Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[Donald45]

Quote:
“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

So, Kenneth Miller promoted atheism in his biology textbook. This should prove that Darwinism is not science, but rather an atheistic-inspired theory that teaches “all spiritual phenomena” are products of “matter” – an obviously false teaching that conflicts with Catholicism.

First, I would ask where you obtained this quotation. Was it from a copy of the textbook itself, or from a secondary source? Second, it appears that the authors are merely describing the Victorian mindset at the time the Origin was published, and not the actual content of evolutionary theory itself. Your use of this quotation appears highly dubious. I’ll have to see it in its proper context before commenting further.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

Originally Posted by reggieM forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
"I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks." – Charles Darwin: Letter to George Darwin October 1873

Once again, I would ask where you obtained this quote. Seeing that it’s highly unlikely that you own a published copy of Darwin’s Letters, it appears that you’ve simply drawn this quote from a secondary source, the internet, perhaps? Could you list your source, please?

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Don,

The Catholic lives in a relationship with the Living God. You attempting to place science above divine revelation simply will not work. God has the power to perform miracles which still occur today. Doctors, scientists and other professionals are called in by the Church to examine these miracles. Science is very narrow.

However, when science goes beyond its own boundaries, which is happening more and more, it clearly indicates that a preferred ideology, namely atheism, is involved. For those who think Intelligent Design (the real theory, not the political version mentioned here) is false and not science, I can only point to the numerous attempts on the internet to put it down wherever it is found. Why is that? Why are the Defenders of Science ™ so motivated? Is it because of their zeal for accuracy? No. Not at all. The great inescapable fear is that some knowledge of a Creator or Intelligence might seep into the public classroom, that bastion of all things non-God. And those doors can never be breached! Or so they desire.

I believe in a real, personal God. Science is nice for some things but it leaves out the most critical thing. We are told by the Church that man can discover God through natural reason, We don’t need some meddling middlemen under the guise of science coming here and saying: Ya know, science says this or that in relation to your holy book. Keep your science away from my holy book.

So you see Don. This is and will continue to be a battle between two faiths; one that is non-theistic and atheistic and one that is monotheistic. Your going on and on about science will not change God’s role in the development of life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Don, the Catholic lives in a relationship with the Living God. You attempting to place science above divine revelation simply will not work.

I’m simply doing what both theology (including the Pope) and science require, and that is to distinguish between theological statements and scientific statements. I do not “place science above divine revelation” in any way. This is a straw man caricature on your part.

God has the power to perform miracles which still occur today.

…a theological conviction.

Doctors, scientists and other professionals are called in by the Church to examine these miracles. Science is very narrow.

Yes, they’re called in to determine if a natural explanation can be demonstrated, not whether or not a miracle actually occurred. I agree that science has its limits----it is limited to the natural and material world, and cannot extend its investigations to the supernatural or immaterial realm.

However, when science goes beyond its own boundaries, which is happening more and more, it clearly indicates that a preferred ideology, namely atheism, is involved.

I agree with you here. It should be noted, however, that at this point the Church is making a theological determination, not a scientific one.

For those who think Intelligent Design (the real theory, not the political version mentioned here) is false and not science, I can only point to the numerous attempts on the internet to put it down wherever it is found. Why is that?

It’s because ID is a theological conviction masquerading as a scientific conclusion. Thus, it distorts both theology and science.

Why are the Defenders of Science ™ so motivated? Is it because of their zeal for accuracy? No. Not at all. The great inescapable fear is that some knowledge of a Creator or Intelligence might seep into the public classroom, that bastion of all things non-God. And those doors can never be breached! Or so they desire.

For some reason, you apparently need to postulate such a conspiracy theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the motives of some three million working scientists are. Your claim is thus entirely imaginary. In fact, what concerns scientists----theists and non-theists alike----is that religious convictions will be confused for scientific conclusions, thus distorting both. This is precisely what the Pope has criticized with respect to atheists like Dawkins. What you seem to have missed is that it applies equally to* theists** as well*.

Science is nice for some things but it leaves out the most critical thing.

That’s why we have religion.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[The_Barbarian]

A quick check of the net shows it only being used in a cascade by creationist sources, apparently all copying from a single book by two fellows who detest Darwin.

