Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
If so, every organism that is brought forth by other organisms is proof that God is not omnipotent over the world. But it’s not so; an omnipotent being is perfectly capable of producing such a world.

If you assert that He cannot do this, you have departed from the teaching of the Church.

Barb - I have repeatedly shown you where you have departed from the constant teaching of the Church.

No, you have assailed me for mentioning the Church’s teaching on evolution and science. Because you do not agree with the teaching of the Church, you simply have denied what it says.

And now you question me?

There’s no need. You have set yourself outside the Magisterium of the Church. I’m merely acknowledging what you said.

I simply was making a distinction between omnipotence and almighty.

It remains true that God is perfectly able to make a universe in which contingency serves His purposes. This was noted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI. That you don’t agree with them is your doing, not mine.

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian observes:
If so, every organism that is brought forth by other organisms is proof that God is not omnipotent over the world. But it’s not so; an omnipotent being is perfectly capable of producing such a world.

If you assert that He cannot do this, you have departed from the teaching of the Church.

No, you have assailed me for mentioning the Church’s teaching on evolution and science. Because you do not agree with the teaching of the Church, you simply have denied what it says.

There’s no need. You have set yourself outside the Magisterium of the Church. I’m merely acknowledging what you said.

It remains true that God is perfectly able to make a universe in which contingency serves His purposes. This was noted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI. That you don’t agree with them is your doing, not mine.

So you are denying the constant teaching of the Catholic church? Reconcile this.

 

[anthony022071]

It refers to the way He created. God uses nature to create many things, such as life, new living things, and new species.

God creates things out of nothing,outside of time. He does not need nature to create,he uses natural causes to bring forth into nature what he creates outside of nature. He calls all things into being.

stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/
< Let us begin again with the first sentence of the Bible: “in the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1). “Bereschit bara,” says the Hebrew text. “Bara” is a word used in the Bible only for God. Only God creates. The Hebrew word is used exclusively for the creative activity of God. The Catechism (290) says that in these first words of scripture three things are being affirmed:

1. The eternal God has called into existence all that exists outside of Him. He has created everything, heaven and earth. The first sentence of the Bible does not say that God gave a signal or a push in the beginning, but that He called into being everything that in any way exists.
2. He alone is the creator. “Bara” always has God as its subject. He alone can call into being.
3. All that exists, heaven and earth, depends on God who gives it being. >

< 3. We have now to mention a third difficulty. The doctrine of creation says that God did not create in time, at some point on a time line. His creative act is not a temporal act. I know that this is hard to understand. All that we experience is experienced on the time line of yesterday, today, tomorrow (there is the beginning of this catechesis and the end of it). The creative act of God is not the first act in a long stretch of time, it is not once done and then over with, as if God has, as it were, done His job and can now put His hands in His pockets.

No, “in the beginning God created…” This beginning is always in God’s eternity. For us creatures it is a temporal beginning. Once I began to be 60 years ago. For God there is no temporal beginning. Once the universe began to be 14 billion years ago, but God’s creative act is not in time, He rather creates time. He is eternal. And His act of creating is not accomplished in this or that moment, but He calls the world into being and holds it in being. Creation takes place now, in the now of God. >

 

[nuntym]

My opinion on evolution will always be as G.K. Chesterton said in Orthodoxy:

If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time.

His understanding on evolution, from what he said here, seems to be flawed. But his theological/philosophical stance is, I think, dead on.

Please do not limit what God can and cannot do.

 

[rossum]

You state that God does interfere with the laws of nature but that this is not the “normal course of events”. I would think that we’d need some science to determine whether it was normal or not.

Agreed. The sun rose in the east this morning. Was that a miracle or not? The general view is that it was not because science tells us that the sun rises in the east every day because of the rotation of the earth around its axis. Science describes the normal operation of the material world. Science is so successful because miracles are rare, so rare that we can ignore them for most practical purposes. I do not need to have a contingency plan for what to do if the sun rises in the north - a miracle - but I do need a contingency plan for what to do if it rains - much more common.

This point is absolutely critical to the work of evolutionists since if it could be shown that God does interfere with the laws of nature in the normal course of events, then this fact would need to be understood and seriously factored into the speculations of evolutionists (and other scientists).

If God interferes constantly and consistently then science would not be able to distinguish between that and a consistent natural event. Science looks for patterns and consistencies in the material world. It is precisely the intermittent, inconsistent pattern of miracles that distinguishes them from normal events. Not everyone who prays for a cure gets cured by their prayer; the answer to many prayers is “no” rather than “yes”.

Since God does intervene in nature, then this statement is not correct.

I allow for occasional intervention, but not for regular consistent large-scale intervention in material things.

Not all of material reality is explainable through natural laws since we’ve already established that God is the explanation for some (as yet unidentified and unmeasured) aspects of material reality – those cases where He intervenes.

