Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

If there are other intelligent species out there, do they have free will? Do they have original sin?

The dignity of a rational, intelligent being is dependent on the possession of free will. We can be assured that if there are other intelligent beings in the universe they have free will just as do humans and angels.

For other intelligent species to have original sin, they would need to have fallen, by choice, from a state of original justice.

Did the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity go to them and save them and open the gates of Heaven to them?

I think it would be a huge mistake to imagine Christ going from planet to planet redeeming its inhabitants. This cosmic Christ idea has been advocated by New Agers, especially those following the heretical priest, Fr. Mathew Fox. Cardinal Ratzinger and other theologians have said it would be unacceptable to imagine a Christ who hops from planet to planet redeeming its inhabitants. I completely agree.

We are better off assuming that if there is intelligent life on other planets, and there is nothing theologically opposed to the possibility of the existence of intelligent alien beings, the present life for them is a test, also, as to whether the individual chooses to love God in return or not, just as we are undergoing the test, and the angels had their test. Yet we should not speculate much beyond this about aliens and salvation, but remain within safe and reasonable theological bounds. Otherwise, it is too easy to venture off into the darkness of New Age like fantasies about planet hoping, cosmic Christ.

I feel certain that Christ’s death and resurrection on Earth was a unique and unrepeatable event for us humans on Earth. I maintain that God must have a different plan for any aliens that may exist in the universe. (The word "aliens sounds a bit “de-humanizing”. I should use a different term.)

Lots of mysteries that just sharpen the debate about evolution.

Evolution and life are mostly mystery. (In fact one of life’s unexplained mysteries is how a two-pound box of candy can make a person gain five pounds.)

The very specificity of the universe and what is called the “Anthropic Principle” attests to the fact the cosmos is what the Pope called an “Intelligent Project”. I think the phrase “Intelligent Project” is the perfect description of creation.

I feel sad for those cannot see the presence of God in creation. For me it is hard to understand how an atheist is unaware and cannot discern that which is has always been so obvious and undeniable for me.

It is tragic that many scientists in the present time can know so much about creation while knowing nothing at all about its Creator.

 

[edwest2]

What is the political version of ID theory? And what does that mean? Is there a non-political version?

Furthermore, Cardinal Schonborn must be very relevant to the issue because ID supporters often reference his NYT article as support for ID theory. However, you have mis-characterized Cardinal Schonborn’s thinking on this subject. He has explained that his discussion about intelligent design in the NYT article was a philosophical discussion from the viewpoint of classical philosophy but readers clearly mistook him for speaking from an ID perspective. Some of those readers who have misrepresented Cardinal Schonborn include columnists at First Things, where Schonborn also published an articles explaining their misrepresentations of his NYT article. He was suprised to see misrepresentations of his NYT discussion even at First Things.

To claim that Cardinal Schonborn distancing himself from ID theory was “politically motivated” is without evidence, and it fails to take into account Cardinal Schonborn’s own explanation of his views.

As stated above, there is no evidence for your explanation, and you disregarded the quotes I provided earlier in this thread from Cardinal Schonborn that show your take on the situation is not based in facts.

It’s not a coincidence, but are you just arguing against atheistic evolution and its effects on culture, while ignoring the fact that evolution theory in itself is not theistic or atheistic?

I have to disagree with that. While I generally argue for and against various aspects of evolution on a philosophical level, and not on a scientific level, I just can’t see how ID theory can pose as a scientific substitute for sound evolution theory.

The scientific evidence for common descent in general is overwhelming. I did mention that Darwin had 5 theories of evolution, and each aspect or theory may not have equal scientific merit for all concerned. Denton himself says the evidence for the fact of speciation is irrefutable. So, how do you treat what in evolution theory is overwhelmingly true? Do you just ignore it? In fact, this is exactly what you are doing. You are ignoring what is true because there exists materialist versions of evolution in the neo-Darwinian arena. It’s easier to avoid making distinctions and just lump everything together and then slap a label on it.

Do you take the position that some organisms have evolved while others are designed?

Bible and science:

Do you remember the post I made with an extended quote from St. Augustine in regard to the Bible and science. St. Augustine warned against using the Bible to argue against what scientist know is the case. He said it discredits both the Bible and the Christians making arguments against science.

As far as mindless matter giving rise to the rational mind, that is of course an absurdity on all levels. That view represents the materialists’ (and Darwin’s) metaphysical materialism. Classical philosophy gives the right answers to that ontological impossibility.

Sad.

