Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[Donald45]

Michael Behe is a good Catholic.

I have no doubt that he is. However, he’s allowed his theological convictions to influence his scientific conclusions, thus distorting both:

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Design.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html

But I would also say that every Catholic must accept creationism and intelligent design theory to some degree.

Properly speaking, “creation” is a theological doctrine, not a scientific concept. Likewise with ID. They have no part in science, strictly speaking.

One reason why many Catholics are turning to Denton, Johnson, Dembski and others is that those critics of Darwinian theory offer better explanations of God’s evident powers in the design and shape of nature, than do the standard Darwinian texts.

What you’ve just described is a theological doctrine, not a scientific concept. So, then, Catholics are actually being attracted by a Protestant doctrinal outlook, rather than any type of scientific viewpoint.

I think more Catholics will enter the Intelligent Design movement and provide even higher quality work than the Protestants have done thus far. Again, Michael Behe is a good example.

The Intelligent Design movement is a theological discussion, and not a scientific one. The issue is God’s activity in nature, which is by definition a doctrinal question. Science is only being employed as a supposed illustration of divine providence. Thus, ID is, at its heart, a theological entity, and not at all a scientific one.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Donald45]

To Donald45 - I don’t think Catholics want to be Protestants or are inspired by Protestants.

One’s sources say it all.

Here is the problem: the biology textbook presents a theory that is shown to be complete in itself: random mutation + natural selection = you. This is, at best, only part of the answer.

This is, however, the whole scientific answer, so far anyway.

All parents and individuals of faith need to teach and be taught that a critical element is missing - God.

[1] They should be taught about divine providence in their religious education courses, given that this is a theological idea, and not a scientific one.

[2] God can hardly be the “missing element” in science, since he is an immaterial entity, and is thus beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Divine truths should be taught as what they are—theological convictions—and not forced to function as what they’re not—scientific conclusions.

Without that critical element, the theory, by definition, is atheistic. Clearly atheistic. It allows for nothing supernatural.

Science is not atheistic----it is non-theistic.

Pope Benedict XVI…

Pope Benedict is a theologian here practicing theology. He is not a scientist practicing science. He doesn’t make the mistake of confusing the two, and neither should we.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[The_Barbarian]

Michael Behe is a good Catholic.

But I would also say that every Catholic must accept creationism and intelligent design theory to some degree.

It would be inconsistent to accept the ID position that the “designer” (IDers won’t call Him the Creator) might be a “space alien”, as advocated by ID inventor Phillip Johnson.

“Creationism” is an adherence to a literalist reading of Genesis, something the Church does not endorse.

One reason why many Catholics are turning to Denton, Johnson, Dembski and others is that those critics of Darwinian theory offer better explanations of God’s evident powers in the design and shape of nature, than do the standard Darwinian texts.

Apparently, it’s not going so well; a lot of the ID clubs in colleges are being taken over by Catholic-hating fundamentalists. And the Catholics are realizing, that they were considered “useful fools” by the people actually running things.

I think more Catholics will enter the Intelligent Design movement and provide even higher quality work than the Protestants have done thus far. Again, Michael Behe is a good example.

The Michael Behe who admitted under oath that ID was science in the same sense that astrology is science? I thought the Catholic position was that astrology was superstitious junk to be avoided.

 

[edwest2]

To Don -

Your statements lead me to believe you did not read what the Pope wrote. Here, on this forum, there are two definitions of the Catholic Church regarding this issue:

1. When speaking against evvolution the Catholic Church knows nothing and is only about faith, morals and theology.
2. Whenever it says anything in support of evolution, suddenly the Pope, or any other Church higher-up, are portrayed as gentlemen and scholars who obviously know what they’re talking about. Example: How many times have you read about Pope John Paul II having “no problem” with evolution?

Nope. For the sake of Catholics everywhere, Pope Benedict, while being careful to identify what science does, has the audacity to comment on its conclusions: you and I are not haphazard mistakes. You and I are not just our genes and environment. For people to believe otherwise is to put them one step closer to atheism. One step closer to believing that the historical reality of Jesus Christ is a myth.