A classic God of the gaps argument. It is not wise to put your God into a gap marked “Science cannot explain this yet” because science has a way of narrowing the gap and hence reducing any God you are trying to squeeze into it. “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved” - Bonhoeffer.

In order to draw that conclusion, you must be able to measure the effects of this supernatural action.

My point was that there are no material effects of transubstantiation, it affects the Thomist “substance”, not the Thomist “accident”, wheras science only deals with what Thomists would call “accident”.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

The general view is that it was not because science tells us that the sun rises in the east every day because of the rotation of the earth around its axis.

This is much different than what we should expect to see from evolution. The theory is that nature self-assembled itself to created the diversity of living things that we see in the world. Therefore, when we do not see nature self-assembling to create things like this, then the general view cannot be that this happens on a daily basis.

Science is so successful because miracles are rare, so rare that we can ignore them for most practical purposes.

Again, this is an assumption. You initially asked why God would intervene in nature. At this point, you do not know if God intervenes rarely or frequently.

If God interferes constantly and consistently then science would not be able to distinguish between that and a consistent natural event.

As I stated before however, positing the presence of an all-powerful God anywhere in the process means that we have to decide how often and how much God intervenes. I think the common view is that if God intervenes, He does so in a constant, uninterrupted manner so that his intervention is indistinguishable from the natural laws themselves.

But how was this conclusion reached? You’re asserting that miracles are “rare”, but you also asked the question why God would intervene at all in nature. Science cannot answer these questions. The assumption that natural laws alone (without interventions by God at varying levels of influence) are reponsible for the development of nature would be a false first premise.

Science looks for patterns and consistencies in the material world. It is precisely the intermittent, inconsistent pattern of miracles that distinguishes them from normal events.

While some claim that the process of evolution is a consistent pattern, I think it’s easy to show that there are many inconsistencies, contradictions and unresolved issues in the evolutionary plan.

I allow for occasional intervention, but not for regular consistent large-scale intervention in material things.

This strikes me as an assumption about how God did things. We could look at the Big Bang, for example, and propose that God is the cause of that event. That is clearly a large-scale intervention. One could propose also, as some have, that the Cambrian explosion was a “biological Big Bang” – a large-scale intervention by God. We could mention that God intervenes (in the Catholic view) in the creation of every human being.

So, this brings us back to our original question. Why would God intervene in His laws and processes?

I don’t think you’ve answered that yet, except to say that you believe God does so only “rarely” and in ways that “we can ignore”.

Given that evolutionary theory claims that all things emerged from natural laws alone – even if God intervened in the process in “small scale” and “intermittent” ways, this would falsify that theory.

A classic God of the gaps argument. It is not wise to put your God into a gap marked “Science cannot explain this yet” because science has a way of narrowing the gap and hence reducing any God you are trying to squeeze into it.

Given that science cannot explain the origin of the “substance” of all living things, the soul of man, the nature and attributes of God, the origin of mirculous or supernatural events then God always has a very large “gap” to dwell within. Some scientists also recognize gaps that come from probability studies – this is how they should conclude that certain events are impossible on the natural order.

“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved” - Bonhoeffer.

This would prevent us from speculating on the theological impact of the Big Bang, for example (whether it is consistent with Christian theology or not). Since our knowledge is a “gap”, then supposedly we cannot have God fill that gap. There is another unproven assumption that science is capable of even understanding the full scope of it’s focus – namely the material universe.

In other words, science assumes that there are no “gaps” that it is incapable of understanding eventually. For myself, I see this as arrogance in the face of reality. The multiverse hypothesis is a very good example of this. Faced with strong evidence that the singularity that lead to the origin of the universe requires a First Cause, a new “explanation” arrives – an infinite number of universes.

This is the kind of fantasy-thinking that supposedly has “narrowed the gaps” in our knowledge.

I find exactly the same kind of fantasy-speculation within the world of evolutionary thought also.

 

[rossum]

This is much different than what we should expect to see from evolution. The theory is that nature self-assembled itself to created the diversity of living things that we see in the world. Therefore, when we do not see nature self-assembling to create things like this, then the general view cannot be that this happens on a daily basis.

An embryo self-assembles in its mother’s womb/egg/whatever. We see this on a daily basis.

Again, this is an assumption. You initially asked why God would intervene in nature. At this point, you do not know if God intervenes rarely or frequently.

Is the sun rising in the east a miracle or not? How can you tell? If everything is a miracle, then miracles cease to be special.

I think the common view is that if God intervenes, He does so in a constant, uninterrupted manner so that his intervention is indistinguishable from the natural laws themselves.

But how was this conclusion reached? You’re asserting that miracles are “rare”, but you also asked the question why God would intervene at all in nature. Science cannot answer these questions. The assumption that natural laws alone (without interventions by God at varying levels of influence) are reponsible for the development of nature would be a false first premise.

