Intelligent Design

[urban-hermit]

PhilVaz:

OK to repeat my views again …

…(1) evolution (including human evolution) is a fact

I really don’t want to sound like former president Clinton (pray for the man!), but when you say “fact” … do you mean a fact like right now as I am typing this the fact is “I am alive”. Or do you mean “fact” as in a theory currently widely scientifically accepted and supported by what evidence we do have from the time period in question.

I am impressed by your website, Phil, and the faith intelligence and enthusiasm I assume is behind it. While you seem to be keen to convince others of your way of looking at the facts, I have a different perspective. Here is a line I would like to emphasize from the quote on one of your webpages:

Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. (from Communion and Stewardship)

I’m obviously not out to disprove evolution here – just trying to bring a little perspective to your statement.

Do you perhaps feel it is urgent or important that we all give our intellectual assent to current evolutionary theory? If so, how do you feel about the Church saying we are free to believe that God created everything from nothing in 6 days.

 

[urban-hermit]

PhilVaz:

OK to repeat my views again…

…(2) the modern Popes have no problem with this science [evolution]** rightly understood …**

True! - and they likewise have no problem with those who believe this world was created in 6 days – by a “hands-on” God in one of His biggest miracles.

So since the Church says we can believe either in God taking 6 days or millions of years to create us, what is she communicating? That both are, in a way, true? That it doesn’t, in a way, really matter?

The question I wonder about is, what do people who vociferously defend evolution feel they are really defending ?

Does it perhaps all boil down to some people feeling faith is more important than reason, and others feeling reason is more important than faith? They are both important, of course as we know.

The evidence for (not proof of) evolution has been acknowledged by the Church, and most Catholics seem to know they can reconcile this to their faith by means of belief in scriptural Creation in a figurative sense; if the evolution scenario popularly presented did in fact happen similarly in the distant past, … well, this is how we reconcile it in our faith.

What I think really needs defending in the world I live in is belief that God was directly involved in the creation of the first human beings. Why? Certainly not because God needs our belief, but because man needs belief in God. I think the suggestible and the intellectually lazy have had their faith hijacked by overstatements of evolution, rightly or wrongly. I look around my city and my workplace, I think of people I have known … if people heard more defenses of God’s miraculous love for us in creating us directly, abortion and so many other human degradations would become unthinkable, even among the least intellectually gifted.

I am not speaking against free inquiry - I am speaking for being “as clever as serpents” in discerning the insidious and subtle distortions that happen in people’s minds when the claims of evolution are carelessly or imprecisely presented as they are and have been presented in popular culture and even in scientific and theological circles.

 

[Catholic2003]

urban-hermit:

I really don’t want to sound like former president Clinton (pray for the man!), but when you say “fact” … do you mean a fact like right now as I am typing this the fact is “I am alive”. Or do you mean “fact” as in a theory currently widely scientifically accepted and supported by what evidence we do have from the time period in question.

The phrase “fact of evolution” usually refers to the theory of Universal Common Descent, that all organisms on Earth are genealogically related, having descended from the same ancestral gene pool. I believe that Behe accepts universal common descent, and International Theological Commission said the following about it:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

The disagreement comes in when we start to discuss the mechanism of evolution, whether random, natural selection, guided by God or some other intelligent designer, and so on. All the Intellegent Design and Irreducible Complexity stuff relate to the mechanism of evolution. None of ID or IC cast any doubt whatsoever on the theory of universal common descent itself, i.e., the “fact that evolution occurred”.

 

[Donald45]

David Zampino:

…those who, in many cases, have allowed their philosophical atheism to cloud their scientific judgement. To my mind, this is not intellectually honest.

Yes, this is definitely a problem. Whether a scientist happens to be a theist or not should in no way effect the conclusions he reaches as a scientist—the laws of gravitation work the same for the atheist as for the theist, right? Yet, a relatively few scientists (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) insist on pronouncing upon theology in the name of science, for example claiming that the fact of evolution necessarily eliminates a belief in God, at which point Dawkins has gone beyond the limits of science into the realms of philosophy and theology.

On the other hand, the error is made in the opposite direction by those who wish to pronounce upon science in the name of theology. ID theorists appear to fall into this situation.

