Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[reggieM]

That design is observed in nature is granted.

As I explained with many direct quotations from Catholic sources – design which is observed in nature is an indication of the work of intelligence.

You have “granted” that design is observed. You make this assertion without defining what you mean by design or by proving that it has been observed in nature.

As Peter Kreeft stated clearly, “if not chance, then design”.

Evolutionary theory claims that random mutations are the cause for the illusion of design.

So, attacking me, or attacking an ID strawman is not going to help you resolve the contradictions and ambiguities that exist in your own view.

 

[itinerant1]

As I explained with many direct quotations from Catholic sources – design which is observed in nature is an indication of the work of intelligence.

You have “granted” that design is observed. You make this assertion without defining what you mean by design or by proving that it has been observed in nature.

There was absolutely no need for me to define “design” at that time. And I certainly don’t need to prove that design “has been observed in nature” because that is your ID speak, which has erroneous assumptions built into it. As Cardinal Schonborn has said in objection to ID: “I do not need science to tell me their is design in nature.” (quote is approximate)

Evolutionary theory claims that random mutations are the cause for the illusion of design.

I can’t respond to your characterization of evolution theory until you provide the source quote and the context so it can be properly evaluated.

So, attacking me, or attacking an ID strawman is not going to help you resolve the contradictions and ambiguities that exist in your own view.

Where is the strawman argument? Your assertion remains gratuitous, until and if you can supply some evidence for it, which you have not done in your post.

And what are the alleged contradictions that you allude to?

You will have to do better than this because your response is seriously lacking in content.

 

[reggieM]

There was absolutely no need for me to define “design” at that time. And I certainly don’t need to prove that design “has been observed in nature” because that is your ID speak, which has erroneous assumptions built into it. As Cardinal Schonborn has said in objection to ID: “I do not need science to tell me their is design in nature.” (quote is approximate).

That actually sounds fine with me. You assert that design is observed in nature. That is granted. When asked to define what you mean by design, you say that there was no need to define it. When asked to prove that design exists, you say you don’t need to do that because that is “ID speak”.

For you, it seems, the observation of design in nature is so obvious and self-evident that it’s not worth discussing.

If that’s your position, then I fully agree with that conclusion. Design is blatanty obvious in nature and there should be no need or reason to have to define what that means or prove it.

If there wasn’t such a significant number of prominent, materialistic-atheists (and many Catholics who follow them) who openly deny that any design can be observed in nature, then there wouldn’t be much value in arguing about this – especially not with persons like yourself who already accept that design is observable in nature.

 

[itinerant1]

That actually sounds fine with me. You assert that design is observed in nature. That is granted. When asked to define what you mean by design, you say that there was no need to define it. When asked to prove that design exists, you say you don’t need to do that because that is “ID speak”.

For you, it seems, the observation of design in nature is so obvious and self-evident that it’s not worth discussing.

If that’s your position, then I fully agree with that conclusion. Design is blatanty obvious in nature and there should be no need or reason to have to define what that means or prove it.

If there wasn’t such a significant number of prominent, materialistic-atheists (and many Catholics who follow them) who openly deny that any design can be observed in nature, then there wouldn’t be much value in arguing about this – especially not with persons like yourself who already accept that design is observable in nature.

My contentions are (1) that ID theory is misguided in its attempts to prove design, especially in regard to the hypothesis of “irreducible complexity”; and (2) any evolutionist who denies final causes, design and purpose in nature (for example the eminent Ernst Mayr in What Evolution Is), is going beyond what science proves, and is making, rather, philosophical judgments about nature, which are in fact false.

 

[reggieM]

My contentions are (1) that ID theory is misguided in its attempts to prove design, especially in regard to the hypothesis of “irreducible complexity”;

That is one of several methods that can be used to prove design. Many scientists and philosophers have pointed to elements of design in nature. Einstein was struck with awe at the mathematical precision that the universe contained (as many other scientists have been). The fine-tuning of the cosmos and anthropic principle are widely understood concepts that indicate a designing, coordinating, organizing intelligence in the universe. In philosophical terms, these evidences do not work as “proofs”. They’re a probability-based method of understanding nature. So, in that light, it’s not comparable with Thomistic metaphysics (and is not a metaphysical proposition).