Catholics don’t pray to no one. Our theology is not nothing, There is a relationship going on with the Living (today, not 2,000 years ago) God.

“It is appointed to man once to die and then the judgement.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

To Don - Your statements lead me to believe you did not read what the Pope wrote.

Indeed I did. I’ve also read the recent book published by Ignatius Press, titled Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. I recommend it highly.

1. When speaking against evolution the Catholic Church knows nothing and is only about faith, morals and theology.

Correct. The Church has no expertise to pronounce upon matters of science per se. Only upon theological concepts that sometimes masquerade as science.

1. Whenever it says anything in support of evolution, suddenly the Pope, or any other Church higher-up, are portrayed as gentlemen and scholars who obviously know what they’re talking about.

They’re theologians who recognize that doctrinal questions are not properly part of science, and should not pretend to be such (and vice versa).

…For the sake of Catholics everywhere, Pope Benedict, while being careful to identify what science does, has the audacity to comment on its conclusions: you and I are not haphazard mistakes. You and I are not just our genes and environment. For people to believe otherwise is to put them one step closer to atheism. One step closer to believing that the historical reality of Jesus Christ is a myth.

The Holy Father is wisely pointing out that certain philosophical/theological ideas do not qualify as science, and thus should not be taken as necessary parts of evolutionary theory. He’s not commenting on science per se, but merely on theological ideas posing as science.

Catholics don’t pray to no one. Our theology is not nothing, There is a relationship going on with the Living (today, not 2,000 years ago) God.

Yes, “our theology is not nothing.” You acknowledge, therefore, that this is a doctrinal issue which the Pope is discussing, and not properly a scientific one.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[reggieM]

I have no doubt that he is. However, he’s allowed his theological convictions to influence his scientific conclusions, thus distorting both:

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Design.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html
millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Mousetrap.html

I would only address one part of your discussion on that, though. Most Darwinian theorists are influenced by atheism. In fact, 70% of the scientific community is atheist itself. So, if we propose that Intelligent design is a problem because of its Fundamentalist influence – we certainly would have to warn about the atheism which has influenced Darwinism as well.

I do not trust Mr. Miller as a scientist or a Catholic.

Properly speaking, “creation” is a theological doctrine, not a scientific concept. Likewise with ID. They have no part in science, strictly speaking.

Science is subordinate to theology and philosophy – not independent from them. So, for Catholics, we are not free to take a “science-only” view of the world. We have to accept creation also.

What you’ve just described is a theological doctrine, not a scientific concept. So, then, Catholics are actually being attracted by a Protestant doctrinal outlook, rather than any type of scientific viewpoint.

I will say, certainly, that Darwinian-Catholics are attracted by an atheistic outlook as well. There is no “pure science” since science must rely on philosophy and be bounded by Catholic theology.

The Intelligent Design movement is a theological discussion, and not a scientific one.

There are scientists who disagree with that.

The issue is God’s activity in nature, which is by definition a doctrinal question. Science is only being employed as a supposed illustration of divine providence. Thus, ID is, at its heart, a theological entity, and not at all a scientific one.

God’s actions can be evidenced in nature – as other intelligent causes can be. That is the scientific foundation for intelligent design and that view is supported by the scientists who are intelligent design theorists.

Actually, ID theory does not posit “God” as such – but merely an intelligent cause.

 

[reggieM]

One’s sources say it all.

Yes, but we know that Darwin was an anti-Christian agnostic who used his theory to attack Christianity …

On that basis, the whole theory is condemned (using your idea here).

 

[reggieM]

1. When speaking against evvolution the Catholic Church knows nothing and is only about faith, morals and theology.
2. Whenever it says anything in support of evolution, suddenly the Pope, or any other Church higher-up, are portrayed as gentlemen and scholars who obviously know what they’re talking about. Example: How many times have you read about Pope John Paul II having “no problem” with evolution?