Good point, I will rephrase then: “detectable miracles are rare”. If the sun rising in the east is actually a miracle then it cannot be detected as such because it happens regularly and consistently. The traditional definition of a miracle is something exceptional - like walking on water. If we could regularly and consistently walk on water then it would cease to be a miracle. Walking on ice (frozen water) is not a miracle because we can do it regularly and consistently. Walking on liquid water is a miracle because we cannot do it regularly and consistently.

This strikes me as an assumption about how God did things. We could look at the Big Bang, for example, and propose that God is the cause of that event.

The Big Bang is indeed large, but it is not regular on any timescale we are aware of.

We could mention that God intervenes (in the Catholic view) in the creation of every human being.

The soul is immaterial, and not detectable by science.

Given that science cannot explain the origin of the “substance” of all living things, the soul of man, the nature and attributes of God, the origin of mirculous or supernatural events then God always has a very large “gap” to dwell within.

The soul and God are outside the boundary of science. As for the origin of the mass/energy of the universe then science is working on it. One of the more interesting ideas is that the total mass/energy of the universe is zero and hence its origin involves no difficulties.

Some scientists also recognize gaps that come from probability studies – this is how they should conclude that certain events are impossible on the natural order.

Some scientists concluded that a bumblebee could not fly. A scientific probability calculation is as good as the model on which it is based. A faulty model will give a faulty result, as with the bumblebee. Any scientific conclusion of impossibility can only ever be provisional, since all scientific conclusions are provisional.

In other words, science assumes that there are no “gaps” that it is incapable of understanding eventually. For myself, I see this as arrogance in the face of reality.

Science sets itself boundaries. Outside those boundaries it knows that it can never fill any existing gaps at all. Inside those boundaries it knows that there are many gaps, but it has not yet found a gap that it cannot in principle fill. Such gaps may exist, but so far we have not found any. Parts of string theory are getting very close since they require measurement on a much finer scale than we have currently available, but as of now there are no known unfillable gaps within the boundary of science.

Bonhoeffer’s warning is a good one. Gods like Thor and Zeus were fitted into the gap called “what causes thunder and lightning”, and look what happened to them.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

An embryo self-assembles in its mother’s womb/egg/whatever. We see this on a daily basis.

We do see that. But if that’s an analogy for evolution, we see certain specific things in the embryo’s development that we don’t see in the claims of evolution. We see embryos self-assembling in a predictable and consistent manner.

Good point, I will rephrase then: “detectable miracles are rare”.

True, but even by adding the modifier “detectable” we’ll have a problem with this. As I see it, science does not accept that there are any miracles. I think Catholic scientists should be free to include miracles as a part of their framework, but hardly any do that.

Walking on ice (frozen water) is not a miracle because we can do it regularly and consistently. Walking on liquid water is a miracle because we cannot do it regularly and consistently.

Yes, agreed. But the interventions of God in nature are different from what we’d call miracles. It really gets back to your original question – “Why would God …?” To answer this, we have to talk about God and what He does. For example, why did Jesus walk in the water? That was a miracle that was meant to show something and communicate to people.

If the miracles that God works to intervene in natural laws are basically the same kind of thing (special acts intended to communicate to people), then we wouldn’t expect God to work any interventions that we couldn’t readily see. Otherwise, we’d miss the point of the miracle.

But is it true that God only works miracles that we can detect? If so, then science would be right to say that whatever we observe in nature is either a product of natural laws or a miracle. So, when we see it’s not a detectable miracle, it’s only the product of “unguided natural laws”.

But I cannot follow that reasoning, even though it seems consistent at the surface. Again, if God intervenes at all – and … we know that God is infinite, all-powerful and the creator (of something), then we’d have to do some research to figure out what God will or won’t do over time – perhaps in ways that are invisible to us.

The Big Bang is indeed large, but it is not regular on any timescale we are aware of.

Agreed, it’s not a regular event – but it does prompt the question … “if God created the Big Bang, what other things does he create like that?” Is that the only massive intervention in nature that God had, or are there others? We see the power at work, so we know it’s possible. What we don’t know is how often other, lesser “big interventions” happened.

Bonhoeffer’s warning is a good one. Gods like Thor and Zeus were fitted into the gap called “what causes thunder and lightning”, and look what happened to them.

I think this might say a lot about the religions of Thor and Zeus also – especially in comparison with Catholicism.

 

[anthony022071]

An embryo self-assembles in its mother’s womb/egg/whatever. We see this on a daily basis.

It isn’t a matter of self-assembling. The processes of life happen in the first place because of the presence of spirit.

Is the sun rising in the east a miracle or not? How can you tell? If everything is a miracle, then miracles cease to be special.