Both Dawkins and Dembski are engaged in the same error, what philosophers call a category fallacy.

God bless,
Don

 

[rossum]

urban-hermit:

I really don’t want to sound like former president Clinton (pray for the man!), but when you say “fact” … do you mean a fact like right now as I am typing this the fact is “I am alive”. Or do you mean “fact” as in a theory currently widely scientifically accepted and supported by what evidence we do have from the time period in question.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is “species change over time”. This can be observed, just as gravity can be observed. One classic example is a population of bacteria aquiring immunity to drugs over time.

The Theory of Evolution looks at the mechanisms driving these changes.

Inevitably there is an article covering this point on the Talk Origins website: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

rossum

 

[Evan]

rossum:

One classic example is a population of bacteria aquiring immunity to drugs over time.

That is not evolution, that is selective breeding. Like the way we make cattle that give more milk, they are still cows. It’s the same species, just a different gene is becoming more dominant. But the old gene will remain until there is a mutation.

I don’t know if any scientist has ever witnessed evolution in action (except for extinction of species). That is what makes evolution more of a theory without facts to support it.

We are waiting for someone to create a new specie in a controlled experiment, a specie that is more fit that the ancestor.

We’ve seen em in movies, they are usually germs that wipe out the human specie because they are better adapted to the earth that we are…progress at last!

 

[Donald45]

rossum:

rossum

I agree with your comments on evolution, but have a question regarding your signature: Is the proposition that “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth” itself intended to be taken as an ultimate truth? I’m trying here to critique the inherent relativism in your statement, which strikes one as both self-refuting and internally corrupt.

Truly,
Don

 

[JimO]

Evan:

That is not evolution, that is selective breeding. Like the way we make cattle that give more milk, they are still cows. It’s the same species, just a different gene is becoming more dominant. But the old gene will remain until there is a mutation.

Or maybe like the fact that a toy poodle can still bread with a St. Bernard? Reasonable reconstruction of the mutation sequences that result in one species evolving into a totally different species, particularly for something as complex as a mammal, has not been demonstrated either with the fossil record or in living organisms. Since this reconstruction cannot even be reasonably speculated, most advocates of atheistic evolution resort to what I refer to as “faith in the passage of time”, in other words, with enough time anything can happen.

In some cases, the fossil record does suggest evolution from one species to another, such as the diversification of ammonites or the apparent evolution of the North American horse, but the mechanisms for these changes are not understood sufficiently for this process to rise from theory to scientific fact.

I say this as someone who doesn’t rule out the possibility that the evolutionary process might be something used by God to create. Thus, I have no particular bias against evidence that supports evolution. My concern is that there is an atheistic premise held by many evolutionary scientists that results in a bias that will not even consider that ID propopents might make some good points. Thus, instead of atheistic evolution being treated like a scientific theory where it is tested and all data supporting or refuting the theory are examined objectively, it is defended as a philosophy or religion where dissenting voices are ignored or ridiculed.

 

[zian]

Evan:

That is not evolution, that is selective breeding.

Well, isn’t that what natural selection is, the selective breeding of more adaptable individuals, since they are able to survive better and produce more offspring. This is, in fact, micro-evolution.

 

[zian]

Evan:

That is not evolution, that is selective breeding.

Well, isn’t that what natural selection is, the selective breeding of more adaptable individuals, since they are able to survive better and produce more offspring. This is, in fact, micro-evolution.

 

[urban-hermit]

Catholic2003:

The phrase “fact of evolution” usually refers to the theory of Universal Common Descent, that all organisms on Earth are genealogically related, having descended from the same ancestral gene pool. I believe that Behe accepts universal common descent, and International Theological Commission said the following about it:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

The disagreement comes in when we start to discuss the mechanism of evolution, whether random, natural selection, guided by God or some other intelligent designer, and so on. All the Intellegent Design and Irreducible Complexity stuff relate to the mechanism of evolution. None of ID or IC cast any doubt whatsoever on the theory of universal common descent itself, i.e., the “fact that evolution occurred”.