Looks very bad, but I’ll withhold judgement until there’s been time for the person who posted it to provide a checkable source.

Then I may hoot in derision, or marvel at Darwin’s ability to contradict himself about religion.

One or the other.

 

[reggieM]

Originally Posted by reggieM forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
"I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks." – Charles Darwin: Letter to George Darwin October 1873

Once again, I would ask where you obtained this quote. Seeing that it’s highly unlikely that you own a published copy of Darwin’s Letters, it appears that you’ve simply drawn this quote from a secondary source, the internet, perhaps? Could you list your source, please?

You seem surprised that Darwin would say such a thing – in fact, so surprised that you suspect it is a fake. I can understand that. As I read it, it’s such a shockingly blatant admission of his strategy that every Darwinian-defender should have been aware of it by now. But this tells me quite a lot itself. These “uncomfortable” facts about Darwin have been covered-up. He was anti-Christian, as his letters testify.

I noticed a Catholic Darwinist on this forum who saw similar quotes by Darwin and insisted that “Darwin haters” fabricated them. I then pointed to the actual texts of Darwin’s letters.

The quote from Darwin that you requested the source for is his "Letter 9105 — Charles Darwin to George Darwin, Oct, 1873

You can find the entire letter here:

[darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9105.html](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9105.html)

 

[reggieM]

The scientific theory of evolution in no way “attacks Christianity” (indeed, many evolutionists are committed Christians), nor did Darwin use his theory to do so.

I disagree with Darwin’s intention with the use of his theory. I think an honest reading of his religious views shows that he was trying to eliminate God from creation, and he also had a strong animus against Christianity.

Darwin called himself an agnostic and denied the divinity of Christ and he rejected Christianity outright. His mention of God in his later writings was a deception – a means of getting some credibilty among the Protestant leaders of his day.

*“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”
(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)

“Formerly I was led… to the firm conviction of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. In my Journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest, ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body. But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 281)

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

Much of what was released in Darwin’s autobiography was “cleaned up” and G-rated for public consumption; Ian Taylor, in his book In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1984), informs us that many of Darwin’s views on the Bible and Christianity “were deleted by his son, Francis, at the insistence of his widow, Emma, in the version published after his death, as were his views on the Old Testament, namely, what he called, ‘its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc. etc.’…the uncensored version of the autobiography, published by Charles’s granddaughter, Lady Nora Barlow, in 1958, contained some 6,000 words expunged by Francis and Emma, much of which related to Charles’s irreligious nature, and which ‘might embarrass the Darwin name’.”/**

 

[edwest2]

I’m simply doing what both theology (including the Pope) and science require, and that is to distinguish between theological statements and scientific statements. I do not “place science above divine revelation” in any way. This is a straw man caricature on your part.

…a theological conviction.

Yes, they’re called in to determine if a natural explanation can be demonstrated, not whether or not a miracle actually occurred. I agree that science has its limits----it is limited to the natural and material world, and cannot extend its investigations to the supernatural or immaterial realm.

I agree with you here. It should be noted, however, that at this point the Church is making a theological determination, not a scientific one.

It’s because ID is a theological conviction masquerading as a scientific conclusion. Thus, it distorts both theology and science.

For some reason, you apparently need to postulate such a conspiracy theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing what the motives of some three million working scientists are. Your claim is thus entirely imaginary. In fact, what concerns scientists----theists and non-theists alike----is that religious convictions will be confused for scientific conclusions, thus distorting both. This is precisely what the Pope has criticized with respect to atheists like Dawkins. What you seem to have missed is that it applies equally to* theists*** as well.

That’s why we have religion.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

I stand by the words of Cardinal Schoenborn.

“Scientism - by which I mean the philosophy (usually implicit and unrecognized) that modern science is the only way of gaining objective knowledge of reality - must be overcome.”

No, The Church comments about science as science all the time. Richard Dawkins is praised by the atheist and non-theist community, and contributes to the confusion of some in the Christian community.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Darwin makes it clear that he was using “science” to attack Christianity:

**Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.

Letter to Edward Aveling (Son-in-Law of Karl Marx) October 13, 1880**

darwin.gruts.com/articles/2000/marx/

 

[reggieM]

The fact that some Darwinists are atheists does not mean that Darwinism itself is somehow “atheistic.” Actually, most non-religious scientists would describe themselves as agnostics, and not atheists. Science is non-theistic, not atheistic.

