Intelligent Design

[urban-hermit]

quote=steveandersen Please provide examples of non-mummified, incorruptible bodies
[/quote]

St Bernadette of Lourdes and St Catherine Laboure are two examples of saints who have been dead over a hundred years but whose bodies have not decayed. (see the book “The Incorruptibles” for 100 other examples)

 

[urban-hermit]

steveandersen:

Basically there are two parts to evolution
(1) The fact of evolution: which is the observable data and
(2) The theory of evolution: which proposes natural selection as the mechanism for what we observe. This is generally regarded as settled science.

so I’m not sure what you mean when you say “didn’t necessarily occur”

Let us begin with (1) the fact of evolution: which is the observable data. What I call the forensic data (the rocks and fossils, such as they are) are the physical evidence upon which we THEORIZE about evolution. Other data in the present which truly is directly observable, includes the fact that all living organisms are genetically related, pointing to what has been called “common descent”. This brings us to (2) the theory of evolution: which proposes natural selection as the mechanism for what we observe. This is generally regarded as settled science by many people. But who would you ask if you really wanted to know for sure? The Vatican has made various statements admiring the evidence and strength of some theory of evolution. I believe Cardinal Schoenburg has said something like “evolution in the sense of common descent might be true”. But Catholics are also at liberty to believe in a literal miraculous 6-day creation by our Omnipotent God. Even scientists enamored of Darwinism will admit that it seems impossible to prove any theory of evolution until we invent the time machine.

Common descent seems, as Cardinal Schoenburg has said, “virtually certain”. God shaped His biological creation such that genetically all living things on earth are related. Whether He did this in an instant, a day, or a million years is where we leave “fact” behind and get into theory.

Gemma di Georgi, still alive today, who by the prayer of Padre Pio is able to see despite STILL having no pupils in her eyes, is more “physical evidence” that our God is an awesome God, a God of miracles.

If God is still doing all these miracles in the here and now, who says He couldn’t have created the world in 6 days ?

This is why, when we say evolution “didn’t necessarily occur”, what we actually mean is that evolution “didn’t necessarily occur”.

 

[PhilVaz]

hermit << The Vatican has made various statements admiring the evidence and strength of some theory of evolution. I believe Cardinal Schoenburg has said something like “evolution in the sense of common descent might be true”. >>

It is Schonborn, and he clarified his July 2005 New York Times editorial somewhat when he said:

“I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above [Julian Huxley, Will Provine, Peter Atkins], it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one’s territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews.” (Cardinal Schonborn, 10/2/2005, Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands)

What Schonborn is concerned about is when evolution is taken as a godless worldview, otherwise he has no problem with biological evolution as science. Schonborn on Darwin:

“With this, his major work [Origin of Species], [Charles] Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the ‘evolution’ paradigm has become, so to speak, a ‘master key,’ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.” (10/2/2005, ibid)

hermit << But Catholics are also at liberty to believe in a literal miraculous 6-day creation by our Omnipotent God. >>

True, Catholics are free to believe in a flat earth, fixed earth, or a young earth (all views held by various Christians at one time, based on their interpretations of Scripture, and the earth as it appeared to them). But the question is, why in the 21st century would anyone believe that? See this article.

hermit << Common descent seems, as Cardinal Schoenburg has said, “virtually certain”. God shaped His biological creation such that genetically all living things on earth are related. >>

It was the International Theological Commission under the leadership of Cardinal Ratzinger who said that. And they said much more, that natural evolution as a secondary cause of living things, is compatible with the Catholic faith and God’s plan. (see paragraphs 62-70 especially)

hermit << Whether He did this in an instant, a day, or a million years is where we leave “fact” behind and get into theory. >>

Scientific theory explains facts, observations, laws, etc so in a sense theory is “higher” than facts, not lower. As said thousands of times in here, a scientific theory is not a guess or hunch. If you want the evidence for an old earth, I lay it all out here from Dalrymple.

Thanks for the links and info on the miracles.

Phil P

 

[cathologos]

Another Vatican voice on Intellgent Design:

Vatican astronomer joins evolution debate

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was “wrong” and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,” the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.”

 

[urban-hermit]

PhilVaz:

…Scientific theory explains facts, observations, laws, etc so in a sense theory is “higher” than facts, not lower. As said thousands of times in here, a scientific theory is not a guess or hunch. If you want the evidence for an old earth, I lay it all out here from Dalrymple.