(2) any evolutionist who denies final causes, design and purpose in nature (for example the eminent Ernst Mayr in What Evolution Is), is going beyond what science proves, and is making, rather, philosophical judgments about nature, which are in fact false.

It depends on what one means by the term “design” but I would prefer to accept your previous statement that there’s no reason to discuss it because design can be observed in nature and that is simply obvious.

 

[itinerant1]

That is one of several methods that can be used to prove design. Many scientists and philosophers have pointed to elements of design in nature. Einstein was struck with awe at the mathematical precision that the universe contained (as many other scientists have been). The fine-tuning of the cosmos and anthropic principle are widely understood concepts that indicate a designing, coordinating, organizing intelligence in the universe. In philosophical terms, these evidences do not work as “proofs”. They’re a probability-based method of understanding nature. So, in that light, it’s not comparable with Thomistic metaphysics (and is not a metaphysical proposition).

It depends on what one means by the term “design” but I would prefer to accept your previous statement that there’s no reason to discuss it because design can be observed in nature and that is simply obvious.

Design is most obvious. Even St. Paul says so in Romans. But, I didn’t mean it shan’t be discussed. The deeper explanations of design involve a philosophy of nature, which takes into account formal, material, final and efficient causality. Design is most effectively discussed in those terms, when properly understood, of course.

I tremendously dislike the notion of “irreducible complexity”. It is an unnecessary hypothesis. And it has negative implications for science, philosophy and theology.

Strange enough, Behe admitted in a debate that the things he once thought were irreducibly complex are not so after all, and that he would have to redefine IC. However, he has not redefined IC. Something is seriously not right here. The reference I will give about Behe is one of the essays, and I don’t remember the author’s name, in an interesting book titled Debating Design, edited by Ruse and Behe.

 

[buffalo]

Design is most obvious. Even St. Paul says so in Romans. But, I didn’t mean it shan’t be discussed. The deeper explanations of design involve a philosophy of nature, which takes into account formal, material, final and efficient causality. Design is most effectively discussed in those terms, when properly understood, of course.

I tremendously dislike the notion of “irreducible complexity”. It is an unnecessary hypothesis. And it has negative implications for science, philosophy and theology.

Strange enough, Behe admitted in a debate that the things he once thought were irreducibly complex are not so after all, and that he would have to redefine IC. However, he has not redefined IC. Something is seriously not right here. The reference I will give about Behe is one of the essays, and I don’t remember the author’s name, in an interesting book titled Debating Design, edited by Ruse and Behe.

I am not sure that is quite right. I think there was a misunderstanding of what he was trying to get across.

If you take a machine for example and you take away a part it loses its purpose. That does not mean that the part you took away has no function at all. If you take a tire off a car the car has issues, but the tire alone can still roll.

 

[reggieM]

I tremendously dislike the notion of “irreducible complexity”. It is an unnecessary hypothesis. And it has negative implications for science, philosophy and theology.

A number of evolutionary biologists accept the concept of irreducible complexity (e.g. Massimo Pigliucci, “Design Yes, Intelligent No”: “…Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection … irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design.”) Again, it’s not a metaphysical proposition or an attempt to explain the nature of reality at the highest and deepest levels of order. It’s not a theological concept either. It’s merely based on observations of nature – it’s a metric or a model by which evolutionary claims can be measured.

Some evolutionists claim that IC systems are predicted by evolutionary theory while others claim that IC is a useful concept but that there are no IC systems in nature (yet another of the many contradictions one will find among Darwinian theorists).

In any case, I can’t see a good reason to “tremendously dislike” the hypothesis of irreducible complexity in nature. I could see “disagree” or “argue against” it – but to take it to the level of “tremendous dislike” seems to be a reaction far out of proportion to what the concept is looking at. Here also you claim that the modest concept of IC has “negative implications” for philosophy, theology and science. But what about Darwinian theory? Does that have any negative implications for those fields of study in your view? Additionally, are you willing to judge the “implications” of the IC concept, but not judge the “implications” of Darwinian theory? It seems like a double-standard to me.

If Darwinian theory is falsifiable at all, then something like IC systems are necessary. IC actually takes Darwin’s metric for falsification and puts some detail around it (Darwin said that if there was anything in nature that could not be the result of gradual modification then his theory would be falsified).