Well, I guess I have to draw a distinction between universal common descent and the “fact” that evolution occured.

I am not a scientist, so please be patient if I am just not getting it, but as I see it, God could have drawn from one organism to create the next, and the next,… and He could have done it with incredible rapidity, yes perhaps over a period of six days, in a manner nobody will ever understand, being that He is God. This evokes in me the passage in Genesis where God puts Adam into a deep sleep and takes one of his ribs from which he brings Eve into being.

Universal common descent may be “virtually certain,” but I don’t believe evolution is. It is part of the mechanism we hypothesize to explain common descent. It is not the same thing as common descent.

It may seem I am splitting hairs here, but I think precision is necessary in this discussion.

 

[Anonymous_1]

As I said Evolution and Intelligent Design are not necesarily mutally exclusive. The fact of the matter is, there is evidence for evolution. But evolution as propogated by the majority of the scientific communtiy and by the public education system is totally naturalistic. However, Intelligent Design is showing, with empirical, peer-reviewed articles and scientific evidence( And i have included the link HERE again for all of you who keep insisting there is none) that evolution could not possibly be undirected. They are showing that the evidence STRONGLY supports the hypothesis that an Intelligent Designer was involved in the planning and articulation of existence and life itself.
I point you to the Discvery Institute because they are a very respectable group of Men and Women in the Scientific community who have taken their time and resources, and gone against the grain in their pursuit search of truth.
The problem is not with the general theory of evolution per say. The problem is that the Public Education system is ingraining upon the minds of ignorant children(and adults might I add) that the scientific community has proven that evolution has happened exactly the way neo-darwinists claim it has: unguided, random, NATURALISTIC. And that it is fact corroborated by all of the evidence. Come on now, we are taught that Science reaps us truth. If the Scientific community is saying that the evidence shows that God was not behind existence and life, kids are going to believe this. Thsi is not merley a scientific issue, its also a socialization problem. Anyway scientists fails to recognize the problems with neo darwinistic theory especially in light of new findings.

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

They are showing that the evidence STRONGLY supports the hypothesis that an Intelligent Designer was involved in the planning and articulation of existence and life itself.

No, what they are showing is a failure of their own imagination to construct purely naturalistic pathways for such phenomena to occur. It is certainly possible that there are no such naturalistic explanations, but it is a little premature to conclude that there are none. That’s why we do science. We ought to be a little more charitable to God, in that His Creation may hold wonders and principles not yet dreamed of. We ought not to be so prideful that our current lack of understanding in some way limits the universe.

The problem is that the Public Education system is ingraining upon the minds of ignorant children(and adults might I add) that the scientific community has proven that evolution has happened exactly the way neo-darwinists claim it has: unguided, random, NATURALISTIC.

You are mistaken. Science has proved no such thing. Rather, science has shown that it is likely that a set of natural laws and principles has guided the evolution of organisms over a vast stretch of time. But who authored these laws? Is not God in the details? Are you also upset with the meteorologists, who claim that thunderstorms happen exactly the way scientists claim they do: unguided and naturalistic? Not so many years ago it was presumed to be much more of a divinely guided phenomenon.

 

[Anonymous_1]

wanerious:

You are mistaken. Science has proved no such thing. Rather, science has shown that it is likely that a set of natural laws and principles has guided the evolution of organisms over a vast stretch of time.

This certainly is not the explanation of evolution that I ever got in my Science class. The way Evolution was presented in EVERY science class i ever took was that it was undeniable, undisputed fact. They didn’t mention the Cambrian explosion, or irreducibly complex mechanisms, or the vast amounts of information in DNA. The evidence that proponenets of Intelligent Design are presenting is not very easily explained by evolution. In fact, in light of this evidence it would be fair to say that Deisgn is a better, and stronger explanation than purley naturalistic, unguided and random mistakes that are being proposed by neo-darwinists. Sure there are those who vehemently oppose the theory of intelligent design, and the arguments they make. But there passion blinds them to the facts that are being presented. Rather than examining the evidence that is being presented and looking at it under the lense of objectivity. They start with a preconception and work backwards. It undermines the very nature of objectivity.

