Intelligent Design

[Charlemagne_III]

No. We made ourselves as a result of the accumulated unexhausted karma of our previous lives. Our purpose should be to attain nirvana, though some of us do not realise this and follow other purposes. I am not Christian, so I do not share the usual Christian assumptions.

rossum

Did the first living organism make itself? If all living beings are controlled by karma, what previous life dictated that the first living cell deserved to be so lowly on the rung of all Creation?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, I take up the challenge. It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII stated that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation. The Church was not thought of as actually endorsing evolution. That was 64 years ago.

John Paul II said the following in 1996: “[the 1950 Encyclical] considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis worthy of investigation” but that “this opinion should not be adopted as though it were certain, proven doctrine.”

John Paul II then went on to say “Today, almost half a century after publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has let to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis,” and he acknowledged the “series of discoveries” that have led to progressive acceptance “by researchers.”

Then there was the episode in 2006 with Cardinal Schönborn, but he has been corrected.

There is lots I can fill in here, but let’s fast forward to 2014 when Pope Francis had the following to say: “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so, …[God] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Pope Francis also said “God is not a demigod or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S. Catholic teaching traditionally is not at odds with evolution.

The Church doesn’t force you to accept evolution. You are free to belief that God needs to step in from time to time to create a new molecule, if this makes you feel more comfortable.

Does any of these popes deny the possibility of miracles, of God intervening in natural processes? No.
Do you deny that God can perform miracles?

Do you argue that evolution was so blindly operating that the existence of man might have been entirely missed out on had there not been a superintending intelligent design behind the whole affair of Creation?

 

[Hans_W]

A few examples:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31519/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2011/

books.google.co.uk/books?id=mVMJzt_B0xsC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=scandals+in+the+Scientific+Establishment&source=bl&ots=pXIszV_Iwh&sig=h-Tz5BKt7_sIh3QhX93aPqIiYXk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-0CLVKeaKIW6UYz1guAB&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=scandals%20in%20the%20Scientific%20Establishment&f=false

theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
huffingtonpost.com/elaine-mckewon/why-this-is-a-dark-time-for-the-field-of-climate-science_b_5174083.html
books.google.co.uk/books?id=83XpGQO6w5cC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=journal+Nature+scandals&source=bl&ots=TEOUK7m5lw&sig=23EPaXxDOhYmsXhdN51WSjEod84&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hWGLVJSPBYLpaJD4gagD&ved=0CCAQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=journal%20Nature%20scandals&f=false

Great examples! All showing how science is self-correcting.

Yes, individual scientists can be, and are, fraudulent, incompetent, break the copy law, do sloppy work, retract their papers and lots more. But science as a whole marches on because it corrects itself through peer-review and constant search for evidence.

One of your links was telling: “Editors resign as retraction scandal deepens at science journal that caved in to intimidation from climate deniers”.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s called quote mining.

Whatever you call it doesn’t alter the facts.

All the quotes that edwest 2 has copied and repeated once again on this thread have been addressed and answered.

In which posts?

And I do object of being associated with “secularist mentality”

The statement refers to those who claim evolution works without either plan or purpose, thereby implying that belief in God is superfluous because natural explanations are sufficient to explain the existence of all life - including ours…

 

[Hans_W]

Does any of these popes deny the possibility of miracles, of God intervening in natural processes? No.
Do you deny that God can perform miracles?

Do you argue that evolution was so blindly operating that the existence of man might have been entirely missed out on had there not been a superintending intelligent design behind the whole affair of Creation?

I repeat what I said in post #418:

You still don’t get it!

Science doesn’t make any statement on any supernatural guidance. That’s outside of science. You can either believe that evolution is guided by God (Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, John Haught, etc.) or not guided (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.)

 

[tonyrey]

Great examples! All showing how science is self-correcting.

Only when it is compelled to be…

Yes, individual scientists can be, and are, fraudulent, incompetent, break the copy law, do sloppy work, retract their papers and lots more. But science as a whole marches on because it corrects itself through peer-review and constant search for evidence.

The peer-reviewers are restricted to those who support the prevailing mentality.

One of your links was telling: “Editors resign as retraction scandal deepens at science journal that caved in to intimidation from climate deniers”.

They will be replaced by others who are careful not to follow their example rather than use their own judgment.

 

[tonyrey]

You still don’t get it!

Science doesn’t make any statement on any supernatural guidance. That’s outside of science. You can either believe that evolution is guided by God (Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, John Haught, etc.) or not guided (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.)

In other words by theists or atheists…

 

[rossum]

Did the first living organism make itself? If all living beings are controlled by karma, what previous life dictated that the first living cell deserved to be so lowly on the rung of all Creation?

Some living organisms are immaterial, such as angels. Some living organisms are material, such as armadillos. How far back do you want to go? You will need to study Buddhist cosmology so we are both talking about the same universe.