Excellent point. I have to smile at that because it is so true.

 

[edwest2]

Indeed I did. I’ve also read the recent book published by Ignatius Press, titled Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo. I recommend it highly.

Correct. The Church has no expertise to pronounce upon matters of science per se. Only upon theological concepts that sometimes masquerade as science.

They’re theologians who recognize that doctrinal questions are not properly part of science, and should not pretend to be such (and vice versa).

The Holy Father is wisely pointing out that certain philosophical/theological ideas do not qualify as science, and thus should not be taken as necessary parts of evolutionary theory. He’s not commenting on science per se, but merely on theological ideas posing as science.

Yes, “our theology is not nothing.” You acknowledge, therefore, that this is a doctrinal issue which the Pope is discussing, and not properly a scientific one.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church has trained priests who are doctors and who do bioethics work. The Church often makes pronouncements about science, and not just theological pronouncements.

I want my Catholic brothers and sisters to know that their faith does not stop outside of the Church building. It is integrated into their lives. It would be wrong to deny that (A) most scientists have an anti-theistic worldview which affects and biases their work. (B) Scientists are writing books, giving lectures and appearing on television with their ‘mountains of evidence’ to say, based on this evidence, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” If this isn’t representative of current attempts to scientifically promote atheism, I don’t know what is. Get it straight. The Pope and other Church leaders get this. It is important and significant.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church has trained priests who are doctors and who do bioethics work. The Church often makes pronouncements about science, and not just theological pronouncements.

I want my Catholic brothers and sisters to know that their faith does not stop outside of the Church building. It is integrated into their lives. It would be wrong to deny that (A) most scientists have an anti-theistic worldview which affects and biases their work. (B) Scientists are writing books, giving lectures and appearing on television with their ‘mountains of evidence’ to say, based on this evidence, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” If this isn’t representative of current attempts to scientifically promote atheism, I don’t know what is. Get it straight. The Pope and other Church leaders get this. It is important and significant.

Peace,
Ed

In addition, the Church is able to provide a complete commentary on what science is claiming, something that science by its own definition cannot do.

 

[reggieM]

“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.

So, it’s a double standard to claim that Intelligent Design is “not science” but Darwinism is science.

That is all entirely a philosophical distinction anyway.

 

[reggieM]

Additionally, we can see the anti-Christian attack that Darwin had planned with his “theory”. He was clearly driven by the desire to attack religion and he created evolutionary theory for that purpose.

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

[His letter](http://www.darw(name removed by moderator)roject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9105.html)
A treasury of Darwin’s “less popular” ideas

 

[buffalo]

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.

So, it’s a double standard to claim that Intelligent Design is “not science” but Darwinism is science.

That is all entirely a philosophical distinction anyway.

Correct. Teach empirical science in school only. If you want to teach philosophy then do so So students could be exposed to various philosophies.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So, Kenneth Miller promoted atheism in his biology textbook.

No. In fact, the School Board lawyers in the Dover trial did grave damage to their case by quote-mining that one. It came out in the trial that Miller hadn’t written the passage, and eventually persuaded his co-author to drop it from the textbook. The judge was not pleased with the attempted deception by the creationists.

This should prove that Darwinism is not science, but rather an atheistic-inspired theory that teaches “all spiritual phenomena” are products of “matter” -

Odd then, that the Pope has supported the most ambitious of Darwin’s claims, that of common descent. This is supposed to be a Catholic board; the truth should matter here above all else.

So, it’s a double standard to claim that Intelligent Design is “not science” but Darwinism is science.

ID is acknowledged by the people who invented it to be a religious doctrine. Their self-proclaimed “Governing Goals” make that clear.

On the other hand, Darwin’s theory depends on evidence, and makes no supernatural claims whatever. (Darwin’s acknowledgement of God as creator of life was an aside, that had nothing to do with his theory.

That is all entirely a philosophical distinction anyway.