Miracles are so called if they are out of the ordinary.
The existence of the universe is due to supernatural act,whether or not we consider it a miracle.

The soul and God are outside the boundary of science. As for the origin of the mass/energy of the universe then science is working on it. One of the more interesting ideas is that the total mass/energy of the universe is zero and hence its origin involves no difficulties.

With zero mass and energy,nothing exists.

Some scientists concluded that a bumblebee could not fly. A scientific probability calculation is as good as the model on which it is based. A faulty model will give a faulty result, as with the bumblebee.

It doesn’t take a scientist to see whether or not a bumblebee can fly.

Any scientific conclusion of impossibility can only ever be provisional, since all scientific conclusions are provisional.

Then people should stop claiming that macro-evolution is a fact.

Science sets itself boundaries. Outside those boundaries it knows that it can never fill any existing gaps at all. Inside those boundaries it knows that there are many gaps, but it has not yet found a gap that it cannot in principle fill. Such gaps may exist, but so far we have not found any.

There’s innumerable gaps in the knowledge of the reproductive histories of species. There’s a gap in abiogenesis theory between non-living chemical processes and living organisms.

Parts of string theory are getting very close since they require measurement on a much finer scale than we have currently available, but as of now there are no known unfillable gaps within the boundary of science.

There’s a fundamental gap in string theory – strings can’t be seen to exist.

Bonhoeffer’s warning is a good one. Gods like Thor and Zeus were fitted into the gap called “what causes thunder and lightning”, and look what happened to them.

Thor and Zeus didn’t lose credibility because people said they caused thunder,they lost credibility when they were taught about the Christian God. The pagan gods were identified with the natural elements. In many cases,the natural elements were personified and called gods. This way of thinking bears a close resemblance to the way scientists think. Lacking a Creator,scientists speak of natural selection,process,mutation much like the ancient Greeks spoke about Strife,Necessity and Fate.

 

[anthony022071]

Common descent is a much broader claim than mere natural selection, which even most creationists admit. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, admits it is a fact.

It is a fact that humans share a common descent from two human parents.

The Pope acknowledges the evidence for natural selection as part of the evidence for comon descent.

I acknowledge it too,since it exists. But the evidence does not amount to the theory. Evidence and theory are two different things.

He says it is. Perhaps you should go and take a look.

No matter how many times I check,he still says “According to a widely accepted scientific account”.

He says it is virtually certain.

According to the widely accepted scientific account. I agree with him that it is virtually certain,in that sense.

It wasn’t that hard to admit, was it?

I’ve always said it. Since God directs natural causes which bring forth creatures,random mutation and natural selection are out of the question. Contingency yes,randomness and nature selecting no.

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

No,he said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry into the evolution of the human body,provided that the opposing viewpoints are also weighed.

As you learned, he doesn’t. In fact, as you know, he pointed out the key element of methodological naturalism; science must confine itself to nature only.

As I’ve taught you,science trespasses onto theological ground in the study of the origins of species,because that subject involves the supernatural as well as nature. God creates creatures,and the natural processes of creatures happen because of the presense of God’s spirit.

You are opposed to the Church’s teaching on this point.

The Church doesn’t teach doctrines of random mutation and natural selection.

It doesn’t. Even Darwin had no theory for such things, only saying that God did it.

Science does presume to explain the origin of life,as you know,in abiogenesis theory.

No. Someone’s had a little fun with your gullibility on that one.

How do you know? Who is this person?

Turns out that it is. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI noted, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been verified.

Where did they mention that? The predictions of evolutionary theory are not to the point of what the theory purports to explain.
Predictions are tangentical to theories.

No individual evolves. But humans evolved from other animals, and the Church has no obejection to that fact.

If individuals don’t evolve,then the human race,being composed of non-evolving individuals,didn’t evolve either. But individuals do evolve in the sense that they grow.

You’ve confused polygenism with evolution.

The theory of evolution has it that humans originated from other species rather than from two human parents. That is polygenism. More than one genetic origin.

You oppose the teaching of the Church on this issue.

Chance is not guided. The definition doesn’t allow for it. The Church doesn’t use bad diction.

It is the process that tends to fit a population to its environment.

So is it a matter of chance,necessity or determinism?

You seem to regard Him as some kind of little middle eastern godling, rather than the omnipotent Creator.

You don’t think God would be omnipotent for creating man immediately from the earth? You must have a low opinion of the God of Genesis.

 

[rossum]

True, but even by adding the modifier “detectable” we’ll have a problem with this.

If something is not “detectable” then it cannot be science. For science we have to be able to detect and measure.

I think Catholic scientists should be free to include miracles as a part of their framework, but hardly any do that.

And Jewish scientists will deny any miracles by a triune God, while Muslim scientists say Allah is responsible. Hindu scientists have a much wider range of deities to pick from. That is not science, it is theology. Science studies the material world.