Most scientists (about 70% according to independent surveys) do not believe that God exists. Darwinian theory is supported by a culture of unbelief. But it’s true that this does not mean that the theory is necessarily atheistic. But it also does not mean that it can be absolved of communicating an atheistic message either.

This highlights the crux of the problem. The line in red is an inherently theological statement. And, as you admit, “That [a theological conviction] is the…foundation for intelligent design.” ID is an inherently religious position masquerading as “science.”

I can accept that the mention of God is theological. But one can substitute “intelligent cause” and this would be an appropriate subject for scientific study.

Of course, this is a smokescreen, since any supposed ultimate “intelligent cause” would have to be outside of nature (that is, “supernatural”) in order to serve as the cause of nature. And this type of supernatural first cause we call “God.”

I think you’re pre-judging the work to call it a “smokescreen”. The study of intelligent causes in nature does not necessarily refer to supernatural causes.

In the same way that SETI looks for intelligence in space (they assume they’ll find extraterrestrials with “natural intelligence” one could explore nature with the same interest. It’s merely observing phenomena in nature that have the appearance of being designed by an intelligence.

 

[reggieM]

First, I would ask where you obtained this quotation. Was it from a copy of the textbook itself, or from a secondary source? Second, it appears that the authors are merely describing the Victorian mindset at the time the Origin was published, and not the actual content of evolutionary theory itself. Your use of this quotation appears highly dubious. I’ll have to see it in its proper context before commenting further.

I don’t have the textbook itself. I just quoted a site that had that quotation. A similar quote from Mr. Miller’s book was questioned in the Kitzmiller - Dover trial, and it was verified in that source.

 

[Donald45]

You seem surprised that Darwin would say such a thing – in fact, so surprised that you suspect it is a fake.

No, not particularly surprised. However, I wish to verify your perception of Darwin’s words before taking them as such. In any case, even if true, two things are clear: (1) the development of his theory came before the loss of his conventional Victorian faith, and so one cannot properly say that “he made up his theory as a means of attacking Christianity”; and (2) any criticism of religion based upon science on Darwin’s part, while certainly illegitimate, would in no way negate or disqualify evolution by natural selection itself as a scientific theory. Thus, we would conclude that Darwin was wrong in his attempted use of evolution, not that evolution itself is therefore wrong.

He was anti-Christian, as his letters testify.

No one denies (or “covers up”) that Darwin abandoned his conventional Victorian faith around the time of the tragic death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie. (As a father myself, I can certainly empathize with him at this point.) Darwin, from this point, was no longer able to affirm the central tenets of the Christian religion, and he’s forthright in admitting that fact openly. It should be made clear, however, that this does not make Darwin an “atheist,” as some have wrongly concluded. Nor does it suggest that he was an atheist prior to the initial development of his evolutionary theory, as though he somehow “invented” evolution as a way to undermine religion.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

I disagree with Darwin’s intention with the use of his theory.

So would I, if this is indeed the case, just as I disagree with Richard Dawkins’s attempted use of evolution to undermine religious belief. Neither of these cases, however, serves to rule out evolution itself as a valid scientific theory.

…His mention of God in his later writings was a deception – a means of getting some credibilty among the Protestant leaders of his day.

Doubtful. Being a non-Christian did not make Darwin an atheist. His mention of a “Creator” in The Origin of Species is more likely an expression of his agnosticism, an allowance for at least the possibility of divine activity in nature.

**“I had gradually come by this time, * to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.” ***(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 277)
Yes, Darwin no longer believed that the Bible communicated reliable historical information, nor that it was intended to do so.

"I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.”

(Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 1911, Vol. 1, pg 278)

**“I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age.” **
(Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, Michael Joseph, London, 1991, p. 658)
As already acknowledged, Darwin came to a point where he could no longer affirm the central tenets of the Christian faith.

“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

(Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Chatto and Windus, London, 1959, pp. 10, 318)
The doctrine of eternal punishment was a real hinderance to Darwin’s personal faith. He could not reconcile it with the conventional idea of a loving deity.

None of this, of course, means that the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is invalid in and of itself.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

I stand by the words of Cardinal Schoenborn: “Scientism - by which I mean the philosophy (usually implicit and unrecognized) that modern science is the only way of gaining objective knowledge of reality - must be overcome.”

