Keating, Catholic Answers take a swipe at evolution

[Donald45]

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

No, the Church tells its followers about philosophical ideas posing as “science.”

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

So Don, do you believe God can perform miracles?

Yes.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[edwest2]

Don,

OK. Then the things God did, as mentioned in the Bible, actually did happen. The sin committed by our first parents, the miracles of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection. In this context, God is more important than science.

For Catholics, without divine providence there would be no process similar to evolution. Since the anti-God philosophical statements are being widely publicized, Catholics need to be reminded:

A) The theory of evolution as written in biology textbooks is incomplete.

B) The Church identifies God as the missing, necessary element.

It does no good to hear that science cannot study this or that. What Catholics need to know as a fact is that God’s divine providence was critical to the development of life on earth; without it, no evolution-like process.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

OK. Then the things God did, as mentioned in the Bible, actually did happen. The sin committed by our first parents, the miracles of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection.

Yes, and all of these things are affirmed as theological convictions, not as scientific conclusions.

In this context, God is more important than science.

Yes, in the context of theological convictions, God is more important than science.

For Catholics, without divine providence there would be no process similar to evolution.

Certainly, from a theological perspective, divine providence (a theological conviction) must be affirmed.

A) The theory of evolution as written in biology textbooks is incomplete.

It is complete as a scientific concept, but incomplete as an overarching worldview perspective. Science explains the natural world, but it does not explain all of reality.

B) The Church identifies God as the missing, necessary element.

Yes, though not a missing element of science. God is often the missing element in one’s overall worldview.

It does no good to hear that science cannot study this or that.

The good it does to make proper distinctions involves not allowing theology and science to be distorted and diluted by being confused with one another. This is expressed in the theological principle of the Creator/creation Distinction, that is, the truth that God is not the creation, nor is the creation God. Proper distinctions are absolutely necessary to proper belief and, therefore, proper behavior. They cannot be separated.

What Catholics need to know as a fact is that God’s divine providence was critical to the development of life on earth; without it, no evolution-like process.

I agree that Catholics need to be aware of this theological conviction, but not to mistake it for a scientific conclusion.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[reggieM]

one cannot properly say that “he made up his theory as a means of attacking Christianity”; and (2)

Darwin said that he had given up Christianity already by time he was 40 years old. He actually published Origin of the Species after that time. Some say, however, that he wrote his book some years before then and only had it published later. I think it’s something that can be questioned, at least.

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.

That’s a reasonable conclusion. It’s a separate issue whether his theory was correct or not.

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.

Some of his closest followers concluded that he was an atheist, but in any case – I cannot see any reason to defend his lack of faith in God and his attacks on the Holy Scripture.

 

[reggieM]

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.

There is really no such thing as “pure science” – and certainly not with regards to Darwinian theory. Science relies on a philosophical foundation – one that doesn’t come from science (and one that can be questioned for good reason).

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.

This is something I don’t understand. First of all, your use of the term “disingenuous” makes it sound like there’s something sinister going on – some sneaky trick.
I can’t see it that way, myself.

Every Catholic must embrace some form of creationism or Intelligent Design theory. We affirm every Sunday at Mass that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen.
Therefore, every Catholic scientist must accept that God is our creator and The Creator.

What follows from this is that we can recognize God’s work within nature itself. This is evident through aspects of nature that show indications of intelligent design.

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

In essence, it really doesn’t matter. By analogy, we can see what intelligence can create. We can see “specified complexity” and recognize that it is not created through “unguided natural processes”.
I cannot see why there would be a difference in recognizing God’s intelligent design in the complexity of nature versus noticing the intelligent design of a beaver dam (animal intelligence) or of human beings (Stonehenge).
The fact that the intelligence is supernatural does not make a difference in the effect that the intelligence has.
Now if the question was regarding the nature and attributes of God – then yes, that’s a theological question.
But the issue is observing nature and recognizing aspects that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
In our current paradigm, we have an “evolution of the gaps” theory – where evolution is the default position.
So, when we see something that evolution cannot explain (and there are many such things in nature), the “solution” is: “it must have evolved”. This solution is reached even when there is no evidence.
So, evolutionary theory (for many of its practitioners) cannot be falsified. No matter what is found that contradicts the theory, some explanation is offered that preserves the notion that “everything in nature is a product of evolution”.
But this is merely conjecture and wishful thinking.