Michael Behe moved from the evidence he evaluated in IC systems, to his book looking at the Edge of Evolution – to see what the limits of natural selection really are. This came about because so-called refutations of irreducible complexity claimed as “evidence”, whatever imagined evolutionary paths his opponents wanted to create.

Of course, to say it’s “impossible” that something evolved omits the “possibility” that a hundred macro-mutations occur in an organism simultaneously and radically change the function of one thing to another. That’s what saltations can do for you. So again, how could evolutionary theory be falsified when all that is required to validate it is an active imagination?

As a side note, it’s quite interesting that evolutionists simultaneously claim that irreducible complexity is not science because it cannot be falsified, and then they produced papers testing the concept and claiming it was falsified. In fact, it was “falsified so good” that they said it was “demolished”. This, however, did not stop the production of subsequent scientific papers that “demolished it even more gooder”. In none of these demolitions did anyone show a detailed, testable evolutionary path for even one of the many IC systems identified. But again, as long as someone claims that it “could have evolved” – then that is sufficient to show that it did evolve.

The same must be true of other evolutionary hypotheses. As long as it is claimed that it “could have evolved” then this proves the hypothesis to be true.

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else."-- Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007

 

[StAnastasia]

I said *your *faith, not the Catholic faith in general. Maybe you do think the Catholic faith is not compatible, but plenty here would disagree with that so I’m not really inclined to take your word for it and from what I’ve read I don’t see why you would insist that it would be beyond that perhaps you choose to take certain parts of the bible literally.

I don’t know any Catholics – clergy or laity – who think the Catholic faith is incompatible with evolution.

 

[pzona]

I don’t know any Catholics – clergy or laity – who think the Catholic faith is incompatible with evolution.

Let me first say this is me speaking, so don’t take this as me quoting anyone important in the Church. I think that Catholicism (and any religion in which God created all life) is incompatible with evolution. The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up. If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)? Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural? The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know any Catholics – clergy or laity – who think the Catholic faith is incompatible with evolution.

Do you live in a gated evo community?

 

[liquidpele]

Let me first say this is me speaking, so don’t take this as me quoting anyone important in the Church. I think that Catholicism (and any religion in which God created all life) is incompatible with evolution. The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up. If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)? Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural? The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

Another person made a post that says what I would like to say here much better than I could say it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5821700&postcount=10

 

[SonofMonica]

Let me first say this is me speaking, so don’t take this as me quoting anyone important in the Church. I think that Catholicism (and any religion in which God created all life) is incompatible with evolution. The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up. If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)? Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural? The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

Well, I’d simply say that we aren’t called to have faith in his work, we are called to have faith in Him. Reason can be used to understand his handiwork, and that reason can be used in a natural way, because nature is God’s handiwork. I don’t see using reason to understand God’s work forecloses having faith in God one bit. We see God as the source of all reason.

With regard to the “supernatural,” that’s not much more than a term used for things that we are not able to directly observe with our senses. If souls were created by God, then they’re every bit as natural as the body, just not (presently) observable using the senses.

And that’s all me talking, not the Church, so you can feel free to agree or disagree or criticize or whatever, just trying to present one perspective. Not intending to hold my thoughts out as being infallible.

 

[reggieM]

The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up.

What total are you looking for when you add things up and why have you chosen that?

If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)?

That is a good question and I share it. If God used “only” natural processes to create life, then what effect does prayer have on human life? What effect do miracles have on human history? Which scientist has determined that God will “only” work miracles, but never engage in any other activity in nature? How could an immortal soul evolve from inert matter? How could matter become conscious and then begin to know what matter is? How could purposeless, unintelligent laws create human consciousness in such an intellectually brilliant way that the collection of all of the greatest human geniuses ever to live on earth cannot even figure out what it is composed of?

Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural?

What would that solve for you that a combination of natural and supernatural does not solve?

The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

The Catholic view of life is that our time on earth is short and transitional. The purpose of life is to make the journey as successfully as we can – to arrive at a destination which is the goal and purpose.