So do I. Note, however, that this is a philosophical statement on the Cardinal’s part, and not a scientific one, which only proves my point.

No, The Church comments about science as science all the time.

No, the Church comments on philosophical arguments that pose as scientific ones.

Richard Dawkins is praised by the atheist and non-theist community, and contributes to the confusion of some in the Christian community.

I agree. And the Church has criticized his illegitimate use of science to undermine religious belief. What is being criticized is not Dawkins’s science, but his philosophical misuse of that science.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Nice try, Don, but it doesn’t wash. I can just refer you to the endless comments by The Barbian about “common descent being virtually certain” etc. Why does any sort of science need any sort of affirmation or approval from the Church?

Nope. Your criticisms do not begin to address what the Church tells its followers, and the world, if they are willing to listen, about science.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Darwin makes it clear that he was using “science” to attack Christianity:

**Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. ~ **Letter to Edward Aveling (Son-in-Law of Karl Marx) October 13, 1880

Only in the indirect sense that Darwin believed that science, done well, would convince those educated in its conclusions that conventional religious beliefs (such as a miraculous creation, a young earth, the story of Noah’s Ark, etc.) were simply untrue. As Darwin himself wrote, this was his view “whether rightly or wrongly.” He recognized, in any case, that even if he were wrong on this point, evolution by natural selection nevertheless stood as a demonstrable scientific theory. His opinion of religion, even if wrong, would in no way change that fact.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[buffalo]

David Deamer: Line Arbitrary Twixt Life & Non-Life

…
My phone conversation with David Deamer follows.
Suzan Mazur: The scientific establishment and the mainstream media are slow to accept that there are mechanisms involved in evolution beyond Darwinian natural selection. Part of the problem is that they are unclear what these other mechanisms are. Can you tell me, for example, what the process of self-assembly is and self-organization and how they differ from one another?
David Deamer: It would be good to have more precise definitions because I’ve tended to use the terms more or less as synonyms. Let’s start with self-assembly, which I define as a molecular process that produces ordered structures from disordered components, yet is energetically downhill, in the sense that an external energy (name removed by moderator)ut is not required to get it to happen.
In contrast, most life processes are energetically uphill. A source of external energy is required for polymerization of amino acids into proteins, which is the main growth process of life. Self-assembly is more like what happens to soap molecules in solution. Do you want me to go into technical detail?

…and

When asking Deamer about the “origin of the gene,” he replied, "I think genetic information more or less came out of nowhere by chance assemblages of short polymers."

 

[edwest2]

So Don, do you believe God can perform miracles?

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Nice try, Don, but it doesn’t wash. I can just refer you to the endless comments by The Barbian about “common descent being virtually certain” etc.

I don’t remember ever being confused with a Pope before. You do know it was Pope Benedict XVI who wrote that, don’t you, Ed?

 

[Donald45]

Most scientists (about 70% according to independent surveys) do not believe that God exists. Darwinian theory is supported by a culture of unbelief. But it’s true that this does not mean that the theory is necessarily atheistic. But it also does not mean that it can be absolved of communicating an atheistic message either.

Evolution no more “communicates an atheistic message” than does gravitation or atomic theory. Such philosophical “messages” must be attached to evolution from outside the theory itself.

I can accept that the mention of God is theological. But one can substitute “intelligent cause” and this would be an appropriate subject for scientific study.

This seems disingenuous at best, since the founders of ID have readily admitted in their own documents that the “Intelligent Designer” is the Christian God.

I think you’re pre-judging the work to call it a “smokescreen”. The study of intelligent causes in nature does not necessarily refer to supernatural causes.

Question: Are these natural “intelligent causes,” or ***supernatural ***ones?

In the same way that SETI looks for intelligence in space (they assume they’ll find extraterrestrials with “natural intelligence” one could explore nature with the same interest. It’s merely observing phenomena in nature that have the appearance of being designed by an intelligence.

What SETI is looking for are natural intelligent causes which are within the scope of scientific investigation, not supernatural causes that are, by definition, simply beyond the scope of science. And, as already mentioned, ID proponents have openly admitted that the "intelligent designer’ is the transcendent God of the Bible.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+