Thanks for the links and info on the miracles.

Phil P

We agree that a scientific theory is not a guess or hunch. It is also not a fact. It is a scientific theory. I do not object to anyone else’s believing in evolution. I object to it being presented as a fact, which is why i responded to steveandersen’s post. Evolution is not a fact. Presenting it as a fact is a way of pressuring others to believe in something they are not obliged to believe in. At least not yet. i mentioned that Christians are at liberty to believe that the God who created time (and exists outside of time) created the universe miraculously in 6 days. You say that Christians are also at liberty to believe in a “flat earth”. I hadn’t heard that, but if i understand you correctly, that is a different scenario. Evolution, if it occurred, happened in the distant past. The round earth we are on in the here and now has been viewed from space in my lifetime. i consider it to be a verifiable fact. Evolution is not a verifiable fact in this sense.

As a Catholic i am always interested in what i am obliged to believe - in what is indisputably true. Evolution does not fall into this category.

The quotes you have selected from Cardinal Schonborn and others on your website point out what we agree upon: accepting some Church-approved interpretation of evolution is not problematic for Catholics. But they should not be interpreted to mean that we have to accept evolution now, either. Or that if we don’t we are stupid or in denial. Evolution is a respected theory at this point in time. Yet there is still a non-trivial number of respectable minds out there who don’t fully accept it. …And then there are the not-so-respectable minds like mine who simply believe that our God – who is sustaining Gemma di Giorgi with a scientifically impossible eyesight without pupils all these years and to this day is doing many other miracles (consider that every saint has to have a scientifically unexplainable miracle before being canonized) – He could surely have taken some temporal short-cuts when He created the universe. That, of course, will never be factored into the “pure science” found on talkorigins and other such sites, which is why i respect them as people who are probably smarter than me, but who are very likely wrong about this and many other more important things too.

 

[PhilVaz]

hermit << You say that Christians are also at liberty to believe in a “flat earth”. I hadn’t heard that, but if i understand you correctly, that is a different scenario. Evolution, if it occurred, happened in the distant past. The round earth we are on in the here and now has been viewed from space in my lifetime. i consider it to be a verifiable fact. Evolution is not a verifiable fact in this sense. >>

Evolution has been observed in your lifetime. I’m not sure how much evidence you require (long version, short version), but geologists, biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc have been convinced of evolution based on the scientific evidence collected over the past 150 years. As pointed out many times, evolution is both a fact (it happened) and a theory (how it happens). I’m glad you accept the spherical earth, but you didn’t comment on the fixed earth idea, perhaps you have doubts.

hermit << Yet there is still a non-trivial number of respectable minds out there who don’t fully accept it. … >>

Please name them. However you aren’t allowed to refer to anyone from the Discovery Institute, nor lists made by the Discovery Institute. I commend to your attention Project Steve.

Phil P

 

[JSmitty2005]

I was watching a show today on EWTN and the priest said that the First Vatican Council infallibly declared that man can recognize the existence of God from pure reason by meditating on creation. How does one do this with regards to the theory of evolution?

 

[Donald45]

JSmitty2005:

I was watching a show today on EWTN and the priest said that the First Vatican Council infallibly declared that man can recognize the existence of God from pure reason by meditating on creation. How does one do this with regards to the theory of evolution?

This is certainly true, and theologians call it “natural theology.” Yet, it would not be proper to refer to such a thing as “science,” as Intelligent Design proponents presume to do. Arriving at theism through a rational reflection on nature is an exercise in theology, not science.

To answer your specific question, the natural process of biological evolution reveals the Creator every bit as much as (or more than) any other outworking in nature. The more the Christian studies and comes to understand it, the more appreciative he becomes of the reality of God’s providential activity in the created order.

One last comment on “design in nature,” and this from the great convert to the faith, John Henry Cardinal Newman: “I believe in design because I believe in God, not in God because I see design.”

God bless,
Don

 

[urban-hermit]

Evolution has been observed in your lifetime. I’m not sure how much evidence you require (long version, short version), but geologists, biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc have been convinced of evolution based on the scientific evidence collected over the past 150 years. As pointed out many times, evolution is both a fact (it happened) and a theory (how it happens). I’m glad you accept the spherical earth, but you didn’t comment on the fixed earth idea, perhaps you have doubts. …

I cannot really argue well from a scientific angle since i am not a scientist. Like most people, I have to judge credibility in large part by how trustworthy the source is. But I have tried to read the web links about how evolution is a “fact”, and one of the first things that struck me is that they use a slightly different definition of the word “fact”.

…Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. …(source)

In discussing evolution from a Catholic perspective, it’s kind of important to agree on the definition of the word “fact”. As i mentioned in my previous post, i am interested in discerning what is indisputably true. Maybe evolution is a “fact” on talkorigins.org, but … i would not say most people in general understand the word “fact” as a term of scientific jargon. It means something is true for sure in plain english.

Catholicism is a great place to be if you’re like me and you’re wondering what things can and should be believed with “absolute certainty” (yes there is such a thing). So far at least, evolution is not one of them.

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

I commend to your attention Project Steve.

Phil P

Why ID Has No “Project Steve”

 

[buffalo]

cathologos:

Another Vatican voice on Intellgent Design:

Vatican astronomer joins evolution debate

I am in agreement. ID should ne taught in a mandatory metaphysics class, along with any other “science” that is theory.

 

[urban-hermit]

PhilVaz:

hermit << Yet there is still a non-trivial number of respectable minds out there who don’t fully accept it [evolution]. … >>

Please name them. However you aren’t allowed to refer to anyone from the Discovery Institute, nor lists made by the Discovery Institute. I commend to your attention Project Steve.

Phil P

Well … your rule about excluding all the PhD’s on Discovery Institute’s list … why? Does that mean that none of them are “respectable minds”?

There really are a non-trivial number of respectable minds out there who don’t buy the standard evolution package. I didn’t look for non-scientists, but, if i can’t refer to the Discovery lists, i’ll refer to the Creation Research Society, which claims to have 1700 members, 650 of whom have earned postgraduate degrees in recognized areas of science. i know right? - you’re thinking, “creationists? …” But i am kind of a creationist and I found an interesting story in one of their newsletters about a debate they had with Dr Richard Dawkins back in 1986 at Oxford. They lost the debate, but the score was 198 to 115 . Pretty respectable in such a prestigious place for an idea that is painted as having no scientific merit whatsoever. And that was way back in 1986. I wonder how a debate with Intelligent Design proponents would go? It seems Dawkins now has a policy of not dignifying critics of evolution with a debate… but if newspapers and magazines (and bookstores) keep giving Intelligent Design exposure, that strategy might backfire.

 

[urban-hermit]

buffalo:

I am in agreement. ID should ne taught in a mandatory metaphysics class, along with any other “science” that is theory.

Why do they teach evolutionary theory in schools anyway? in what grade is it generally taught? i mean, what is being communicated to kids who study evolution? Is it a necessary subject? i don’t remember ever studying it and i turned out sort of ok

 

[Evan]

Obviously, anyone who considers intellegent design as perhaps a better theory than evolution, would not be a “respectable mind”.

I would accept me as having a “respectable mind”. But I don’t know what is required.
I have a Ph.D. in Mathematical Analysis. (You know: probablity, calculus, differential equations… that kind of stuff)
I have 25 years experience.
I have attended seminars on Evolution as presented to non-specialists.
Is evolution so difficult to understand, that the only “respectable mind” would be someone who has a vested interest in the present theory, ie works in the field?
Is it that much harder to understand than some of the simple theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity?

I suspect any theory that has to redefine random in such a way as to exclude the way it is defined in Mathematics. For science without math is hypothesis. The hypotheis is properly replaced by a mathematical expresssion before a theory can be tested.

I don’t believe the scientists who work in the evolutionary field, use a definition of randomness that is at odds with the mathematical theory of probability.

 

[Evan]

PhilVaz:

Evolution has been observed in your lifetime.

I’m not sure how much evidence you require (long version, short version), but geologists, biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc have been convinced of evolution based on the scientific evidence collected over the past 150 years.

The greatest arguments of intellegent design that I have heard were based on the origin of life, not on evolution. Certainly evolution has problems and successes as would any semi-phylosophical theory this early in the game (it’s only 150 years old).

The greatest obstical for those who would argue agains ID is the origin of life. Evolution says nothing about this (no evolution till life begins).

