Intelligent Design

[zian]

JSmitty2005:

Okay, I am about to be sarcastic, but this is what I learned about the universe in public high school (I just graduated). … THE END.
…
Well, that’s what I was taught. …

Bummer Dude; sorry you had some bad teachers (I guess).

I’ve got an idea for you. Don’t believe in evolution - you can, however, accept evolution as a viable set of ideas that explains the present available evidence. I, for one, can not give you a valid theory for explaining the interface between your metaphysical belief set and this available evidence. Sorry.

 

[Donald45]

JSmitty2005:

…Either evolution is false and traditional Christian teachings are true or evolution is true and all religion is man-made…

A false “either/or.” Why can it not be both divine creation and organic evolution? As an example of what I see as a problem with your statement, I’ll use a different, though related, scenario: “Either human procreation is false and miraculous creation is true, or human procreation is true and miraculous creation is man-made.” Of course, we recognize this immediately as a false dilemma. As Catholics we believe that a human being is the result of both the physical process of procreation (secondary causality => material body), and of direct divine activity (primary causality => spiritual soul). Likewise, human beings may be seen as the product of both physical processes and miraculous creation. My daughter exists as the result of both the material processes of conception and gestation, and the supernatural creative activity of God. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Also, it’s not clear what you mean by “traditional Christian teachings.” A literalistic understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required by Catholic dogma, nor is the belief that acknowledging secondary causes somehow rules out primary causation. We need not be painted into a corner by such false dilemmas.

God bless,
Don

 

[John_Paul_III]

I found this on the web the other day.

breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Inteligent design is not a science is the stance the Catholic Church takes.

 

[JSmitty2005]

John Paul III:

I found this on the web the other day.

breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Inteligent design is not a science is the stance the Catholic Church takes.

The Catholic Church does not take a stance on what it considers “science” or not, nor does it have the authority to do so. As has been discussed in this thread, Catholics are free to accept either theory so long as we hold certain Church dogmas regarding creation to be true. I wouldn’t trust much of anything published in the secular media about the Church. Too often, it is simply yellow journalism. The article you linked to reminds me of another ridiculous one that was recently published. I think the title was “Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.” Just take that kind of absurd article with a grain of salt. Regardless of what “side” of this issue anyone is on, I think that most everyone would agree with me on this.

 

[John_Paul_III]

JSmitty2005:

The Catholic Church does not take a stance on what it considers “science” or not, nor does it have the authority to do so. As has been discussed in this thread, Catholics are free to accept either theory so long as we hold certain Church dogmas regarding creation to be true. I wouldn’t trust much of anything published in the secular media about the Church. Too often, it is simply yellow journalism. The article you linked to reminds me of another ridiculous one that was recently published. I think the title was “Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible.” Just take that kind of absurd article with a grain of salt. Regardless of what “side” of this issue anyone is on, I think that most everyone would agree with me on this.

Ok first I understand that the Catholic Church has not made an infallible statement on this subject, but the Church in all of its teachings on the subject has never fallen into the fundamental trap of trying to prove through science that creation happened in 6 days bc the bible says so, if one is debating how many days God created the earth and everything on it, or trying to prove how old the earth is via the bible, than they have simply missed the entire point of the story. The bible is not a science book, many in the fundamental circle use it as so.

Now is there something in this report that you disagree with?

Sorry for the attack, but I felt insulted by your comments, I do not take the word of the media or any newspaper for their word, for an example the liberal media and democrats are claiming Bush lied, that is clearly a lie within itself.

My purpose for the link was not to show proof and support from the Vatican as infallible truth but a really good read of information on the subject, that I have agreed with since joining the Church just a year ago.