By the way, I dont pay much attention to weather forecasters but i respect and admire them. Meteorology works upon the principles and laws of probability. If you applied to the same principals of probability you would see how tremenndously unlikley it is that existence, life and the diversity and complexity of it has happened as a fluke.

Are you also upset with the meteorologists, who claim that thunderstorms happen exactly the way scientists claim they do: unguided and naturalistic? Not so many years ago it was presumed to be much more of a divinely guided phenomenon.

By the way, what you are doing is constructing a strawman. Are you implying that I am the stereotypical, overzealous religious fanatic who thinks science is anti-God? Absolutley not. Why is the world would I be upset with meteorologists, realistically. Come on now. I admire science and awknowledge that it is quite capable of discovering truth. Howver, we need to follow that truth WHEREVER it leads us.Not within the framworks and schemas of what we want to believe.

There is a excellent quote by Blaise Pascal I believe. He said something along the lines that it would be a strange irony that a universe without purpose would accidently stumble upon creatures who obsess so much about meaning.

 

[Donald45]

Anonymous_1:

But evolution as propogated by the majority of the scientific communtiy and by the public education system is totally naturalistic… If the Scientific community is saying that the evidence shows that God was not behind existence and life, kids are going to believe this.

Of course it’s totally naturalistic, in the sense of science being restricted to the natural world. The proper object of study by the natural sciences is the physical universe, no more and no less. Non-physical things (such as supernatural creators) are not, and cannot be, objects of study by the natural sciences. Science does not deny other possible realms or aspects of reality, but its attention is confined to physical entities alone. Anything, however real, that is empirically inaccessible cannot function as the object of study by the natural sciences. So, in this definitive sense, science is indeed “totally naturalistic.” But why is this a problem? I don’t get upset by the fact that, for example, the science of medicine is totally naturalistic, though I recognize that God may be the ultimate cause behind my recovery from disease. However, I understand that such supernatural activity cannot properly be termed “medicine.” So, why do we have so much trouble distinguishing between science and theology with respect to intelligent design?

As to your second statement, the scientific community does not, indeed cannot, make such a claim as a scientific conclusion. To demonstrate a natural cause (evolution) does not in any way thereby exclude the possibility of a supernatural cause (God). Yet, science is limited only to the forms and functions of the natural world, and leaves the supernatural to other realms of inquiry.

Truly,
Don

 

[halmac1930]

arieh0310:

Well, actually a literal interpretation of Genesis isn’t in opposition to Church teaching, mandating that the literal interpretation is the only correct view is. I happen to think that “day=24 hours” is silly, but people are free to interpret it that way. The majority of the Early Church Fathers took a literal interpretation of Genesis.

St. Augustine wrote a book called, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis. It may be difficult to find in a publc library. Our Diocese Library had one. The following quote, when read carefully, might clear many peoples ideas as to Creation.

“‘And God formed man of dust from the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life;
and man was made a living being’ see note A below. Here we must see whether this is a
restatement intended to describe the manner in which man was made, for we have read
already that he was made on the sixth day. On the other hand, when God made all things together, did He make man among them in some hidden form, as He made the grass of the field before it sprang forth? In this latter supposition, man would have been already made in another manner in which the hidden recesses of nature, as were the beings which
God created together when day was made; and later, with the passage of time, he would
be made in a second manner according to the visible form, in which he now lives his life
for good or ill. He would then be like the grass of the field, which was made before it sprang forth on the earth, but in the course of time, when a spring watered the land, it came forth and
appeared upon the earth.” see note B below.

A Gen 2.7
B Cf. Gen. 2.5

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

They didn’t mention the Cambrian explosion, or irreducibly complex mechanisms, or the vast
amounts of information in DNA.

They should have — these are really interesting things. That they are not completely understood should only reveal how subtle and fascinating the universe is. We should be excited at the mystery.

The evidence that proponenets of Intelligent Design are presenting is not very easily explained by evolution. In fact, in light of this evidence it would be fair to say that Deisgn is a better, and stronger explanation than purley naturalistic, unguided and random mistakes that are being proposed by neo-darwinists.

