Intelligent Design

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

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.

I think that is a rather naïve view of science, a view that assumes that the observer is not entangled with what he observes.

I agree with your first observation, that some (a relative few) scientists—particularly one or two who write popular science for the general public—occasionally allow their personal philosophies to color their use of scientific terminology (Dawkins in notorious for this). But your assumption that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy bent on spreading atheism in our public schools is manifestly rather silly. Of the some 3,000,000 or so professional scientists working today, the vast majority appear perfectly capable of keeping their science relatively free of philosophically biased language (and I’m speaking here of both theists and non-theists). Generally speaking, terms like “chance” and “random” are not used in an anti-supernatural manner, but—given the material focus of the natural sciences—merely in a non-supernatural manner.

No, I don’t see science as absolutely objective, though it’s a gigantic leap of logic to jump from “scientists possess personal philosophical biases” to “scientists are secular humanists out to eliminate religion.” Certainly scientists, like all of us, have their own convictions regarding non-scientific matters. Their task as scientists involves being aware of such assumptions and not allowing non-scientific elements to intrude into their work such that those philosophical ideas are confused with “science” itself. As I’ve said, most scientists (non-theists and theists alike) accomplish this task admirably. The laws and forces of nature work exacly the same for the theist as for the non-theist.

Truly,
Don

 

[wanerious]

Evan:

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.

Ok, but we have to be very careful. Godel really showed that, within a formally closed system, there are true statements that cannot be proved from within that system. Extrapolating to areas beyond mathematics and analogizing to evolutionary ideas is dangerous.

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

This is philosophically fun to think about, but is currently non-addressable by Godel.

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

It seems more likely to me that your understanding of evolution, and science, and possibly Catholic doctrine, contains some error.

Show me where I have made any error in my understanding of evolution, science or Catholic doctrine!

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

I agree with your first observation, that some (a relative few) scientists—particularly one or two who write popular science for the general public—occasionally allow their personal philosophies to color their use of scientific terminology (Dawkins in notorious for this).

I did say *some * scientists, didn’t I? Why are you attacking this strawman that I believe that “scientists are secular humanists out to eliminate religion.” This is a cheap way to argue.

But your assumption that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy bent on spreading atheism in our public schools is manifestly rather silly.

It is you that is making the assumption that I think that scientists are hell bent on destoying Christianity. No, I am only pointing out the obvious, that the spirit of antichirst is in the world, and there are many people that use evolution as a way to belittle Christian beliefs.

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

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.

I am simply accepting what the Church has taught for the last two-thousand years. It is you that has the novel belief that the Church teaches that it is acceptable to believe that was death running amok in the terrestrial Paradise before the Fall. You make God the author of death, and I don’t see how you can reconcile that with either Catholic doctrine or the scriptures.

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.

Nature became “red in tooth and claw” because of the sin of Adam – that is hardly a unique idea of mine. Nor is my own idea that once creation is restored that the “cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” (Isa 11:7)

The fact is, biblically speaking, the physical death of plants and animals predated human sin …

This is merely your novel interpretation of scriptures.

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

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.

My point was not that random can have a metaphysical meaning. It was that you insist again and again (and again) in your posts that random is meaningless. I don’t see it. I can still talk about the effects of random change without getting metaphysical about it. Maybe there is some meaning there, maybe not, but that is a metaphysical discussion, not a scientific one. The fact that some scientists also have a metaphysical agenda is irrelevent to the fact that the science aspect can stand on its own. It is a mark of study and understanding that I can see and understand when a scientist like Dawkins has gone beyond his straight science description into his own metaphysical worldview.

 

[AJC]

arieh0310:

I have noticed that some people think that the only people who believe in intelligent design are a bunch of Fundamentalist mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers. However, the leading advocate of intelligent design in America is a Catholic professor of Biological Sciences named Michael Behe. Here is an article

He is also a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute

Food for thought…

Here is a quote from Chesterton’s Orthodoxy…

"Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”

Here is an interesting web article titled:
Evolution: Part of God’s Grandeur the link is

mediaspecialist.org/ssevolution.html

One final comment, again to quote Chesterton who commented on the infamous Scopes aka Monkey Trial “G.K. Chesterton pointed out at the time that the Catholic Church, which does not treat the Book of Genesis as a sourcebook of scientific data and does not have a serious philosophical problem with evolution (properly understood), was entirely outside the fray.” This from the essay The Death of Darwinism (catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html), which gives a good Catholic viewpoint of the Intelligent Design debate.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

It is a mark of study and understanding that I can see and understand when a scientist like Dawkins has gone beyond his straight science description into his own metaphysical worldview.

