Intelligent Design

[edwest2]

What is truly amazing and very puzzling is that people post on a Catholic site to seemingly get approval for some theory or idea as written about and commented on by religious leaders. WHY is that? Do scientists wait for the Pope’s endorsement to do scientific research of any kind? That borders on the ridiculous.

The Catholic Church has not decided whether evolution can be proven (Pope Benedict used the word, not me) or not. At present, it has been decided that experiments to do so are not possible. Though the Church does recognize something happened, it is beyond the ability of science to determine this with certainty. Again, why a religious leader’s words should matter one bit is beyond me. Scientific research regarding things that are alive right now will continue. In the meantime, I would ask anyone here to explain why this topic is so important that Catholics need to be told - endlessly - that it is.

For Catholics, we know God created us and the son of God lived among us in the same human body we have. Intelligent Design fits well with that bit of knowledge, which every human being should know.

Cardinal Schoenborn was corrected? Strange. I read the article and I also read a letter imploring the Cardinal to not create a situation where the Church is at odds with the theory. Very strange. Everyone can say what they want, but it was obvious that what the Cardinal wrote was wrong and needed correction? For what?

Ed

 

[Bradski]

I’m afraid I don’t see that logic. They died out so as to make way for the higher forms.

Isn’t that the theory of evolution … the survival of the fittest?

So God makes creatures that He knows aren’t fit enough to survive?

Check this out, I made a tiger. Looks good or what!
What does it eat?
Ummm. Meat.
What meat?
Hey, look. I made an antelope!

In any case, dying out ‘to make way’ is not a prerequisite. If you have two cars and the situation changes so that only the four wheel drive is useful, then the Datsun becomes redundant. It doesn’t need to become redundant to ensure the 4 wheel drive survives.

God made them both. Bit of a waste of time making the Datsun now that the conditions are different. But you can’t blame Him. How was He going to know

Bracketed between best- and worst-case scenarios, then, somewhere between 2.7 and 270 species are erased from existence every day. Including today. independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction–the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html

Read that? Every day. Bad design…

 

[buffalo]

So God makes creatures that He knows aren’t fit enough to survive?

Check this out, I made a tiger. Looks good or what!
What does it eat?
Ummm. Meat.
What meat?
Hey, look. I made an antelope!

In any case, dying out ‘to make way’ is not a prerequisite. If you have two cars and the situation changes so that only the four wheel drive is useful, then the Datsun becomes redundant. It doesn’t need to become redundant to ensure the 4 wheel drive survives.

God made them both. Bit of a waste of time making the Datsun now that the conditions are different. But you can’t blame Him. How was He going to know

Bracketed between best- and worst-case scenarios, then, somewhere between 2.7 and 270 species are erased from existence every day. Including today. independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction–the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html

Read that? Every day. Bad design…

One has to know the designers intentions. You don’t.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Your comments are not complete.

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

• Communion and Stewardship

Ed

Your comments are not complete either.

Also from Communion and Stewardship:

1. 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. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

 

[Hans_W]

In other words by theists or atheists…

Yes, you can be a theist and accept evolution. It doesn’t contradict Christian doctrines.
Or you can be an atheist and accept evolution.

What are you trying to say?

 

[edwest2]

Your comments are not complete either.

Also from Communion and Stewardship:

1. 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. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

And it is quite clear that science is “straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.” Otherwise, there would be no point in clarifying the Church’s actual position: science has useful information and the Church has critical information. Divine providence is required.

Best,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

One has to know the designers intentions. You don’t.

At last. It’s been some time coming. I’d almost lost hope. But with seconds on the clock Buffalos feints, turns and shoots and…nothing but net!

Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

Otherwise known as the ‘You Made A Good Point There And I Got Nothing In Reply’ gambit.

Well played…

 

[Hans_W]

The question is whether you can legitimately infer intelligent design without studying the Designer or saying anything scientific about the Designer. The obsession with removing intelligent design as a possibility is atheist driven, and apparently there are plenty of Christians willing to cooperate with that obsession.

No, the “obsession to remove ID” is not atheist-driven. It is driven by our inquisitive, scientific mindset, which tries to find natural causes for the phenomena we observe.

As I said before, if we scientists haven’t got an answer to a problem, we say “we don’t know yet” and keep looking.

Question: Why are there “plenty of Christians willing to cooperate with that obsession” of getting rid of ID? And I could rattle a whole list of sincere Christian scientists and prominent theologians off for you.

My answer: The more we know about this great universe, the better we understand its working, the more majestic and grander God becomes for me.

What is your answer to the question of why theologians (Protestant and Catholic) don’t accept ID?

 

[Bradski]

I’ve heard a similar argument with regard to the Church and the Crusades, the Church and science, and the Church with pretty much anything negative ever committed by anyone associated with the Church.

Sins of the past are never to be forgotten, or forgiven, apparently.