If the miracles that God works to intervene in natural laws are basically the same kind of thing (special acts intended to communicate to people), then we wouldn’t expect God to work any interventions that we couldn’t readily see. Otherwise, we’d miss the point of the miracle.

That is my point. If the sun rising in the east or walking on ice are miracles then miracles are common and no longer special.

But is it true that God only works miracles that we can detect? If so, then science would be right to say that whatever we observe in nature is either a product of natural laws or a miracle. So, when we see it’s not a detectable miracle, it’s only the product of “unguided natural laws”.

If a miracle is not distinguishable from natural laws then science can say nothing of it. Walking on ice is explainable by natural laws; if it is actually a miracle then science cannot detect it as such. How would you determine scientifically if the miracle of walking on ice was due to God, Krishna, YHWH or Allah?

Science does not aspire to know the truth about everything, it just looks for regularities that govern the material world.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that it is. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI noted, many predictions of evolutionary theory have been verified.

Where did they mention that?

**Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. **
Benedict XVI

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.*
John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy on Evolution

The predictions of evolutionary theory are not to the point of what the theory purports to explain.

This goes again to your ignorance of the theory and what it has predicted and verified. Notice that the Popes have taken the time to learn about it, and disagree with you.

Predictions are tangentical to theories.

No. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated. One more time; learn what science is, and it will help you.

Barbarian observes:
No individual evolves. But humans evolved from other animals, and the Church has no obejection to that fact.

If individuals don’t evolve,then the human race,being composed of non-evolving individuals,didn’t evolve either.

Every human has a genome that does not change. But each new human has a novel genome. And that is evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
You’ve confused polygenism with evolution.

The theory of evolution has it that humans originated from other species rather than from two human parents. That is polygenism.

No, that is evolution. Polygenism says that all humans descended from more than two people. That is not a requirement of evolution.

Barbarian observes:
You oppose the teaching of the Church on this issue.

Chance is not guided.

Let’s take a look…

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).
Benedict XVI

God is a lot more powerful and effective than creationists are willing to let Him be.

Regarding natural selection:
It is the process that tends to fit a population to its environment.

So is it a matter of chance,necessity or determinism?

Natural selection is not a random process, since it is directed by specific factors in the environment and the population.

Barbarian regarding anthony’s view of God:
You seem to regard Him as some kind of little middle eastern godling, rather than the omnipotent Creator.

You don’t think God would be omnipotent for creating man immediately from the earth?

Could an almighty Creator be able to do what an inferior deity might do? Of course. Would he? Evidently not.

You must have a low opinion of the God of Genesis.

As you see, those who acknowledge His creation as it is, are highly impressed with Him. As St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe, with the potential within it to become all things, and it produced them, as time passed.

This is the Catholic conception of creation, one in which evolution is a consistent part.

For the Protestants who are not happy with the Church and with doctors of the Church like St. Augustine, this is unacceptable. For Catholics, it is perfectly understandable, and consistent with our understanding of God.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Common descent is a much broader claim than mere natural selection, which even most creationists admit. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, admits it is a fact.
It is a fact that humans share a common descent from two human parents…

The Pope acknowledges the evidence for natural selection as part of the evidence for comon descent.

I acknowledge it too,since it exists. But the evidence does not amount to the theory.

Of course not. It is the evidence (as the Pope says) that confirms the theory.

Barbarian observes:
He says it is. Perhaps you should go and take a look.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

Cardinal Raztinger

No matter how many times I check,he still says “According to a widely accepted scientific account”.

Oh, I see what you did. You took a few words from another sentence, and grafted them onto the one above, to make the meaning more acceptable to you. Here’s where it originally was placed:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

Entirely different sentence, with an entirely different subject. Same document, though.

Since God directs natural causes which bring forth creatures,random mutation and natural selection are out of the question. Contingency yes,randomness and nature selecting no.

**Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
con·tin·gen·cy /kənˈtɪndʒənsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-tin-juhn-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies.

1. dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.
2. a contingent event; a chance, accident, or possibility conditional on something uncertain: He was prepared for every contingency.
3. something incidental to a thing. **

It’s like you claim to believe in disasters, but not bad things happening.

Barbarian observes:
As Pope Pius XII said, the Church has no objection to this fact.

Yep. That’s what he said. You may not like it, but that’s a fact.

No,he said that the Church does not forbid the inquiry into the evolution of the human body,provided that the opposing viewpoints are also weighed.

You’re dancing around semantics. Won’t work.

Barbarian on Ratzinger’s statement:
As you learned, he doesn’t. In fact, as you know, he pointed out the key element of methodological naturalism; science must confine itself to nature only.

**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…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.
**

This is the scientific view, also.

As I’ve taught you,science trespasses onto theological ground in the study of the origins of species,

Maybe for some religions. As you see, that’s not true for Christianity.