I am glad that you can see that, because that is exactly my point. Some scientists understand “random” in a metaphysical way that is irreconcilable with Catholicism. Some scientists make conclusions from the physical evidence that supports evolution that are nothing more than unfounded opinions that reflect their personal articles of faith.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

… you insist again and again (and again) in your posts that random is meaningless. I don’t see it.

Fine, you don’t see it that way.

The question that I raised is this: is there anything that happens in the universe that is truly random? That is a metaphysical question. You have your own opinions about this metaphysical question, and you are entitled to have them.

I also have my own opinions about this question, and I readily acknowledge that my opinions are shaped by my faith in an omnicient God that is intimately involved in his creation.

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

I did say *some *scientists, didn’t I?.. It is you that is making the assumption that I think that scientists are hell bent on destoying Christianity… …there are many people that use evolution as a way to belittle Christian beliefs.

Yes, you said “some scientists,” and in the above quote you say “*many people.” *How many of these “many people” do you believe are scientists? It’s difficult to know what your perception is here. How many of the some 3,000,000 professional scientists do you believe are out to get the Christian faith? If, as I’ve suggested, the number is comparatively miniscule, then why are you apparently so exercised over a few people doing sloppy science? And if you believe the number is relatively large, then why are you accusing me of employing a straw man argument?

As I’ve said, I agree that a very few professional scientists who write for the public occasionally allow their personal philosophical convictions to influence their scientific language. The solution would be to eliminate such metaphysical concepts from one’s scientific descriptions, not to encourage further sloppy science by employing a supernatural cause as an explanatory device.

Truly,
Don

 

[Evan]

In probability theory, the term random, implies collective or long-run regularity; thus a long record of the behavior of a random phenomenon presumably gives a fair indication of its general behavior in another long record, although the individual observations have no discernible system of progression.
– American Mathematical Society

I would expect that scientists would accept this definition if they wish to promote a theory using the term random. This does not eliminate the potential for intellegent involvement. Examples of random processes are

time between raindrops hitting a windsheild
distribution of stars in the night sky
arrival times of cars at a stop light
number of letters ‘e’ in sentences

Obviously the last two are results of an intellegence
The first two are not.

When it comes to creation of life, the chemical analysis shows that the process was not random, ie, the actions of chemicals would not generate life in the environment provided (a long term processs) based on what we know about chemicals today (another long term process).

 

[Donald45]

Matt16_18:

Nor is my own idea that once creation is restored that the “cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” (Isa 11:7)

You write that I hold to a “novel interpretation of the Scriptures,” yet it is one which falls within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, that is, it is allowed within the confines described by the Church’s creeds and councils. Psalm 93:2 was once popularly used in the Church as a prooftext for geocentrism—does anyone seriously want to suggest such a “novel interpretation” today? Psalm 24:2 was once held up as proof that there existed a global subterranean ocean upon which the land rested—no one in the Church would impose such a meaning on this text today. These ideas have been shown by physics and geology to be scientifically invalid, and so our understanding of certain biblical passages has necessarily been modified. You completely ignored my comments on the existence of predators in the fossil record prior to humans in order to maintain your prefered exegesis of certain biblical passages. Is this the approach to truth that Catholics are called to?

Your interpretation of Is.11:7 is a case in point. This passage is typically understood by biblical scholars in a decidedly figurative sense. It was addressed to an ancient desert people, not to scientifically-minded moderns. As indicated in the notes of the New American Bible: “This picture of the idyllic harmony of paradise is a dramatic symbol of the universal peace and justice of messianic times.” The text you quote is a “picture,” a “symbol” of the messianic kingdom in figurative terms familiar to the ancient community to whom it was addressed. Your interpretation strikes one as woodenly literalistic at best, and certainly shouldn’t be used as a prooftext for the denial of pre-fall creature mortality.