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.

Again, I can’t see where it matters what the source of the intelligence is. Additionally, SETI does not know what the intelligence will be like. They’re looking for extraterrestials – they may assume that those creatures share our nature, but they could be of an entirely different natural order.

As Catholics, we cannot accept that every living being is composed of matter. We know that there are angels and saints who are entirely spiritual. We know that the Blessed Virgin’s body is in heaven now.

But there is a great deal that we don’t know about what it means when we say that God is the creator of all that is seen.

Some will insist that we cannot recognize any evidence of God’s creative power in the universe. All we see is the result of natural laws.

This goes against St. Paul’s teaching that God’s power is readily seen in nature, and in fact, even pagans had no excuse for not recognizing it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There is really no such thing as “pure science” – and certainly not with regards to Darwinian theory. Science relies on a philosophical foundation – one that doesn’t come from science (and one that can be questioned for good reason).

That shows an ignorance of what science is, and how it works. I’m guessing you can’t even tell us what the “philosophical foundation” for science is. (there is one, BTW, but almost certainly not the one you think it is)

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.

This is something I don’t understand. First of all, your use of the term “disingenuous” makes it sound like there’s something sinister going on – some sneaky trick.
I can’t see it that way, myself.

The “Wedge Document” wasn’t supposed to be released. It was an accident. And yes, they didn’t want people to know that ID was it’s own little religion.

Every Catholic must embrace some form of creationism or Intelligent Design theory.

Not of one is a Catholic who accepts God’s creation. ID is contrary to our faith.

We affirm every Sunday at Mass that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Creator, not a mere “designer.”

What follows from this is that we can recognize God’s work within nature itself. This is evident through aspects of nature that show indications of intelligent design.

That’s the problem; we can’t find anything in nature that is designed. It all looks created.

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

Phillip Johnson, who invented ID, thinks the “designer” might be a “space alien.” Or so he says.

In essence, it really doesn’t matter. By analogy, we can see what intelligence can create. We can see “specified complexity” and recognize that it is not created through “unguided natural processes”.

The problem is, no one can actually show “specified complexity” that didn’t arise by natural causes.

I cannot see why there would be a difference in recognizing God’s intelligent design in the complexity of nature versus noticing the intelligent design of a beaver dam (animal intelligence) or of human beings (Stonehenge).

In principle, it’s possible. What’s missing is any evidence for it.

So, when we see something that evolution cannot explain (and there are many such things in nature), the “solution” is: “it must have evolved”. This solution is reached even when there is no evidence.

Show us one of those. I’ve never seen something like that.

So, evolutionary theory (for many of its practitioners) cannot be falsified.

As Haldane said, a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would do it. But that doesn’t seem very likely, um?

No matter what is found that contradicts the theory, some explanation is offered that preserves the notion that “everything in nature is a product of evolution”.

You actually think scientists say that? No wonder you hate science. You’ve imagined a completely fictitious story about science.

As Catholics, we cannot accept that every living being is composed of matter.

Nor does science say that they have to be. It only says that the ones we can study are made of matter.

Some will insist that we cannot recognize any evidence of God’s creative power in the universe. All we see is the result of natural laws.

This goes against St. Paul’s teaching that God’s power is readily seen in nature, and in fact, even pagans had no excuse for not recognizing it.

You’re imagining that science is the only way of knowing. There are other forms of knowing that can use evidence that is useless to science.

 

[edwest2]

To Don,

We are taught that we will will meeting the Living God face to face. Not “Hi. Wow. I thought you were only a theological concept.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Since the Church teaches that God is a spirit, without a body, then there is something to that “face” that you haven’t yet realized.

 

[edwest2]

You should read scripture. The same Jesus that you saw will return. The same Jesus.

It’s very sad when the living presence is reduced to something other than what He is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Donald45]

Darwin said that he had given up Christianity already by time he was 40 years old. He actually published Origin of the Species after that time. Some say, however, that he wrote his book some years before then and only had it published later. I think it’s something that can be questioned, at least.