The discussion of the origin of the first material living organism on earth is a much narrower subject. Was that what you intended?

rossum

 

[Bradski]

Yet another example of the false identification of Design with Creationism and Fundamentalism which seems oblivious of the scandals in the Scientific Establishment…

I nearly had cornflakes all over the iPad reading that. Let’s look at a sequence of events:

Peter posts a link to a scientific paper.
The paper is written by people from the Biologic Institute.
That organisation is funded by the Discovery Institute.

A book called ‘Of Pandas and People’ was published in 1989 which goes into great detail about Intelligent Design. Writers include senior fellows of the DI Demski, Behe and Wells and also Meyer who helped found the DI.

Here’s a forward: Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.

When Creationism took a hammering at the Dover Trial, the book was re-issued. Every instance of the words creation or creationism was simply replaced by Intelligent Design or Intelligent Agent.

If you don’t want people identifying ID with Creationism, then do your best to avoid any mention of the Design Institute.

What is that called again?

Is that called empiricism? Or is that called faith?

Neither. It’s called, as I said, trust. If I read an incredibly complex scientific paper I don’t want to have to spend a dozen years getting up to speed on the particular subject so that I can trust the conclusion it makes. I can’t trust the writers of a paper which is involved with evolution if it is funded by the DI. Just as I wouldn’t trust a paper on the benefits of smoking if it were funded by a tobacco company.

This is basic common sense. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I suppose you missed the connection between Bradski being an atheist and his contention that the theory of evolution, at least on his view, means, precisely that no God is needed to bring about life.

He missed it because it doesn’t exist. I have repeatedly said that to all intents and purposes I will accept that God started life and has set up the necessary conditions so that it can evolve. Again, I will say that if you want to believe that God is the cause of all of this, then that’s fine.

Yes, it was by God’s Almighty hand. And we now know how He did it.

But you knew that was my position all along, so I why misrepresent it?

Which 99.9 percent of designs failed?

All the ones that existed over the last few billion years that now don’t exist.

Nobody can miss the apparent and perceived connection between atheism and evolution, unless you have never heard of Richard Dawkins.
It is simply wrong…

Indeed it is. But do you know the one thing you can say about any proponent of ID? It’s even too obvious to mention.

Bwahahahaha!

I imagine you with a twirly moustache doing this, peeping behind a black cape, with a flash of lightning and thunder in the background.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I repeat what I said in post #418:

You still don’t get it!

Science doesn’t make any statement on any supernatural guidance. That’s outside of science. You can either believe that evolution is guided by God (Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, John Haught, etc.) or not guided (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.)

It’s true that God is outside the scope of science.

I’ve never argued anything to the contrary. You don’t get it.

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.

The only way a Christian can logically deny intelligent design is to ridicule it by making it appear as though scientists are being asked see God “swooping down” and personally arranging the molecules to produce abiogenesis.

That is not what they are being asked to conclude. But a scientist can also be a philosopher and a theologian at the same time he is a scientist. And he can draw whatever conclusions he likes from the appearance of intelligent design. Atheists like Richard Dawkins do it all the time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

IAll the ones that existed over the last few billion years that now don’t exist.

Oh, I see. So dying out and being replaced by higher forms of life is a sign of failure?

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?

God, in the grand scheme of things, knew what he was doing.

You and I will die. Not because we failed, but because we need to make room for others.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I take up the challenge. It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII stated that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation. The Church was not thought of as actually endorsing evolution. That was 64 years ago.

John Paul II said the following in 1996: “[the 1950 Encyclical] considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis worthy of investigation” but that “this opinion should not be adopted as though it were certain, proven doctrine.”

John Paul II then went on to say “Today, almost half a century after publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has let to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis,” and he acknowledged the “series of discoveries” that have led to progressive acceptance “by researchers.”

Then there was the episode in 2006 with Cardinal Schönborn, but he has been corrected.

There is lots I can fill in here, but let’s fast forward to 2014 when Pope Francis had the following to say: “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so, …[God] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Pope Francis also said “God is not a demigod or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S. Catholic teaching traditionally is not at odds with evolution.

The Church doesn’t force you to accept evolution. You are free to belief that God needs to step in from time to time to create a new molecule, if this makes you feel more comfortable.

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 rejects the teaching of Christ cannot be a true Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet another example of the false identification of Design with Creationism and Fundamentalism which seems oblivious of the scandals in the Scientific Establishment…

The historical background and funding of the Design Institute have nothing to do with the cogency of the Design argument which dates back to Hesiod, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Plato, Aristotle and the Stoic philosophers. God is far more than the remote First Cause of the deists - who may as well not exist where we are concerned - and the only adequate explanation of the immense beauty of nature, the immense value of life and and the precious gift of love.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, I see. So dying out and being replaced by higher forms of life is a sign of failure?

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?

God, in the grand scheme of things, knew what he was doing.

You and I will die. Not because we failed, but because we need to make room for others.

There would also be no end to evil and injustice… Life without death would be hell on earth!