Truly,
Don

 

[Matt16_18]

Donald45:

You write that I hold to a “novel interpretation of the Scriptures,” yet it is one which falls within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy, that is, it is allowed within the confines described by the Church’s creeds and councils. Psalm 93:2 was once popularly used in the Church as a prooftext for geocentrism—does anyone seriously want to suggest such a “novel interpretation” today? Psalm 24:2 was once held up as proof that there existed a global subterranean ocean upon which the land rested—no one in the Church would impose such a meaning on this text today. These ideas have been shown by physics and geology to be scientifically invalid, and so our understanding of certain biblical passages has necessarily been modified.

I don’t accept your analogy. If science has shown us that there is no global subterranean ocean upon which the land rested, what of it? I have never argued that we must accept the Bible as a science textbook, nor do I think the Catholic Church teaches that we should take that point of view.

The reason I say your interpretation of Scriptures is novel because you are drawing novel conclusions about God and Death, not novel conclusions about the structure of the earth. The Bible that I read, and the prayers that I hear in the Catholic liturgies, portray a cosmic war between good and evil, and it is in this fallen world where the final battle of this cosmic warfare will draw to an end with the coming of the Antichrist. God is the enemy of death in my Bible, and God has defeated his enemy by the Cross of Christ. We await the King to return to cast Death into the lake of fire, and to set creation free from its bondage to decay.

It seem to me that for you, Death isn’t really God’s enemy, since God created Death and allowed Death to run amok in the terrestrial Paradise. This is truly a novel view of God and Death that has never existed among Catholics until some Catholics decided they needed to become apologists for Darwin’s theory of evolution.

You completely ignored my comments on the existence of predators in the fossil record prior to humans in order to maintain your prefered exegesis of certain biblical passages. Is this the approach to truth that Catholics are called to?

Authentic Catholic exegesis means not throwing out two-thousand years of our understanding of God’s relationship to Death for the sake of a scientific theory.

Science shows us physical evidence that in our fallen world plants and animals have been dying for a long time. I have no problem with that as a Catholic. That evidence doesn’t mean that there never was a terrestrial Paradise where Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gift of bodily immortality, nor does that physical evidence mean that Adam and Eve never lived in a true paradise - a place without maggots, tapeworms, cancer, animal suffering, liver flukes, disease, rot and death.

Your concept of the terrestrial Paradise seems to me nothing more than the fallen world we live in right now. Scripture describes the fallen world as a place that is groaning in travail to be “set free from its bondage to decay” – an apt description of our fallen world, a world that groans to return to its original state.

Just what is your concept of the terrestrial Paradise that Adam and Eve dwelt in before the Fall?

 

[Anonymous_1]

wanerious:

Mathematics is not science. Science may use the results of mathematics, but the arbiter of any scientific theory is an ensemble of observations of nature. Mathematics, as a set of logical structures, is not so bound.

Uh oh. I’m not trying to be cheeky, but the Catholic Church would have a big problem with any modern electronic devices, as well as modern explanations for electromagnetism and light emission/absorption (and so on) because of a fundamental theological dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics.

Well, the obvious answer is that God set up the rules of quantum mechanics to work the way they do (pure randomness) or else the Universe could not exist. QM governs, for example, the reaction rates of hydrogen nuclei fusing in the center of stars. Should this rate be but a little different, and no stars (including our own) would shine, no elements beyond hydrogen would be generated.

Look at the statistical probability of this ratio. Along with the ratios of weak and strong nuclear forces within the atom. Even this evidence suggests strongly that is more probable that these things were designed not the result of mere coincidence.

I agree with Matt, that evolution is not in Jepordy, the problem is what is implied by the neo-darwinism we are taught in schools. That these forces are random and that natural forces are able to account for the origins, diversity and complexity of life as we know it. Neo-Darwinism states there need be no God. Natural forces are enough. And if we consider Ocacm’s razor and the principal of parsimony which states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, and if neo-darwinism is true than look no further than the bliss of atheistic existentialism.

Neo darwinism implies that unguided random natural forces are perfectly capable of spontaneously spawning life from non life without rhyme or reason, then through a completley different unguided natural mechanism, namley mutation and natural, we happen to come accross the diversity and complexity of life as we know it.Why are we denying the APPAERANCE OF DESIGN from physics to astrology all the way down to the molecular level despite evidence that supports it? The fact is evolution could not possibly be the result soley of unguided natural forces, the facts strongly support that there is an intelligence behind it!

Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10^60, which is impossibly small.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1972. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Acts & Facts 2.
Morris, Henry M., 2003. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Back to Genesis 179, pp. b-c. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=493 (As cited from talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html, Mark Isaak, 2005)

I am not a microbiologist but i believe there are more than 200 functioning components in the cell alone…

 

[zian]

Matt16_18:

I am glad that you can see that, because that is exactly my point. Some scientists understand “random” in a metaphysical way that is irreconcilable with Catholicism. Some scientists make conclusions from the physical evidence that supports evolution that are nothing more than unfounded opinions that reflect their personal articles of faith.

We agree then, that some scientists do and some scientists don’t. If the scientists do one or the other, the science itself still stands on its own.

I also agree that there is physical evidence that supports evolution.

My American Heritage Dictionary of the English language has this -
random: 1. Having no specific pattern or objective; lacking causal relationships, haphazard. 2. Statistics a. Of or designating a phenomenon that does not produce the same outcome or consequences every time it occurs under identical circumstances. b. Of or designating an event having relative frequency of occurence that approaches a stable limit as the number of observations of the event increases to infinity. c. Of or designating a sample drawn from a population so that each member of a population has an equal chance to be drawn.
These are, of course, simply common usage dictionary definitions. As such, they record common usage denotation and connotation. Other uses of the concept of randomness are discussed here and elsewhere. In short, there are many meanings of the idea of random and randomness that can vary with the scientific context.

So when you are asking if there is anything in the universe that is truly random, just what is it that you are asking about?

 

[zian]

Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1972. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Acts & Facts 2.
Morris, Henry M., 2003. The mathematical impossibility of evolution. Back to Genesis 179, pp. b-c. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=493 (As cited from talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html, Mark Isaak, 2005)

This impossibility canard is nearly as risible as the 2nd law of thermodynamics one. Did you read the talk origins link you posted? Tell ya what, click on that link then click on the link for the previous Claim CB940, which reads

Claim CB940:
Complex structures could not have arisen by chance.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.
Response:

1. Evolutionists the world over are, and always have been, unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. The theory of evolution does not say they did, and to say otherwise is to display a profound absence of understanding of evolution. The novel aspect that Darwin proposed is natural selection. Selection is the very opposite of chance.

  Selection of randomly introduced variation is known to be able to produce complex formations, including functional circuits (Davidson 1997; Thompson 1996) and robots (Lipson and Pollack 2000). Creationists have never proposed a reason to explain why the same processes would not produce the same results in nature. *(emphases mine)*

.

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

Look at the statistical probability of this ratio. Along with the ratios of weak and strong nuclear forces within the atom. Even this evidence suggests strongly that is more probable that these things were designed not the result of mere coincidence.

Honestly, I almost agree with that. I do believe in a designer of the Universe, an architect of natural laws, and my feelings grow stronger the more I learn about fundamental physics. But still I must be cautious. Yes, the evidence is suggestive, but we just don’t know how unlikely the scenario is — we can’t, as you say, look at the statistical probabilities, because we don’t know what other states are possible. It is wrong-headed to simply take this occurrence as one of a multitude, all equally likely. It is quite possible that there are as yet undiscovered deeper principles at play that render the ratios of the fundamental forces and the masses of the particles as natural consequences. The other states that we would be counting as equally likely would simply not be possible. This is the real danger. Instead of giving up prematurely and attributing these mysteries to “design”, we ought to investigate them further to discover a perhaps more subtle and beautiful set of natural laws. This is how science has worked for the last 400 or so years. Let’s not surrender now.

I agree with Matt, that evolution is not in Jepordy, the problem is what is implied by the neo-darwinism we are taught in schools. That these forces are random and that natural forces are able to account for the origins, diversity and complexity of life as we know it.

Natural forces may indeed be able to account for this. Let’s find out.

The fact is evolution could not possibly be the result soley of unguided natural forces, the facts strongly support that there is an intelligence behind it!

I guess there is room to disagree. It is true that we don’t have satisfactory explanations for certain biological phenomena, but it’s a mistake to assume that will always be the case. Your assertion is possibly in error.

Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 10^60, which is impossibly small.