Darwin began developing his theory in his notebooks soon after returning to England on the Beagle in his twenties, long before he turned forty. He worked on the manuscript of the Origin for some twenty years, and was moved to publish in 1859 only by Wallace’s subsequent discovery of the concept of natural selection. He did not develop the theory because he was an agnostic.

That’s a reasonable conclusion. It’s a separate issue whether his theory was correct or not.

Yes, his personal religious views had nothing to do with the scientific development of his theory.

Some of his closest followers concluded that he was an atheist…

Darwin described himself as an agnostic:

"In my most extreme fluxuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

…but in any case – I cannot see any reason to defend his lack of faith in God and his attacks on the Holy Scripture.

I’m not defending them, only observing that they are not responsible for his theory of evolution by natural selection, which does not rely for its validity on Darwin’s personal religious views.

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Donald45]

There is really no such thing as “pure science” – and certainly not with regards to Darwinian theory. Science relies on a philosophical foundation – one that doesn’t come from science (and one that can be questioned for good reason).

The philosophy upon which science rests is known as Methodological Naturalism. It does not rely upon any religious or supernaturalist philosophy of divine immaterial beings or causes.

This is something I don’t understand. First of all, your use of the term “disingenuous” makes it sound like there’s something sinister going on – some sneaky trick. I can’t see it that way, myself.

Why not? It’s a matter of public record, after all. ID’s religious agenda was carefully kept from the public, and only came to light when one of their foundational documents (the so-called Wedge Document)----which unequivocally states that the “Designer” is the biblical God----appeared on the internet. This clear duplicity was brought up and exposed repeatedly at the Dover trial in 2005, as is outlined in recent book-length accounts, for example:

Barbara Forrest & Paul Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford, 2004)

Edward Humes, Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, & the Battle for America’s Soul (HarperCollins, 2007); ISBN 0-06-088548-3

Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution & the Battle for America’s Soul (Viking, 2008); ISBN 978-0-670-01883-3

Gordy Slack, The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, & a School Board in Dover, PA. (Jossey-Bass, 2007); ISBN 978-0-7879-8786-2

Every Catholic must embrace some form of creationism or Intelligent Design theory.

Yes----as a theological conviction, not as a scientific conclusion.

We affirm every Sunday at Mass that God is the creator of all that is seen and unseen.

Yes, this is a Christian doctrine that we affirm together, not a scientific concept.

Therefore, every Catholic scientist must accept that God is our creator and The Creator.

Yes, they accept this as a doctrine of their faith (Heb. 11:3), not as a scientific idea.

What follows from this is that we can recognize God’s work within nature itself. This is evident through aspects of nature that show indications of intelligent design.

Indeed, we can. But this is a theological conviction based upon faith (Heb. 11:3), not a scientific conclusion based upon empirical data.

In essence, it really doesn’t matter.

In essence, it matters very much whether the “Designer” is himself a part of the natural world (and thus was himself “designed”), or transcends nature (i.e., is *super-*natural). The former would be within the scope of scientific investigation, while the latter would clearly be beyond the purview of science.

In our current paradigm, we have an “evolution of the gaps” theory – where evolution is the default position. So, when we see something that evolution cannot explain (and there are many such things in nature), the “solution” is: “it must have evolved”. This solution is reached even when there is no evidence.

The reality is that evolution is a demonstrable fact of science, and that no other natural (that is, scientific) explanation fits the data as well. Perhaps (at least in principle) a better scientific model could be developed at some future time, but at present evolution serves as the central organizing principle of the sciences, and has done so for a century-and-a-half.

So, evolutionary theory (for many of its practitioners) cannot be falsified.

Sure it can, in a hundred different ways. The fact that, in a hundred-and-fifty years, no such falsification has been forthcoming is extremely significant for the strength of the theory.

No matter what is found that contradicts the theory, some explanation is offered that preserves the notion that “everything in nature is a product of evolution”. But this is merely conjecture and wishful thinking.

If you wish to propose an alternative theory which is genuinely scientific (that is, which involves empirically-based natural causality), then feel free. Unfortunately, ID does not qualify as such.