 

[buffalo]

Donald45:

A false “either/or.” Why can it not be both divine creation and organic evolution? As an example of what I see as a problem with your statement, I’ll use a different, though related, scenario: “Either human procreation is false and miraculous creation is true, or human procreation is true and miraculous creation is man-made.” Of course, we recognize this immediately as a false dilemma. As Catholics we believe that a human being is the result of both the physical process of procreation (secondary causality => material body), and of direct divine activity (primary causality => spiritual soul). Likewise, human beings may be seen as the product of both physical processes and miraculous creation. My daughter exists as the result of both the material processes of conception and gestation, and the supernatural creative activity of God. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Also, it’s not clear what you mean by “traditional Christian teachings.” A literalistic understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required by Catholic dogma, nor is the belief that acknowledging secondary causes somehow rules out primary causation. We need not be painted into a corner by such false dilemmas.

God bless,
Don

You have to reconcile the teaching that Eve came from Adam.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

You have to reconcile the teaching that Eve came from Adam.__________________

The first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

You have to reconcile the teaching that Eve came from Adam.

it is just a mystery

science will also tell us that a Virgin Birth is not likely and that the Resurrection or Assumption are contrary to the observable data and that Transubstantiation is completely unmeasurable and has no testable mechanism.

So I’m not sure why folks try to circle the wagons only with evolution

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

it is just a mystery

How is it a mystery? It has been dogmatically defined. Evolution must reconcile with the truth that Eve came from Adam.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

How is it a mystery? It has been dogmatically defined. Evolution must reconcile with the truth that Eve came from Adam.

why?

I would no more expect science to discuss religious matters than the Church to comment on strength of materials or blood oxygen levels.

Not its bailiwick, really

 

[Digger71]

steveandersen:

why?

I would no more expect science to discuss religious matters than the Church to comment on strength of materials or blood oxygen levels.

Not its bailiwick, really

Literal interpretation of the bible…not even the Vatican says it’s all historically accurate.

 

[buffalo]

Digger71:

Literal interpretation of the bible…not even the Vatican says it’s all historically accurate.

From the Catechism:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”[83]

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.[84]
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.[85]
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.[86]
   
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
   The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
   The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.[87]

119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”[88]
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.[89]

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

How is it a mystery? It has been dogmatically defined. Evolution must reconcile with the truth that Eve came from Adam.

looking over this list of dogmas
link

I don’t see that particular one included

evolution and modern genetics have hypothesized a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosome Adam which could help reconcile the other dogmas quite nicely.

(I know…I know, they’re not intended to be used that way but that is because science can’t speak on supernatural matters at all.)

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

looking over this list of dogmas
link

I don’t see that particular one included

evolution and modern genetics have hypothesized a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosome Adam which could help reconcile the other dogmas quite nicely.

(I know…I know, they’re not intended to be used that way but that is because science can’t speak on supernatural matters at all.)

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   
   **DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
   A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
   
   ** Introduction
   
   The purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church as literally and historically true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I would express the thesis in Latin as follows:
   
   more…

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

[1] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)

yes I know, I saw that
how does this exclude God taking 4 billion years to create the first man using natural selection?
And how does this relate to Eve coming from Adam?

[2]
The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

yes I saw that too
like I said why wouldn’t a mitochondrial Eve and/or Y Chromosome Adam reconcile with this?
And how does this relate to your statement that Eve came from Adam, rather than the rest of us coming form Adam and Eve?

Also the next item on the list :
#74 Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
Explicitly admits that there are nonmaterial aspects to existence. Science can only deal with the material. Rejecting a theory because it does not address items it shouldn’t (cannot even) is sort of like not listening to the weatherman’s prediction because he failed to mention which team would win the ball game.

 

[buffalo]

steveandersen:

yes I know, I saw that
how does this exclude God taking 4 billion years to create the first man using natural selection?
And how does this relate to Eve coming from Adam?

yes I saw that too
like I said why wouldn’t a mitochondrial Eve and/or Y Chromosome Adam reconcile with this?
And how does this relate to your statement that Eve came from Adam, rather than the rest of us coming form Adam and Eve?

Also the next item on the list :
#74 Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
Explicitly admits that there are nonmaterial aspects to existence. Science can only deal with the material. Rejecting a theory because it does not address items it shouldn’t (cannot even) is sort of like not listening to the weatherman’s prediction because he failed to mention which team would win the ball game.