Anyone associated with the Church? The DI? No, mate. They describe themselves as a ‘Centre of Science’ (that boy at the back - stop sniggering!). And the same group of Creationists are running the show just as before. But excuse me, there’s someone at the back door…

Ah, it’s OK. It was just Creationism trying to sneak in without anyone noticing.

But at least you recognise that what they were doing was a sin.

 

[edwest2]

No, the “obsession to remove ID” is not atheist-driven. It is driven by our inquisitive, scientific mindset, which tries to find natural causes for the phenomena we observe.

As I said before, if we scientists haven’t got an answer to a problem, we say “we don’t know yet” and keep looking.

Question: Why are there “plenty of Christians willing to cooperate with that obsession” of getting rid of ID? And I could rattle a whole list of sincere Christian scientists and prominent theologians off for you.

My answer: The more we know about this great universe, the better we understand its working, the more majestic and grander God becomes for me.

What is your answer to the question of why theologians (Protestant and Catholic) don’t accept ID?

The answer there would be: How do you know this? Can you cite several credible sources? And what does it matter? Again, I ask: Scientific research is dependent on getting Protestants or Catholics to agree to it, or at least some parts of it? Endless talk, going in circles. Meanwhile, scientific research continues without the approval or disapproval of religious people or their leadership.

Very strange.

Nothing science has done to date is grander than raising the dead or giving sight to the blind or cleansing lepers instantly, without the use of any instruments or devices. The constant negative point will be - we are nothing.

Ed

 

[tonyrey]

In other words by theists or atheists… Yes, you can be a theist and accept evolution. It doesn’t contradict Christian doctrines.
Or you can be an atheist and accept evolution.
What are you trying to say?

You align yourself with atheists who believe blind evolution doesn’t require belief in God. It is such an incredibly powerful, creative process it occurred all by itself right up to the present day. Miracles never cease even in a Godless universe…

 

[buffalo]

At last. It’s been some time coming. I’d almost lost hope. But with seconds on the clock Buffalos feints, turns and shoots and…nothing but net!

Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

Otherwise known as the ‘You Made A Good Point There And I Got Nothing In Reply’ gambit.

Well played…

You made a terrible point.

Not only God. To evaluate human designs one must know the intent of the designer. To ask why one must ask.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You align yourself with atheists who believe evolution doesn’t require belief in God.

Huh?

 

[tonyrey]

Huh?

Huh?

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, you can be a theist and accept evolution. It doesn’t contradict Christian doctrines.
Or you can be an atheist and accept evolution.

What are you trying to say?

God not only constantly sustains everyone and everything in existence but He also intervenes because the blind laws of nature are incapable of catering for every contingency. Miracles are not rare events but regular responses to prayer by a loving Father who cares for all His children:

Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Matthew 10:29-30

And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 14:13

Anyone who ignores or rejects the teaching of Christ cannot be a true Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

So God makes creatures that He knows aren’t fit enough to survive?

Check this out, I made a tiger. Looks good or what!
What does it eat?
Ummm. Meat.
What meat?
Hey, look. I made an antelope!

In any case, dying out ‘to make way’ is not a prerequisite. If you have two cars and the situation changes so that only the four wheel drive is useful, then the Datsun becomes redundant. It doesn’t need to become redundant to ensure the 4 wheel drive survives.

God made them both. Bit of a waste of time making the Datsun now that the conditions are different. But you can’t blame Him. How was He going to know

Bracketed between best- and worst-case scenarios, then, somewhere between 2.7 and 270 species are erased from existence every day. Including today. independent.co.uk/environment/animal-extinction–the-greatest-threat-to-mankind-397939.html

Read that? Every day. Bad design…

It must be absolutely atrocious considering that it has survived a mere 3.5 billion years and produced the greatest polluters of this planet but then miracles never cease, do they? Especially for atheists who take great delight in insisting on what an appalling world we live in…

Schopenhauer must have been right when he said it would have been better if life had never existed on this planet. He should have added “or anywhere else”, don’t you think? After all, it is utterly pointless…

 

[Al_Moritz]

Matthew 10:29-30

John 14:13

Anyone who ignores or rejects the teaching of Christ cannot be a true Christian.

Huh? So what does all this have to do with evolution?

Or are you saying that the Pope is not a true Christian because he accepts evolution? (shrug)

 

[Hans_W]

You align yourself with atheists who believe blind evolution doesn’t require belief in God.

It is immensely frustrating to talk about science with people who have no idea of what we are talking about.

Reminds me of the saying: Discussing evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon … (you can look up the rest)

 

[tonyrey]

And it is quite clear that science is “straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science.” Otherwise, there would be no point in clarifying the Church’s actual position: science has useful information and the Church has critical information. Divine providence is required.
Best,
Ed

Irrefutable - unless God is regarded as a inactive Spectator…

 

[tonyrey]

Huh? So what does all this have to do with evolution?

Or are you saying that the Pope is not a true Christian because he accepts evolution? (shrug)

The Pope doesn’t reject Christ’s teaching about Providence and answers to prayer.