Naturalistic? Yes. Unguided? Perhaps. Random? No. Natural selection depends on the very non-random effects of selection. How is Design any better? What explanatory power does it have? I’m thankful that there are thousands of scientists who still struggle to learn about the natural world as opposed to those ready to give up and declare that we have no more to learn.

By the way, I dont pay much attention to weather forecasters but i respect and admire them. Meteorology works upon the principles and laws of probability. If you applied to the same principals of probability you would see how tremenndously unlikley it is that existence, life and the diversity and complexity of it has happened as a fluke.

I am very familiar with the principles and mathematics of probability. They are all too often misapplied to bolster support for just what you suggest.

By the way, what you are doing is constructing a strawman. Are you implying that I am the stereotypical, overzealous religious fanatic who thinks science is anti-God? Absolutley not. Why is the world would I be upset with meteorologists, realistically.

No, I’m not trying to raise a strawman or be simply argumentative. There are real parallels here: years ago, before we understood fluid dynamics, before we had massively parallel computing systems to solve the differential equations, before we understood physics enough to lauch satellites and construct doppler radar, weather systems were a mystery; the actions of which all to often were attributed to divine whims. With greater understanding came the realization that meteorological phenomena were governed by the same natural laws as everything else. Now in this century we have overwhelming evidence that the forms of organisms, as well as their genetic instructions, change according to these same natural laws. Especially in molecular biology and genetics is the story the strongest, much more so than the fossil record. They are mostly in congruence, but there are instances where ancestral relationships derived from fossils are modified somewhat due to molecular (DNA) findings. It is a fascinating detective story.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

Of course it’s totally naturalistic, in the sense of science being restricted to the natural world. The proper object of study by the natural sciences is the physical universe, no more and no less. Non-physical things (such as supernatural creators) are not, and cannot be, objects of study by the natural sciences. Science does not deny other possible realms or aspects of reality, but its attention is confined to physical entities alone. Anything, however real, that is empirically inaccessible cannot function as the object of study by the natural sciences.

I don’t agree. Is not psychology considered to be part of the natural sciences? Whenever we begin speaking about what constitutes right behavior and wrong behavior (i.e moral behavior), we are entering into a discussion that involves the supernatural. All men are aware of the “natural law” that is written in their hearts, and knowledge of the natural law an awareness of a supernatural reality.

Apologists for materialist evolutionary theories have to explain how a strictly materialistic process brought about in man an awareness of a supernatural reality. This is a problem that materialistic evolutionists will never be able to answer.

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

I don’t agree. Is not psychology considered to be part of the natural sciences?

Generally not. It is a “social science”, and certainly not a physical science.

Whenever we begin speaking about what constitutes right behavior and wrong behavior (i.e moral behavior), we are entering into a discussion that involves the supernatural. All men are aware of the “natural law” that is written in their hearts, and knowledge of the natural law an awareness of a supernatural reality.

There are lots of obvious counterexamples to that, such as the millions of agnostics and atheists.

Apologists for materialist evolutionary theories have to explain how a strictly materialistic process brought about in man an awareness of a supernatural reality. This is a problem that materialistic evolutionists will never be able to answer.

Why do they have to explain that? It’s an interesting question, but quite outside of most evolutionary models. Evolutionary theory addresses the common ancestors of organisms and the relationships between current and extinct species based upon DNA similarities. While it’s true that we have made perhaps little headway into an understanding of consciousness as a function of DNA instructions, it is also premature to suppose that we never will.

 

[Brian_C]

Catholic Dude:

The best quote I have ever heard:If Man evolved from Apes, then why are there still Apes?

Actually, eveolutionary theory doesn’t state that man evolved from today’s apes. Rather, that current members of the hominid family share a common ancestor. This is where the term “missing link” comes from. One of the (uh, should I use this term?) Holy Grail’s of evolutionary biology or more directly paleoanthropology is to find the species that lived and gave rise to both apes and humans. In other words, right before the tree branched. Every few years, someone will find an early species of hominid with both ape and pre-human hominid characteristics but eventually everyone will decide that the species found dates to far to the period before the split.

In simpler terms, the who apes things can be summed in in the belief that at one point the family tree branched and apes descended from one branch and humans from another.