Barbarian observes:
You are opposed to the Church’s teaching on this point.

The Church doesn’t teach doctrines of random mutation and natural selection.

It teaches that theories of evolution that do not explicitly deny divine providence are not objectionable.

Barbarian, regarding evolutionary theory:
It doesn’t. Even Darwin had no theory for such things, only saying that God did it.

Science does presume to explain the origin of life,as you know,in abiogenesis theory.

We were talking about evoutionary theory. However, the church has no argument with abiogenesis, so long as it does not explicitly deny divine providence. It has no problem with the idea that God created nature which then produced all things as he intended:

With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.

St. Augustine wrote essentially the same thing a long time ago.

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Someone’s had a little fun with your gullibility on that one.

How do you know?

I know science. You don’t. So you’re baffled. Learn about it,and you’ll see.

 

[rossum]

If individuals don’t evolve,then the human race,being composed of non-evolving individuals,didn’t evolve either.

You are wrong here, and showing your misunderstanding of evolution. I do not evolve, but the population of which I am part does. Some individuals die, removing their genes from the population. New individuals are born with new combinations of genes and with new mutations (we each have about 100 mutations). Over the generations the genetic makeup of the population changes. That is how a population of non-evolving individuals evolves. This is basic to the understanding of evolution: individuals reproduce while populations evolve.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Random mutation, natural selection and environmental pressures are inadequate to allow evolution to work. Another element is clearly missing that Pope Benedict addresses:

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

For Christians, the scientific error is made when randomness and natural selection are given as the explanation. Even Father Coyne stated that God did not know if man would be the result of the process. God’s will drove whatever process occurred. He was not in the unoccupied car driving by itself down the street with no destination in mind. This critical information needs to be known by every human being.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Random mutation, natural selection and environmental pressures are inadequate to allow evolution to work.

That’s been tested and directly observed. That’s all that it takes.

Of course, something has to bring all those things into being. As St. Augustine wrote, God produced the universe ex nihilo, and within the original creation were the seeds of all things that it has produced, according to His will.

God is a great deal more capable and intelligent than ID/creationists are willing to let Him be.

 

[reggieM]

If something is not “detectable” then it cannot be science. For science we have to be able to detect and measure.

Then how can science help us to answer the question you posed: “Why would God intervene?”? If science cannot speak about the direct works of God which are undetected (miracles so-defined), but whose results are evident - then why would we limit our interest to scientific explanations for the development of nature?

And Jewish scientists will deny any miracles by a triune God, while Muslim scientists say Allah is responsible. Hindu scientists have a much wider range of deities to pick from. That is not science, it is theology. Science studies the material world.

Again, you’re limiting the possible answers for why God did something to what science can provide. When it is then said that science cannot provide such answers, then how do you propose to determine why God would or wouldn’t do something?

One assumption from theistic evolutionists is that God acts in a consistent and imperceptible way, sustaining natural laws and thus “guiding the process”. This cannot be detected because it “appears as if” natural laws alone are at work. Another view is that God created the natural laws to create all of the things in nature “by themselves”. God has a role in sustaining all things, but the laws work without the need for God to “intervene directly”.
Another view is that God created natural laws, but these have narrow limits with regard to what can be created by them and therefore, God intervenes sporadically, unpredictably and with different degrees of influence in nature. There are other views as well – one that God used special creation to create all living things and the so-called evidence for evolution is illusory.

So any one of these ideas could be accepted by science or not. But one would have to figure out “why God would do” whatever one of those God did. To assume that science has proven that natural laws, working without the influence of God, is the correct explanation of the foundation of nature is just that – an assumption.

When we notice gaps in what evolution produces, the initial assumption that natural laws are the only cause results in the “evolution of the gaps” argument. Where there are gaps, evolution “just fills them” because that is the default position.

If a miracle is not distinguishable from natural laws then science can say nothing of it.

Right. But if a miracle is required in order for something to occur within nature, then the natural law alone is not a sufficient cause of the “creation”. There is a mid-point between “constant miracles” and “no miracles” – and that is “occasional miracles that push, guide, direct or shape” natural processes.

How would you determine scientifically if the miracle of walking on ice was due to God, Krishna, YHWH or Allah?

We would determine that the miracle of walking on water (not ice) is due to something beyond the natural law. We determine that an intelligent cause in nature is due to something beyond the natural law. We determine that specified complexity in the form of coded language in radio signals is not due to natural law. How do we know it is from an Extraterrestrial being? That is merely one of the possiblities for an intelligent agent communicating specified-complex language in space. But we know it’s not what the natural law produces.

Science does not aspire to know the truth about everything, it just looks for regularities that govern the material world.

Some scientists do propose that science aspires to know the truth about everything. Since (supposedly) everything is the product of matter and energy (subjects for science to know about) – then there is nothing that science cannot know the truth about.