Additionally, SETI does not know what the intelligence will be like. They’re looking for extraterrestials – they may assume that those creatures share our nature, but they could be of an entirely different natural order.

Nevertheless, they would be natural contingent beings, not a supernatural self-existent Being.

As Catholics, we cannot accept that every living being is composed of matter. We know that there are angels and saints who are entirely spiritual.

Science, however, is self-restricted to natural objects and phenomena. Thus, such immaterial entities as angels and disembodied souls (not to mention deities and supernatural causes) are simply beyond the scope of science’s ability to investigate, and fall within the category of religious faith.

This goes against St. Paul’s teaching that God’s power is readily seen in nature, and in fact, even pagans had no excuse for not recognizing it.

Paul is making a theological point, not a scientific one. Yes, in light of Paul’s preaching which they had repeatedly heard, his pagan audience had no excuse for not exercising faith in the “Unknown God.”

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

To Don, We are taught that we will will meeting the Living God face to face. Not “Hi. Wow. I thought you were only a theological concept.”

Who said anything about God being “only” a theological concept? Not me.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[reggieM]

The philosophy upon which science rests is known as Methodological Naturalism. It does not rely upon any religious or supernaturalist philosophy of divine immaterial beings or causes.

This is what a consensus of people have chosen as a philosophical view. The philosophical foundation of science has changed over time – and there’s no reason why it couldn’t or shouldn’t change in the future.

But more importantly, ID theory does not require a supernaturalist philosophy. The intelligence behind the works of nature could be extrra-terrestrial, as Richard Dawkins proposed.

Why not? It’s a matter of public record, after all. ID’s religious agenda was carefully kept from the public, and only came to light when one of their foundational documents (the so-called Wedge Document)----which unequivocally states that the “Designer” is the biblical God----appeared on the internet.

In the same way you defend Darwin’s agnosticism – this issue of the “religious agenda” is irrelevant to the science.

This clear duplicity was brought up and exposed repeatedly at the Dover trial in 2005, as is outlined in recent book-length accounts, for example:

Again, I do not see a problem here. The ID theorists could propose God or any other natural intelligent cause – it’s irrelevant to what is being studied (which is what is found in nature).

Yes----as a theological conviction, not as a scientific conclusion.

Intelligent Design theory is based on observations in nature and observations of what we know about intelligence. It’s not a theological proposition.

Yes, this is a Christian doctrine that we affirm together, not a scientific concept.

How does our belief in a Creator God affect science? In other words, what did God create, how do we know it, and can we detect what He created?

On what basis do you agree that we can recognize God’s work in nature?

In essence, it matters very much whether the “Designer” is himself a part of the natural world (and thus was himself “designed”), or transcends nature (i.e., is *super-*natural). The former would be within the scope of scientific investigation, while the latter would clearly be beyond the purview of science.

Again, you’re putting the focus on the Designer – and that is not what ID does. The focus is on the “works” that the Designer created. As I said, if ID was studying the nature of God, then you’d be correct to call it a theological position. But ID is studying nature. God’s works can be observed in nature – thus, they are appropriate subject for science. We can observe the works and if they give the hallmarks of intelligence behind them, then one can propose that they were created by an intelligent cause. Several prominent scientists have seen this clearly with the fine-tuning of the universe. The order and precision found in the universe – it’s mathematical symmetry and other features – lead to a conclusion that the universe was designed. This says nothing about who the designer was, because that is irrelevant. It’s merely a question of observing nature and drawing conclusions from it. That position can be falsified by showing that the products do not require direct, intelligence to be created. This is the difference between what theistic evolutionists call “Guided Evolution” and what materialists call “Unguided”.

Sure it can, in a hundred different ways.

You’re probably right, but I’m wondering what would falsify evolution?

If you wish to propose an alternative theory which is genuinely scientific (that is, which involves empirically-based natural causality), then feel free. Unfortunately, ID does not qualify as such.

Again, ID is an empirically-based approach. If there are features in nature which are not “naturally caused”, then science can observe these and conclude that they were not caused by natural laws or forces. Science can also propose that such things are most likely caused by an intelligent cause (supernatural or not – that is irrelevant).