Truth is not a “philosophical distinction.” It matters what is true and what is not true, and we should avoid dishonesties like that devious attack on a fellow Catholic like Miller.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Example: How many times have you read about Pope John Paul II having “no problem” with evolution?

Reggie writes:

Excellent point. I have to smile at that because it is so true.

Of course. The Pope referred to common descent as virtually certain, because he had the best scientists and theologicans the Vatican could gather to discuss the issue. He became quite familiar with the evidence.

Those who portray Pope Benedict XVI as a bumpkin are greviously wrong. Both Benedict and his immediate predecessor were men of great learning, and not merely in the area of philosophy and theology.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, the Pope cites Aquinas, that contingency in divine providence is no “error.”

It only seems so to us.

 

[Donald45]

…Most Darwinian theorists are influenced by atheism. In fact, 70% of the scientific community is atheist itself.

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.

So, if we propose that Intelligent design is a problem because of its Fundamentalist influence – we certainly would have to warn about the atheism which has influenced Darwinism as well.

Not at all, since the atheism of some scientists is not a necessary part of the evolution they affirm as science. Many evolutionists are also agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, New Agers, Wiccans, Unitarians, and Vegans as well.

I do not trust Mr. Miller as a scientist or a Catholic.

On what objective basis? He’s both a highly qualified biologist and a committed Catholic theist. What’s the problem----other than the fact that he doesn’t happen to line up with your already-held position?

Science is subordinate to theology and philosophy – not independent from them.

In a, extremely broad worldview sense, certainly. However, this does not magically turn theological statements into scientific ones, nor vice versa.

So, for Catholics, we are not free to take a “science-only” view of the world. We have to accept creation also.

Yes, we accept creation as a theological conviction, and are free to affirm evolution as a scientific conclusion. We don’t accept a “science-only” worldview (scientism), but* do* acknowledge that only properly scientific concepts qualify as “science.”

I will say, certainly, that Darwinian-Catholics are attracted by an atheistic outlook as well.

Again, science is non-theistic, not atheistic. For myself, I am a Catholic regarding my *theological *convictions (and therefore affirm the Christian doctrine of creation), and I am an evolutionist with respect to my scientific conclusions. Thus, I am in no way “attracted by an atheistic outlook,” as you claim.

There is no “pure science” since science must rely on philosophy and be bounded by Catholic theology.

Yet, this does not warrant a confusion of the two.

God’s actions can be evidenced in nature – as other intelligent causes can be. That is the scientific foundation for intelligent design and that view is supported by the scientists who are intelligent design theorists.

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.”

Actually, ID theory does not posit “God” as such – but merely an intelligent cause.

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.”

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

Yes, but we know that Darwin was an anti-Christian agnostic who used his theory to attack Christianity…

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. Darwin began his voyage on the Beagle as a convinced “intelligent design creationist.” It was only over the course of many years that he gradually lost the conventional Victorian Anglican faith that he was raised in. He never, however, became an atheist, and the Origin of Species contains several references to the Creator and His activities in the natural world. In Darwin’s own words:

**“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endles forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved” **(The Origin of Species).

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.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church has trained priests who are doctors and who do bioethics work. The Church often makes pronouncements about science, and not just theological pronouncements.

The pronouncements of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences are not morally-binding dogmatic statements issued by the Church.

I want my Catholic brothers and sisters to know that their faith does not stop outside of the Church building. It is integrated into their lives.

Certainly. Yet this does not turn theological statements into scientific ones, nor vice versa.

It would be wrong to deny that (A) most scientists have an anti-theistic worldview which affects and biases their work.

Science works the same for the atheist and agnostic as it does for the theist and supernaturalist.

(B) Scientists are writing books, giving lectures and appearing on television with their ‘mountains of evidence’ to say, based on this evidence, “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Yes, a few atheists (like Dawkins) are trying to use science to support their atheism. This is just as illegitimate (and unscientific) as presuming to use science to support one’s theism.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+