looking at an ensemble of processes. If one outcome occurs 70% of the time, and the other 30% of the time, then for any particular trial the final outcome is “random” because we don’t know which state will be the final one. In nature, as you are implying, rarely do we see a set of outcomes that are all equally likely. There are probabilities, however non-deterministic, that determine the final state.

If anything, the fact that the decay of C-14 has a predictable half-life proves that this decay is a deterministic process governed by definable rules, and not a non-deterministic process.

It is deterministic for a population of nuclei, but not for individual ones. What is the point? Radioactive decay is certainly governed by quantum mechanical rules (weak interactions) that result in the observed probabilities (half-lives). No one would dispute that. Mutations are likewise governed by many natural factors, including alterations of genetic material due to environmental radiation and copying errors from “parent” DNA to “offspring”. Each of these complicated processes has its own corresponding probability. “Random mutations” is understood to characterize the non-deterministic character rather than the equivalence of likelihoods of final states.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

While the spiritual death of humans was precipitated at the Fall, the Church does not rule out the possibility of pre-fall animal death. Take Romans 5:12 as one example.

Show me a document from the Magisterium where it says that the Church does not rule out the possibility of pre-fall animal death. You are making an assertion without supplying any evidence.

Instead of reading Romans 5:12 in isolation, include Romans 8:19-21 too. It is clear that Paul is talking about both spiritual death and physical death. You have not addressed my post 222 and what I have quoted from the CCC - i.e. that the Church teaches that the physical creation is going to be restored to its original state after the final judgement – a state where death has no dominion over creation.

… it is problematic to assume that Adam and Eve would have lived “forever,” even if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit

Problematic for whom? The Catholic Church has always taught that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gift of bodily immortality before the Fall. This is exactly why I say that these novel interpretations of scripture require a radical altering of the Church’s doctrines.

In fact, we know that death existed in the vegetable kingdom before Adam’s sin because God created plants as food for humans and animals (Gen. 1:29-30).

I can eat an apple without cause the death of the apple tree. Gen. 1:29-30 does NOT say that God gave animals to man for his food. It says that God gave seed-bearing plants and seed-bearing fruit to both man and animals for their food. God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

Gen. 1:29-30

 

[Matt16_18]

rossum:

I think that you have misunderstood the meaning of “random” in the context of “random mutations”. It is not the cause of the mutations that is random, but the effect that is random.

I understand everything that you have said in your post. The point that I am trying to make is that when some scientists start speaking about “random” mutations, what they are really talking about is their own belief in what Donald45 has called “* philosophical naturalism* (the idea that all of reality is natural)”.

Some scientists have an agenda to teach evolution in our public schools as a vehicle for teaching philosophical naturalism – which is exactly what happened in the Soviet school system. We should not be naïve about the fact that there are political forces in our country trying to limit what is taught in our public schools to the religion of secular humanism. John Dewey, the “father of public school education” was one of the authors of the Humanist Manifesto:The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. …Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. …To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected. …​

Evolution does not pre-plan mutations.

Of course not, because if it did, “evolution” would be an intelligent being! The question remains - are mutations planned or not? Does God plan the mutations that we see, do evil spiritual beings have a role in bringing about mutations, or are mutations merely the result of meaningless random physical processes?

 

[Evan]

Donald45:

You disagree with me that “all scientific inquiry is restricted to the material world.” On what possible basis could one make such a determination?

Now comes the question: Is science closed (Mathematically speaking). That is, does every conclusion based on measurements in a physical worlds, result in conclusions about that physical world?

In mathematics, the question was asked, does every mathematical question that can be properly asked, have an answer. Surprisingly, Godel showed in the early 20th century NO. Mathematics can ask questions where the answer does no lie in mathematics.

Can the material world propose questions where the answer cannot be determined by answers in a material world.

In math: Can you prove that, given an infinite set, you can chose something from that set. (No!..Axiom of Choice)

In Science: Given a lot of chemicals, is there a way for them to form a self replicating protein with only natural processes. (ID answers NO). You seem to be answering, that nature can do again anything that has been done once.

For example: A man lived, was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and died. All natural processes, all able to be scrutinized by science. Yet this man rose. Can nature do that again? Given the same circumstances?

As always, I’m not very good at puting ideas into little boxes on the computer.

Remember this: God may have created the universe 2 weeks ago and all my memories were implanted. He could do it but it would take all the fun out of science.

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

I understand everything that you have said in your post. … The question remains - are mutations planned or not? Does God plan the mutations that we see, do evil spiritual beings have a role in bringing about mutations, or are mutations merely the result of meaningless random physical processes?

Matt, I think we need to clarify that meaningless and random are two different words here. You seem to want to be using them as a single, inseparable term. Meaningless is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one. I suggest you go to the talk origins must-read archive and have a look at each of the articles here , here , here, here, and here.

You are right that some scientists do make the argument that aspects of evolution are meaningless AND random. They are free to have this opinion, but it that is all it is.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

Matt, I think we need to clarify that meaningless and random are two different words here. You seem to want to be using them as a single, inseparable term. Meaningless is a metaphysical concept, not a scientific one.

random

Synonyms: accidental, adventitious, aimless, arbitrary, casual, chance, contingent, designless, desultory, driftless, fluky, fortuitous, hit-or-miss, incidental, indiscriminate, irregular, objectless, odd, promiscuous, purposeless, slapdash, spot, stray, unaimed, unconsidered, unplanned, unpremeditated

I fully understand that random can have a metaphysical meaning. That is my point. When some scientists talk about mutations being random, they also have a metaphysical meaning in mind that is compatible with their religious beliefs in atheistic materialism.