Nevertheless, they would be natural contingent beings, not a supernatural self-existent Being.

Therefore, science can study angels and saints because they are “natural beings”?

Science, however, is self-restricted to natural objects and phenomena.

The things that God has created and designed are natural objects and phenomena. Again, you’re confusing the study of God Himself (the task of theology) with the study of nature (which ID does).

Thus, such immaterial entities as angels and disembodied souls (not to mention deities and supernatural causes) are simply beyond the scope of science’s ability to investigate, and fall within the category of religious faith.

Again, ID is not investigating God or angels - but rather science and doing so in a scientific manner (just as SETI does). The nature and origin of the intelligence is irrelevant.

Paul is making a theological point, not a scientific one. Yes, in light of Paul’s preaching which they had repeatedly heard, his pagan audience had no excuse for not exercising faith in the “Unknown God.”

St. Paul’s theological point is based on empirical evidence. We can see God’s work in nature – it’s obvious. Therefore, it can be measured, studied and analysed – just as one looks for intelligent causes in forensics. Certainly, Catholic scientists study miracles which are worked in nature. The cause is intelligent and supernatural – but scientists can study the results of miraculous events.

Science cannot prove definitively that God was involved. Nor can science prove definitively that one species evolved into another.

 

[edwest2]

If someone finds a rock with a triangular shape, how does he determine it was designed? Is it symmetrical? That is, by imagining it cut in half down its length, would both sides match? Are there regular chip marks along the two long edges? Are these chip marks regular? Repeated in the same way on both edges? If so, then what I have is an arrowhead.

It doesn’t matter who made it. But it’s clear that it was intelligently designed.

If I went to Mars and found a device that looked like a chain saw, perhaps with some rust, what would I conclude? It was intelligently designed. It doesn’t matter who made it.

But, Intelligent Design might open the door to the verboten Creator concept and, of course, you can’t have that in the classroom.

Or you could just accept the idea that random, unintelligent, undirected processes assembled everything - by accident. God forbid!

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Living fossil ant:

cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ant-mars/

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

If someone finds a rock with a triangular shape, how does he determine it was designed? Is it symmetrical? That is, by imagining it cut in half down its length, would both sides match? Are there regular chip marks along the two long edges? Are these chip marks regular? Repeated in the same way on both edges? If so, then what I have is an arrowhead.

You have stated how you would determine if something was designed. How would you determine that something was not designed. If God is the designer then surely every irregular pebble found in a riverbed is just as designed (by God) as the most carefully shaped arrowhead. What do I look for in an irregular pebble that tells me that -]God/-] the Designer did not design it to be just that way?

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

From Ed’s link:

“I consider this a sensational discovery,” said Arizona State University entomologist Bert Hoelldobler, who was not involved in the findings. “This newly discovered ant genus, belonging to a newly established ant subfamily, represents the very basis of ant evolution.”

When did Ed become an evolutionist?

BTW, Ed, someone from the Catholic Answers community has a connection to this one. Maybe she’d like to tell you more about it.

 

[edwest2]

“very basis of ant evolution”? Yeah, right. Like they were there, supposedly “millions” of years ago. This is classic Speculation 101. I would hope people would come out of their evolution inspired trance-like state and realize that millions of years ago, when the world was supposedly much different, and comets were striking it, and extinction events were supposedly going on, this little ant was just working away for m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years till today.

Evolutionist? Not me.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

How would you determine that something was not designed.

When it can be shown that “unguided” natural laws can produce the thing. An avalanche, for example. We can see that the laws of physics explain it. At the end, there is a pile of rocks and rubble. That’s explainable by the natural law. If the avalance ended with, for example, a giant replica of Michaelangelo’s David – then we could suspect that natural laws alone were not responsible for the end result.

If God is the designer then surely every irregular pebble found in a riverbed is just as designed (by God) as the most carefully shaped arrowhead.

That doesn’t follow. We can see that Stonehenge was created by intelligence because we study the rocks and recognize that natural laws alone cannot produce them.

What do I look for in an irregular pebble that tells me that -]God/-] the Designer did not design it to be just that way?

You look for specified complexity.