Did you read the article? You will see that on more than one occassion by more than one Pope it has been declared Eve is from Adam and that it is infallible.

 

[steveandersen]

buffalo:

Did you read the article?

I tried, but it was a bit dry and beyond me. To be honest I started skimming after the first page or so. (We all have our strengths…comparative linguistics and scriptural interpretation aren’t mine. I’ll give it another go when I’m a little less tired and it is not the day before a major holiday.)
But it seemed like a very nice thesis.

buffalo:

You will see that on more than one occassion by more than one Pope it has been declared Eve is from Adam and that it is infallible.

…….In that particular doctorial student’s opinion. (Odd that it wasn’t on the “list” though)

Since it is his field I’m more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. While his premise may be true it doesn’t change my contention that it is occurrence that cannot be addressed by natural explanations. Just as obstetrics cannot explain the Virgin Birth or hydrology the parting of the Red Sea, there are things to which, if you chose to believe, you have to admit that the mechanism is a mystery since it is beyond everyday experience. So I still don’t understand why folks try to reject one corner of science on religions grounds while not rejecting the rest.

It’s late. Happy Thanksgiving to all you US residents

I’m going to serve traditional roasted therapod.

 

[wanerious]

JSmitty2005:

Within the theory of evolution/the big bang, God created hydrogen.

Well, it’s best to be precise — the standard Big Bang predicts a minute or so after the initial expansion, protons and neutrons coalesced out of the ambient energy and quark fields. Since a hydrogen nucleus is just a proton, then yes, hydrogen formed first (though there were no permanently captured electrons for the first 300,000 years). The temperature and densities were such that the protons could fuse to form helium as well. Detailed calculations predict a primal abundance of about 75% H, 25% He by mass (90% H by number) and trace amounts of lithium and deuterium. All other elements were/are generated in the cores of stars subsequent to this era.

Then, these molecules eventually decided to team up and form some amino acids and proteins all by themselves!

I guess this is the sarcasm. Yes, we’ve observed many instances of amino acids having formed “by themselves” in both interstellar space as well as in meteorites.

 

[seabird3579]

Intelligent Design has much more integrity as a scientific theory than Evolution does because it deals with science at the molecular level. Professor Behe appeared on C-SPAN explained his molecular studies. Everything done at the molecular level has a distinct purpose. Every minute particle of a cell had a specific purpose “designed” to make the cell function properly.

Darwin could not have known about this because these discoveries have only occurred in the last 10 years or so. Therefore, “new” science is replacing old theories, once supposed but of course never really proven. Evolutionism takes much more “faith” to believe than “purposeful” design. Professor Behe explained that “purposeful” is a scientific word that has been used to explain, for example, why it is that eyes sees, the tongue tastes, etc… Skeptics should read his findings before they make up their minds.

 

[Orogeny]

seabird3579:

Intelligent Design has much more integrity as a scientific theory than Evolution does because it deals with science at the molecular level. Professor Behe appeared on C-SPAN explained his molecular studies. Everything done at the molecular level has a distinct purpose. Every minute particle of a cell had a specific purpose “designed” to make the cell function properly.

Interesting argument. “Every minute particle of a cell has a specific purpose “designed” to make the cell function properly” is his evidence to support intelligent design? Purpose versus function?

All I can say is how do you know it is design? As I have asked before, who decides something is designed? Does all research into that subject then stop once “design” is declared?

Therefore, “new” science is replacing old theories, once supposed but of course never really proven.

ID isn’t science. How can you falsify it?

Evolutionism takes much more “faith” to believe than “purposeful” design.

That is false simply because ID is nothing but pure faith without one piece of scientific evidence to back it up. It seems like this is a pretty common mantra of those who don’t want to discuss the fact that there is a massive amount of evidence to support evolution and NO evidence to support ID.

Professor Behe explained that “purposeful” is a scientific word that has been used to explain, for example, why it is that eyes sees, the tongue tastes, etc… Skeptics should read his findings before they make up their minds.

I have read much of what he has written and I find it evidence of a man trying to repackage creationism in a scientific way.

Peace

Tim