You are right that some scientists do make the argument that aspects of evolution are meaningless AND random. They are free to have this opinion, but it that is all it is.

Exactly. Some scientists give their opinions about what truths can be drawn from the evidence for evolution, and they don’t make it clear that all they are giving is the articles of faith of their personal religion. This is why we have a controversy raging about teaching evolution in our public schools. Let us not be deceived, there are people that want to use a particular presentation of evolution as a tool to belittle Christian beliefs. That is because they have an agenda to push their own religion - the religion of secular humanism.

Catholic parents has a right and a duty to protect their children from being subjected to evolutionary theories in public schools that undermine the faith of their children. It seems to me, that Catholics are losing this battle, as can be seen by the number of Catholics that are apologists for a type of evolutionary theory that is irreconcilable with the doctrines of their own faith. This thread is proof of that!

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

Exactly. Some scientists give their opinions about what truths can be drawn from the evidence for evolution, and they don’t make it clear that all they are giving is the articles of faith of their personal religion. This is why we have a controversy raging about teaching evolution in our public schools.

No, I disagree with this strongly. We have a controversy because a small and vocal sect of the population does not understand science and feels threatened by modern findings in biology. These same people are not raging about the “gravitational theory” or the “big bang theory” or even geologic theories about the age of the Earth.

Let us not be deceived, there are people that want to use a particular presentation of evolution as a tool to belittle Christian beliefs. That is because they have an agenda to push their own religion - the religion of secular humanism.

I think you way overstate the case. There are secular humanists among scientists, to be sure, but this fear of Christian persecution is laughable. And even if someone were to push a particular hypothesis for religious (or anti-religious) reasons, we ought to feel better that science has only natural observations as judge of fitness. Not to mention that there are scientists in the evolutionary field working together all over the world, from every flavor of religion and denomination.

Catholic parents has a right and a duty to protect their children from being subjected to evolutionary theories in public schools that undermine the faith of their children. It seems to me, that Catholics are losing this battle, as can be seen by the number of Catholics that are apologists for a type of evolutionary theory that is irreconcilable with the doctrines of their own faith. This thread is proof of that!

Their faith ought to be stronger than to be threatened by observations of the natural world. It cannot possibly be that evolutionary theory is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine, since the Pope declared that one may be a good Catholic while still holding to evolutionary theory, as long as one still believes in the special creation of the soul. It seems more likely to me that your understanding of evolution, and science, and possibly Catholic doctrine, contains some error.

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

Show me a document from the Magisterium where it says that the Church does not rule out the possibility of pre-fall animal death.

Instead of reading Romans 5:12 in isolation, include Romans 8:19-21 too. It is clear that Paul is talking about both spiritual death and physical death. You have not addressed my post 222 and what I have quoted from the CCC - i.e. that the Church teaches that the physical creation is going to be restored to its original state after the final judgement – a state where death has no dominion over creation…

I can eat an apple without cause the death of the apple tree. Gen. 1:29-30 does NOT say that God gave animals to man for his food. It says that God gave seed-bearing plants and seed-bearing fruit to both man and animals for their food.

My point was that no document of the Magisterium necessarily rules out pre-fall animal death, including the section of the Catechism you quoted in Post # 222. Creation will be “restored,” yet you assume the absence of creaturely death in the original creation, though nothing in the passage states such a thing. A state where, as you write, “death has no dominion over creation” is not identical with a state where there is no death of any kind. Do you imagine a world in which sharks pass by a school of tuna in order to devour sea kelp, bats do not feed on insects, where tigers graze on wild Asian grasses, fish do not eat mayfly nymphs, and where wolves gather into packs to run down a herd of tundra bushes? Never mind that such creatures are represented in the fossil record—complete with fangs, claws and teeth perfectly equipped for carnivorous activity—long before humans ever came on the scene.

The fact is, biblically speaking, the physical death of plants and animals predated human sin:
~ the very act of eating indicates the presence of death (Gen. 1:29; 2:9, 16).
~ plants and animals are said to live and die (Ex. 7:18; 8:13; 10:17; Job 14:8-10)—Note that the same word for “die” is used to describe both plant death and human death.

Predation (carnivorous activity) is viewed as “good,” not evil:
~ God is the source of giving prey to carnivores (Job 38:26-30, 39-41; Ps. 104:21, 27-28).

God’s “very good” creation does not mean it was “perfect”:
~ most occurrences of this phrase (me 'od tov) are translated as “very beautiful” or “very wonderful” (Gen. 24:16; Num. 14:7; Jgs. 18:9; 2 Sam. 11:2; 1 Kgs. 1:6: Jer. 24:2-3).

 

[Donald45]

Evan:

…does every conclusion based on measurements in a physical world, result in conclusions about that physical world?..
Can the material world propose questions where the answer cannot be determined by answers in a material world.

You ask two questions, which I’ll address in turn.

Question 1 ~ Perhaps not, but at the point where inquiry extends beyond the physical world, we are no longer doing “science,” but are now operating in the realms of philosophy, theology, and spirituality. For example, I think that the very existence of the material world is a reasonable indicator of the reality of a supernatural Creator. However, I cannot—simply because my conclusion is based upon an observation of the physical world—thereby call my conclusion about a Creator a “scientific” idea; rather, it is a theological conviction.

Question 2 ~ Once again, this may indeed be the case, but one could not properly think of those supernatural (“beyond nature”) answers as being “scientific” conclusions. The natural world may point to realities beyond and outside of nature but, since science is self-limited to the natural world alone, such realities are considered beyond the scope of scientific investigation, and therefore are not “science.”

Truly,
Don