 

[tonyrey]

Some living organisms are immaterial, such as angels. Some living organisms are material, such as armadillos. How far back do you want to go? You will need to study Buddhist cosmology so we are both talking about the same universe.

The discussion of the origin of the first material living organism on earth is a much narrower subject. Was that what you intended?

rossum

Are we material, immaterial or both?

 

[edwest2]

Why would anyone assume that to be an implication? It certainly isn’t a logical one unless one assumes an unbridgeable gap between naturalism and intelligence as if one or the other can only exist exclusive of each other.

That is, by the way, precisely the underlying assumption that isn’t required and doesn’t make sense, in any case.

Going to an extreme is not the issue. The issue is: can we detect design in DNA, and living things in general? If the answer is yes, why should anyone go home? There’s a lot that scientists who use Bioinformatics do not know. They are attempting to reverse engineer DNA, for example, for the purpose of genetic modification. If genes can be subject to modification safely, diseases can be cured, malfunctioning genes can be returned to proper function, and missing or incorrect genetic information can be spliced out and replaced by the right sequence or a missing section could be spliced in. Sadly, those things cost money and investors will expect a return on their investment. And I use the word sadly because in order to recoup research, development and trials costs will have to be built into the cost of the repair/treatment.

Ed

 

[buffalo]

Great examples! All showing how science is self-correcting.

Yes, individual scientists can be, and are, fraudulent, incompetent, break the copy law, do sloppy work, retract their papers and lots more. But science as a whole marches on because it corrects itself through peer-review and constant search for evidence.

One of your links was telling: “Editors resign as retraction scandal deepens at science journal that caved in to intimidation from climate deniers”.

More like changing. Self correcting it is not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When Creationism took a hammering at the Dover Trial, the book was re-issued. Every instance of the words creation or creationism was simply replaced by Intelligent Design or Intelligent Agent.

If you don’t want people identifying ID with Creationism, then do your best to avoid any mention of the Design Institute.

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.

I think what you mean is: if you don’t want a never to be forgotten identification of ID with creationism to be trotted out ad nauseum, then do your best NEVER to bring up the possibility - at least, in the hearing of Bradski - that anything resembling science could ever come out of the Design Institute. Sins of the past are never to be forgotten, or forgiven, apparently.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I nearly had cornflakes all over the iPad reading that. Let’s look at a sequence of events:

Peter posts a link to a scientific paper.
The paper is written by people from the Biologic Institute.
That organisation is funded by the Discovery Institute.

A book called ‘Of Pandas and People’ was published in 1989 which goes into great detail about Intelligent Design. Writers include senior fellows of the DI Demski, Behe and Wells and also Meyer who helped found the DI.

When Creationism took a hammering at the Dover Trial, the book was re-issued. Every instance of the words creation or creationism was simply replaced by Intelligent Design or Intelligent Agent.

If you don’t want people identifying ID with Creationism, then do your best to avoid any mention of the Design Institute.

Neither. It’s called, as I said, trust. If I read an incredibly complex scientific paper I don’t want to have to spend a dozen years getting up to speed on the particular subject so that I can trust the conclusion it makes. I can’t trust the writers of a paper which is involved with evolution if it is funded by the DI. Just as I wouldn’t trust a paper on the benefits of smoking if it were funded by a tobacco company.

This is basic common sense. Nothing more. Nothing less.

He missed it because it doesn’t exist. I have repeatedly said that to all intents and purposes I will accept that God started life and has set up the necessary conditions so that it can evolve. Again, I will say that if you want to believe that God is the cause of all of this, then that’s fine.

Yes, it was by God’s Almighty hand. And we now know how He did it.

But you knew that was my position all along, so I why misrepresent it?

All the ones that existed over the last few billion years that now don’t exist.

Indeed it is. But do you know the one thing you can say about any proponent of ID? It’s even too obvious to mention.

I imagine you with a twirly moustache doing this, peeping behind a black cape, with a flash of lightning and thunder in the background.

Darn, you make much more sense than most of my fellow theists here (not including Hans W who is on the right side of the issues as well). :tiphat:

 

[edwest2]

Well, I take up the challenge. It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII stated that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation. The Church was not thought of as actually endorsing evolution. That was 64 years ago.

John Paul II said the following in 1996: “[the 1950 Encyclical] considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis worthy of investigation” but that “this opinion should not be adopted as though it were certain, proven doctrine.”

John Paul II then went on to say “Today, almost half a century after publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has let to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis,” and he acknowledged the “series of discoveries” that have led to progressive acceptance “by researchers.”

There is lots I can fill in here, but let’s fast forward to 2014 when Pope Francis had the following to say: “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so, …[God] created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Pope Francis also said “God is not a demigod or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S. Catholic teaching traditionally is not at odds with evolution.

The Church doesn’t force you to accept evolution. You are free to belief that God needs to step in from time to time to create a new molecule, if this makes you feel more comfortable.

Your comments are not complete.

Pope Pius XII: "35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

• Humani Generis

“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