The subject is usually skipped (see all the web pages listed in the quote). But it is the most important question. Because the simplest life form has to have ALL parts working or it’s dead! (plus it must have a ?vegitative? soul … new thread: creation of live, creation of first soul (non-human) )

 

[The_Barbarian]

Keep in mind that the contributors to this site freely admit, as they must, the flaws in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution theory

Tell me what you think the “flaws” are.

including the intractible questions of the origin of life itself and of matter itself.

These are not part of evolutionary theory. Wouldn’t you be more effective in fighting evolution, if you knew what it was?

 

[Evan]

The Barbarian:

These are not part of evolutionary theory. Wouldn’t you be more effective in fighting evolution, if you knew what it was?

This thread is on Intellegent Design. Are you in the wrong thread? Evolution is part of what ID discusses, but ID considers all the history of the universe. It is not restricted to Evolution.

 

[Jason_Meyers]

Aaron I.:

Okay, evolution cannot have taken place randomly. I assert this both because Catholics can’t believe and random evolution and because it logically doesn’t make sense.

To quote from Pope Benedict XVI from paragraph 69 of Human Persons Created in the Likeness and Image of God

But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.

By contingent processes, he is refering to an essentially random process. So it is possible to believe that “random” processes and still be Catholic.

Just a few examples of random processes from biology:

1. If you are a male, each of your sperm has a “random” assortment of your chromosomes (1 each of the 23 pairs). There are 2^23 (~8,400,000) possible chromosomal combinations from your chromosomes not taking into account recombinations between chromosomes. In the act of creating a child, you will put out millions of sperm which will race to the egg (which will have one of the 2^23 chromosomal combinations from your wife). The final result is a child that is one of 2^46 possible combinations of chromosomes, since each chromosome is inherited independent of the other. Does this mean that each child is random, or just that the process by which they were created includes random elements?
2. Your immune system uses mutation and natural selection to combat new, unknown invaders. Basically, the immune cells that make antibodies have polymerases that make more errors than standard polymerases. Cells that make “random” mutations in their antibody-producing region that produce antibodies that match the new invader are preferentially selected for and will survive to produce a clonal line that will keep you fairly immune to that insult for the rest of your life. Cells that make useless mutations do not survive. Is your ability to combat disease random? Not at all. If your immune system functions well, it is virtually certain that you will be able to defeat the new variant of the cold this winter. Although the process of immunity is based on a random process, the immune system is pretty good at attacking unknown viruses and bacteria. We just could not predict a priori the exact sequence of DNA that the cells will generate to beat that virus or DNA. We know, though, that a healthy immune system will use this “random” process to almost certainly generate antibodies to a vaccine to allow immunity against whatever virus/etc. the vaccine is directed against.

“Random” in scientific circles does not mean “senseless” or “purposeless”. Many experiments have been done showing directed mutation of proteins toward a selected goal, but where the specific sequence of the mutations could not have been predicted ahead of time.

Jason

 

[JSmitty2005]

Okay, I am about to be sarcastic, but this is what I learned about the universe in public high school (I just graduated). Please correct any errors:

Within the theory of evolution/the big bang, God created hydrogen. All other elements were formed through fusion of hydrogen. Then, these molecules eventually decided to team up and form some amino acids and proteins all by themselves! Over time, they turned into microscopic organisms which turned into sponges which turned into fish which turned into amphibians which turned into reptiles which turned into birds which turned into mammals. One really smart type of mammal was the monkey. Over time, the monkey’s tail fell off and he went bald, but he got an opposable thumb and was able to walk upright…this is what we call a human. THE END.

Well, that’s what I was taught. So, if what all the pro-evolutionists are saying is true, and you can still believe in God and Christianity, then this is what you end up with:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That just seems illogical. Either evolution is false and traditional Christian teachings are true or evolution is true and all religion is man-made (which is coincidentally what most evolution supporters promote - I wonder why? ). Why do you think secular extremist groups like the AU and the ACLU are so opposed to God, His Creation, and religion altogether - but especially Christianity?! It’s all an interconnected attack on the Faith.

 

[JSmitty2005]

JSmitty2005:

God created hydrogen.

Of course in public school, we were never taught that God created anything. However, we were taught that in the beginning, hydrogen was all there was and therefore were led to believe that it is the only thing that God could have possibly created since, of course, he wasn’t involved with anything else from there on out (which sounds strangely similar to deism). Please help me out with this. It just doesn’t seem logical for someone to be able to believe in both Christianity and Darwinism - and both sides are saying that.