This might be a good analogy: Sleeping is a very good thing to do. So, why, when I go to a good movie, does the filmmaker not try to put me to sleep, but instead creates surprising things that happen that don’t make much sense until the end of the film? That causes me to stay awake and to keep watching to figure out what is happening. But wouldn’t it be better if the filmmaker tried to put me to sleep?

 

[itinerant1]

A number of evolutionary biologists accept the concept of irreducible complexity (e.g. Massimo Pigliucci, “Design Yes, Intelligent No”: “…Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection … irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design.”) Again, it’s not a metaphysical proposition or an attempt to explain the nature of reality at the highest and deepest levels of order. It’s not a theological concept either. It’s merely based on observations of nature – it’s a metric or a model by which evolutionary claims can be measured.

What structures in particular cannot be, at least in principle, explained by evolutionary processes?

Because science has not reached the level of explaining something by evolution, do you think that it necessarily follows that the structure or process in question is IC?

You are logically confused when you try to make a distinction between intelligent and non-intelligent design. Your confusion equals that of extreme Darwinists. This is what I do not like. There is no such thing as non-intelligent design, that is, if we are to use words meaningfully. Your difficulty can be seen by considering the idea of “intelligent design”. The expression is redundant. Design implies intelligence. Hence “intelligent design” is a neoplasm.

Some evolutionists claim that IC systems are predicted by evolutionary theory while others claim that IC is a useful concept but that there are no IC systems in nature (yet another of the many contradictions one will find among Darwinian theorists).

I can’t make much sense out of this. Perhaps you can quote some writers and provide examples. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to here.

In any case, I can’t see a good reason to “tremendously dislike” the hypothesis of irreducible complexity in nature. I could see “disagree” or “argue against” it – but to take it to the level of “tremendous dislike” seems to be a reaction far out of proportion to what the concept is looking at. Here also you claim that the modest concept of IC has “negative implications” for philosophy, theology and science. But what about Darwinian theory? Does that have any negative implications for those fields of study in your view? Additionally, are you willing to judge the “implications” of the IC concept, but not judge the “implications” of Darwinian theory? It seems like a double-standard to me.

To clarify my considered position: I immensely and tremendously dislike the IC hypothesis. It’s originator lacks sufficient background in the history of science. It has been rightly called a “god of the gaps” theory. No scientist of any repute should have anything to do with IC. If, you had read any of my posts, you would know something about my disagreements with Darwinism. I do not disagree with the solid findings of science, ones which do not contradict Revelation. I have numerous disagreements Darwinian ideology, something I distinguish from Darwinian science. Hence, your point is ill-informed and moot.

If Darwinian theory is falsifiable at all, then something like IC systems are necessary. IC actually takes Darwin’s metric for falsification and puts some detail around it (Darwin said that if there was anything in nature that could not be the result of gradual modification then his theory would be falsified).

You reflect logic at its worse. If there is anything in nature that is not the result of gradual modification, that does not logically imply the truth of IC as an alternative. In any good college level logic class, you would be annihilated for the errors in your reasoning. This is why it is oftentimes a waste of time to discuss anything with ID supporters, as with most creationists and fundamentalists, because they are in such short supply of logic.

I do not have time to respond to the rest of your post because of its length.

 

[pzona]

What total are you looking for when you add things up and why have you chosen that?

The total I’m looking for is a total in which all things are in the same terms, if you will. When I’m solving an equation for x, the solution does me no good if part of it is still in terms of x. In ID, the question is still part of the solution, according to every explanation I’ve ever read. Does this make sense?

That is a good question and I share it. If God used “only” natural processes to create life, then what effect does prayer have on human life? What effect do miracles have on human history? Which scientist has determined that God will “only” work miracles, but never engage in any other activity in nature? How could an immortal soul evolve from inert matter? How could matter become conscious and then begin to know what matter is? How could purposeless, unintelligent laws create human consciousness in such an intellectually brilliant way that the collection of all of the greatest human geniuses ever to live on earth cannot even figure out what it is composed of?

My “problem” is that I don’t believe in an immortal soul, and I won’t until I see some type of evidence (not necessarily empirical mind you) to the contrary. I fully accept that things like human consciousness are a great mystery. This is something I marvel at every day of my life, and science is far from an answer. This is why I strongly believe that God is not a prerequisite for happiness. I think happiness in life is all about being able to look at things in wonder. Whether consciousness is natural or or God-created, it is one of the most fascinating processes to consider. It seems to be along the lines of the “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” problem, and while I can’t speak for anyone else, I think science is a long way from solving it.