 

[anthony022071]

This goes again to your ignorance of the theory and what it has predicted and verified. Notice that the Popes have taken the time to learn about it, and disagree with you.

The first quote is from the paragraph that begins: 63. “According to the widely accepted scientific account,” So it is not an endorsement.

The second quote goes no farther than to say that the results of research “constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

So what? Even someone who doesn’t believe the theory like myself can admit that. An argument in favor of the theory doesn’t make it beyond reasonable doubt.

No. Verified predictions are the way theories are validated. One more time; learn what science is, and it will help you.

The predictions of evolutionary theory are besides the point of what the theory purports to explain. No one has verified a prediction that human beings will evolve from a common ancestor of apes. No one has brought tens of thousands of years of genetic mutations into a labratory to be tested. The predictions are tangentical. They do not validate what needs to be validated.

Every human has a genome that does not change. But each new human has a novel genome. And that is evolution.

All human beings are of the same genetic substance.
The uniqueness of genomes don’t amount to the theory of evolution,just inherent variation within human genetics.

No, that is evolution. Polygenism says that all humans descended from more than two people. That is not a requirement of evolution.

Polygenism means multiple first parents,or multiple sources,
of a species. It does not require that they be humans. So the idea that humans evolved from another species is out of the question.

Let’s take a look…

That quote talks about guided contingency,not the unguided chance that science proposes. And if you really think that natural selection is not about chance,then you shouldn’t be concerned to uphold chance. That shows duplicitity…

God is a lot more powerful and effective than creationists are willing to let Him be.

So powerful that he can create a man from the earth in an instant,contrary to what theistic evolutionists will allow.

Natural selection is not a random process, since it is directed by specific factors in the environment and the population.

Then it is deterministic. That is unacceptable to the doctrine of Creation as well.

Could an almighty Creator be able to do what an inferior deity might do? Of course. Would he? Evidently not.

What deity are you referring to?
How would another deity create man? and how does it resemble the idea that God created man immediately from the earth?
No other deity is recorded as creating mankind with his wisdom and love and blessing mankind as God did. As for what you think is unworthy for God to do – have you forgotten that God was incarnated in the form of a babe born in a manger,and allowed himself to be mocked,abused,and nailed to a cross? Does that offend your intelligence as much as the idea that God created man immediately from the earth? If God can create the universe out of nothing,it should not be too hard to believe that God created man immediately from the earth.

As you see, those who acknowledge His creation as it is, are highly impressed with Him. As St. Augustine wrote, He created the universe, with the potential within it to become all things, and it produced them, as time passed.

The earth produces what God creates,just like a woman produces a person whom God created in an instant.

This is the Catholic conception of creation, one in which evolution is a consistent part.

It isn’t consistent with the Catholic conception of Creation. The Church teaches that God guides secondary causes,whereas science does not allow nature to be guided by God. The
Catholic Church believe that a human being is created immediately,and that would include Adam as well,whereas science teaches that our first ancestors evolved gradually from other species. The theory of evolution only works if a Creator is out of it,which is why science keeps a Creator out of it.

 

[rossum]

Then how can science help us to answer the question you posed: “Why would God intervene?”?

Science cannot help answer that question. The question is a theological one, not a scientific one.

If science cannot speak about the direct works of God which are undetected (miracles so-defined), but whose results are evident - then why would we limit our interest to scientific explanations for the development of nature?

I limit myself to scientific explanations because I can see that science works very well, and I am a Buddhist so I see a very different relationship between my religion and science.

Again, you’re limiting the possible answers for why God did something to what science can provide. When it is then said that science cannot provide such answers, then how do you propose to determine why God would or wouldn’t do something?

My point was that even if we allow that something is due to the action of a supernatural being, we have a large number of possible supernatural beings to pick from and no agreed way to chose between them.

One assumption from theistic evolutionists is that God acts in a consistent and imperceptible way, sustaining natural laws and thus “guiding the process”. This cannot be detected because it “appears as if” natural laws alone are at work. Another view is that God created the natural laws to create all of the things in nature “by themselves”. God has a role in sustaining all things, but the laws work without the need for God to “intervene directly”.

Science can detect the laws of nature and determine the material causes of those laws. Beyond that it cannot go; to science laws that work on their own and laws that work because God sustains them are indistinguishable. Again, this is a question for theology.

Another view is that God created natural laws, but these have narrow limits with regard to what can be created by them and therefore, God intervenes sporadically, unpredictably and with different degrees of influence in nature.

That might be detectable, depending on how sporadic. If we see a flash of lightning, a puff of smoke and a pair of a previously unknown animal then there might be a case for this.

There are other views as well – one that God used special creation to create all living things and the so-called evidence for evolution is illusory.

That is not an attractive option as it makes God a deceiver.