Again, and I should really caution you from reading anything from Morris, this is only right if all the possibilities are equally likely, and if you never keep those mutations that are beneficial, both of which are demonstrably false. Back in 1972 he made headlines by saying silly things like this, but many of his ilk backed away from this stuff fairly soon after. You’re probably aware of the classic demonstration of constructing a phrase like “Monkeys might fly out of my butt” by starting with a random string of letters (and counting a space as a possible letter). Of course, the chance of hitting that phrase purely randomly is about 27^32, an enormous number. But, and this is important, if you keep those letters that fit, you can zero in on the correct phrase in only a couple of hundred trials. This is how evolution works. The beneficial changes are passed on. It is not purely random.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict: “We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities.” (from his commentary on Genesis, In The Beginning)

All I can say is that people can change their minds. This homily you quote from is over 30 years old. Pope Benedict just this year has shown an aversion to traditional Darwinian evolution. I posted the quote earlier, but here it is again:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”
April 24, 2005

 

[JSmitty2005]

Donald45:

As Catholoics, we agree with the statement you quoted as theological truth. It’s something we arrive at by faith based upon divine revelation: “It is by faith [not science] that we understand that the ages were created by a word from God, so that from the invisible the visible world came to be” (Heb. 11:3). ID theory, on the other hand, seems to reverse this biblical truth, saying, in effect, “It is by science that we understand that God is behind natural phenomena.” Even if this last statement were true, however, it would not qualify as a “scientific” conclusion, but rather as a religio-philosophical assumption based upon one’s prior belief in a supernatural realm within which an immaterial creative intelligence operates.

The Vatican statement affirms the theological truth that God is the ultimate transcendent Creator of all created reality. But this theological truth in no way impinges upon the scientific reality of evolution as a real material process in nature. We don’t need to “shape our evolutionary theory” according to such a theological statement, since science does not, and cannot, pronounce upon theological matters. Whether or not God created the natural world is not a question that can be addressed by the scientific enterprise. Nor have the Vatican Fathers, in the statement you referred to, pronounced upon matters of science.

So, then, we should shape our evolutionary views according to science, and our theological beliefs according to revelation.

God bless,
Don

It seems as though you are trying to make a distinction between scientific and theological truths as if they are separate. Truth is truth is truth. You can’t simply say that it’s okay that there is a conflict b/c they’re separate truths. These truths must be able to be meshed together with no contradiction. Otherwise, one or the other is false.

 

[Matt16_18]

zian:

I also agree that there is physical evidence that supports evolution.

The evolution of what?

Watch a television show about evolution on PBS or the Discovery Channel, and you will be told that evolution brought about the evolution of man from some kind of bipedal animal. This is a conclusion that is wholly unwarranted by the physical evidence that scientists are examining. Why? Because man is so much more than a walking animal with a big brain. Man has a soul that is cognizant of the supernatural – he is aware of the Law of Right and Wrong, which is an awareness of something that which is beyond the material reality that is describable by the laws of physics.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for evolution to ever explain how man received a conscience that is aware of the supernatural, and how man came to have the other faculties of his immortal soul that make man so much more than an animal with a big brain that walks upright. In spite of the total lack of evidence to support their wild claims, evolutionists constantly make the ludicrous assertion that the physical mechanics of materialistic evolution brought about the creation of man. This claim is fallacious, and why it is fallacious is what needs to be taught in our public schools. If we need to teach metaphysics in our public schools so that our students can see the reasons why evolutionists are talking nonsense, then that is what we should do. Education *should * be giving students the tools needed to engage in critical thinking, but there are forces of secular humanism that don’t want to see that ever happen. Read the **Humanist Manifesto ** and see for yourself the agenda espoused by John Dewey, the “father of public school education”.… Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

… Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.

… Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

…. In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

…. Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.The physical evidence that evolutionists are examining may indeed point to the fact that the physical bodies that men inhabit are related to some sort of bipedal primate, but evolution can NEVER explain how men with immortal souls came to be living in these bodies.

So when you are asking if there is anything in the universe that is truly random, just what is it that you are asking about?

I am asking a metaphysical question. Is there anything in the physical universe that is truly random - random even for God? If there are physical processes that even God experiences as random, then it seems to me that Catholicism should be junked, and we should, at most, be teaching Process Theology. (Which is, of course, the desired goal of some people …)