What would that solve for you that a combination of natural and supernatural does not solve?

Like I said before, it seems as if God arbitrarily chose to use his “powers” when creating some things, and let nature (which I realize that he allegedly created) sort out the rest. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to let nature explain everything, or make everything so that nature could not explain it? There would certainly be more believers, at least in the latter case.

The Catholic view of life is that our time on earth is short and transitional. The purpose of life is to make the journey as successfully as we can – to arrive at a destination which is the goal and purpose.

This might be a good analogy: Sleeping is a very good thing to do. So, why, when I go to a good movie, does the filmmaker not try to put me to sleep, but instead creates surprising things that happen that don’t make much sense until the end of the film? That causes me to stay awake and to keep watching to figure out what is happening. But wouldn’t it be better if the filmmaker tried to put me to sleep?

I think that entertainment is all about doing things which aren’t natural. The filmmaker tries to put you in an unnatural state of excitement. Excitement is based around the idea that exciting things are unnatural. For a further example, see magic tricks. Sleeping may be a good thing to do, but staying awake is no worse for you (within reason of course).

 

[itinerant1]

I am not sure that is quite right. I think there was a misunderstanding of what he was trying to get across.

If you take a machine for example and you take away a part it loses its purpose. That does not mean that the part you took away has no function at all. If you take a tire off a car the car has issues, but the tire alone can still roll.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. You have not quoted any text, or indicated who you think has mistaken exactly what, or why you think there is a misinterpretation of whatever it is that you have made no reference to, and so on.

The matter I referred to is in the evolution section of this book: Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA edited by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse. Have you even read this book? Arbitrarily assuming you might have read this book, is there something specific in it you wanted to discuss?

 

[StAnastasia]

Do you live in a gated evo community?

No – just an academic community of scientifically and theologically trained people, and an educated parish.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think that Catholicism (and any religion in which God created all life) is incompatible with evolution. The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up. If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)? Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural? The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t find Catholicism and evolution to be at all incompatible.

 

[itinerant1]

Let me first say this is me speaking, so don’t take this as me quoting anyone important in the Church. I think that Catholicism (and any religion in which God created all life) is incompatible with evolution. The ideas themselves are not necessarily incompatible, but once you look at the implications of God “using evolution” to create humans, it doesn’t quite add up. If God used natural processes to create life, where do supernatural things come into play (souls, etc.)? Why not just make humans either all natural or all supernatural? The idea that God played a part in evolution seems to imply that God arbitrarily chooses whether his work is able to be described by reason or mere faith, which doesn’t make sense to me.

An all natural or all supernatural human would not be a human. Either one would be some other kind of being. Animals are completely physical and are therefore strictly natural beings. Angels are completely spiritual and are therefore strictly supernatural beings. Man’s nature is intermediate between animals and angels.

Man is a rational animal comprised of intimately united physical and spiritual components. In a sense, he exists in two worlds. His body makes him as much a part of the physical world as anything else in nature. The spiritual soul, with its powers of knowing and willing, enables him to transcend the causality of the physical world in certain ways, transcend the limitations of sense knowledge, and much more.

Man’s body has a pre-history in the natural evolutionary processes in nature. However, since physical processes cannot generate non-physical substances, the spiritual soul must come into existence through a direct act of creation, and not through any secondary causes in nature.

God of course, is not arbitrary. Our confusion about the world is the result of our lack of knowledge and mistaken beliefs. Man’s nature and origin cannot be understood by one kind of knowledge. There is theological knowledge grounded in Revelation, which tells us many things about man that we could not know otherwise. This is where supernatural faith enables us to understand. Understanding is the reward of faith.

Also, there is knowledge derived from the natural use of reason. First, there are the philosophical disciplines that can tell us about the soul, its attributes and powers; the nature and limits of human knowledge, and much more. Second, there are the various natural sciences that can tell us about evolution, genetics, the nature of the human body, and a myriad of other things.

So, to acquire anything resembling an integrated and well-rounded understanding of human nature and its origin requires various kinds of knowledge.