So any one of these ideas could be accepted by science or not. But one would have to figure out “why God would do” whatever one of those God did. To assume that science has proven that natural laws, working without the influence of God, is the correct explanation of the foundation of nature is just that – an assumption.

Science can show that God does not intervene commonly in obvious ways. If the laws of nature operate smoothly then science can only say that it cannot see any disturbance. Science merely asserts that the laws work, and provides some material explantion for why they work. It cannot go into the presence or absence of immaterial explanations.

When we notice gaps in what evolution produces, the initial assumption that natural laws are the only cause results in the “evolution of the gaps” argument. Where there are gaps, evolution “just fills them” because that is the default position.

Imperfect knowledge does not invalidate a position. All science looks for is the best current explanation. If a better explanation comes along then we will use the better explanation in place of the old one. As with Einstein’s gravity replacing Newton’s gravity. At the moment evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life we see on earth.

Right. But if a miracle is required in order for something to occur within nature, then the natural law alone is not a sufficient cause of the “creation”. There is a mid-point between “constant miracles” and “no miracles” – and that is “occasional miracles that push, guide, direct or shape” natural processes.

So far science has only ever found gaps marked “we do not know yet”; it has not found any gaps marked “we will never know”. Until that point, parsimony allows science to act as if miracles do not happen. That does not say miracles don’t happen, but that science needs not take any notice of them.

We would determine that the miracle of walking on water (not ice) is due to something beyond the natural law.

That does not answer my question, how do we scientifically determine if the miracle of walking on water was due to God, Krishna, YHWH or Allah? How do we scientifically distinguish between the actions of the different gods proposed by different religions?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Science cannot help answer that question. The question is a theological one, not a scientific one.

Ok, you’re circling around the point here. I began this by probing into your question “Why would God intervene?” That was the question you posed. I’ve been interested in your response to that and to explore that topic. But I can see that you really don’t want to talk about why God would do or not do - instead, you’re retreating behind the repeated statement that “science cannot speak about God”.

I can understand that your original question might have been a rhetorical device and not something that you really wanted to pursue. That is certainly fine and I can fully understand. I actually jumped in the middle of a point you were making to anthony so I apologize for trying to steer the topic towards my own interest here.

I limit myself to scientific explanations because I can see that science works very well, and I am a Buddhist so I see a very different relationship between my religion and science.

I can understand that. You want to limit yourself to talk about science. I don’t think you should have raised the question “Why would God …?” though. Clearly, you assert that science cannot answer such questions and you’re limiting yourself to science as the only acceptable way to understand things. Yes, I know you are a Buddhist but I thought your question about “Why would God” was directed to the Catholics here and you were open for some kind of explanation about God. But you appear defensive about this and I do not want to push it.

My point was that even if we allow that something is due to the action of a supernatural being, we have a large number of possible supernatural beings to pick from and no agreed way to chose between them.

I think we’re very far from discussing that point. You’ve closed off the path that could get us to that discussion by limiting yourself to whatever can be understood by science alone.

That is not an attractive option as it makes God a deceiver.

At least here, you’re somewhat addressing the point. You assert that the idea is not attractive because it makes God a deceiver. You’re discussing the nature of God here, at least, and that’s where I’ve been trying to get this discussion to move. But again, every time I start that you retreat and assert that “science cannot go into immaterial explanations”. For the record, I understand and accept that (at least for the sake of the orthodox scientific dogmas that are used today).

That does not answer my question, how do we scientifically determine if the miracle of walking on water was due to God, Krishna, YHWH or Allah? How do we scientifically distinguish between the actions of the different gods proposed by different religions?

Again, I believe you’re trying to point out that science can only refer to material, observed phenomena. That was never a part of the debate here that I could see.

But as for how human reason could evaluate the miracle of Jesus’ walking on water … we are not as helpless as it might appear.

First, we could explore the claims and nature of the “different gods” in question. If it was said that one of the gods could not cause someone to walk on water, then that god would be eliminated. If it is shown that any of those gods could perform the task equally well, that’s not a problem since we have at least 3 or more alternative possiblities to start with.

We can see evolutionists doing similar things all the time. This species “probably evolved” due to this or that or some other environmental pressure. It’s a best guess.

In the case of Jesus’ walking on the water, it would be fairly obvious that the best starting point for understanding that miracle would be within the words of Jesus Himself. After that, some parallels with other gods would be pursued.

We have to look at what God has communicated to us and then evaluate that also.

There is a lot that could be done with that topic. But if the point is that science cannot evaluate such things and we are limited to talking about science alone – well, that is the same thing as saying “we are not going to pursue the topic in question any more”.

Again, I can accept that and I sincerely do not want to push this on you if it’s not something you want to discuss.

I do accept your points regarding science (to a degree anyway) and I can understand if you want to stay with science alone.