1. You apparently missed the posts here accusing the Discovery Institute of somehow “getting to” Cardinal Schonborn, thereby influencing his NYT article.
2. The so-called “Wedge Document” is clearly political and its tactics represent an approach to social engineering that no Christian should support.
3. Textbook evolution is entirely atheistic. If it wasn’t, the ACLU would be in court right now to get it kicked out of public schools. So tacking anything ontological or religious onto it does not matter as far as the theory’s supporters are concerned.
4. I have read Cardinal Schonborn’s response to critics of his 2005 NYT article. He went on to say we should be careful about finding Intelligent Design in different places. However, he went on to clearly state that there is actual design in nature. So, no wonder ID theorists took his words as support.
5. True? The theory is true? All I know is what Pope Benedict said, after referencing a comment made by Pope John Paul II regarding ‘theories’ of evolution: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” That’s where I stand.

Have you read “Communion and Stewardship”? It’s at the Vatican web site.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fultonfish]

Was surfing around and found this also about “counter-Einstein”:

home.comcast.net/~adring/GESites.htm

[by the way, do people actually hypothesize that if there are other people “out there”, that somehow they are exempt from sin?]

[well, maybe if they are merely amoebas, but then as amoebas they would lack free will.]

[but then they would have natural law, even if they lacked the burning bush experience and their equivalent of Moses and Abraham.]

[seems incomprehensible to me that they could avoid sin. but maybe they got lucky. maybe they never got the ten commandments, so everything is in bounds.]

[maybe they are just a gaseous state, but how would they build and operate space ships without opposable thumbs?]

[what do I know; i’m just a simple carbon/hydrogen-based life form]

 

[itinerant1]

Sad.

1. You apparently missed the posts here accusing the Discovery Institute of somehow “getting to” Cardinal Schonborn, thereby influencing his NYT article.

I didn’t see any of that. Did I miss anything of earth shattering importance.

1. The so-called “Wedge Document” is clearly political and its tactics represent an approach to social engineering that no Christian should support.

I never particularly liked it, either, but I thought it was well-intentioned. But then there is often the tyranny of good intention on any side of an issue.

1. Textbook evolution is entirely atheistic. If it wasn’t, the ACLU would be in court right now to get it kicked out of public schools. So tacking anything ontological or religious onto it does not matter as far as the theory’s supporters are concerned.

This is not always the case. In fact, a textbook that was used in a university evolution class was written by Christians, and it can’t be considered atheistic. I still have the book from that class way back when: Evolution: Process and Product by Dodson and Dodson.

Regarding secondary school level biology texts, I have not seen very many to know how evolution is typically presented. I would presume they lean toward an atheistic version, but I will see which books I can find and check it out.

1. I have read Cardinal Schonborn’s response to critics of his 2005 NYT article. He went on to say we should be careful about finding Intelligent Design in different places. However, he went on to clearly state that there is actual design in nature. So, no wonder ID theorists took his words as support.

“[W]e should be careful about finding Intelligent Design in different places.” I’m not sure what is meant. Would you post the link or mail it to me on CAF? I have to head out soon.

I’m not knocking the fact ID supporters misread Schonborn. That was understandable, and no harm done at all. I am just surprised that columnists on First Things and other Catholic writers misread the cardinal. I knew right away that Schonborn was speaking from the perspective of traditional philosophy because he did not use any if the ID terms like irreducible complexity, specified complexity, and so on.

1. True? The theory is true? All I know is what Pope Benedict said, after referencing a comment made by Pope John Paul II regarding ‘theories’ of evolution: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.” That’s where I stand.

Evolution theory, because it is such a broad theory, encompassing events and things over a wide range of time and geography, by that very fact is understandably incomplete, contains errors, will be revised time and again, and the saga will continue.

Have you read “Communion and Stewardship”? It’s at the Vatican web site.
Peace,
Ed

I’ll check it later tonight.

 

[itinerant1]

Was surfing around and found this also about “counter-Einstein”:

home.comcast.net/~adring/GESites.htm

[by the way, do people actually hypothesize that if there are other people “out there”, that somehow they are exempt from sin?]

[well, maybe if they are merely amoebas, but then as amoebas they would lack free will.]

[but then they would have natural law, even if they lacked the burning bush experience and their equivalent of Moses and Abraham.]

[seems incomprehensible to me that they could avoid sin. but maybe they got lucky. maybe they never got the ten commandments, so everything is in bounds.]

[maybe they are just a gaseous state, but how would they build and operate space ships without opposable thumbs?]

[what do I know; i’m just a simple carbon/hydrogen-based life form]

So, it looks like you are into alien life speculation and dissident physics.

Perhaps there are some new ideas with these dissident physicists that could generate a new form space travel, one that does not rely on the usual propulsion systems, but manipulates electromagnetic and gravitational forces, so we could actually get around the universe in a reasonable time, snag a few aliens on the rebound for interrogation back on Earth?..a sort of reverse alien abduction.

 

[reggieM]

Darwinian theory reduces the individual to physical substance alone which gives rise to a mechanistic view of the human being. By reducing the psyche to matter, an ontology of consciousness is displaced. That is, the mind is merely a physical property within a functional system that constitutes the organism. In this sense, mind does not direct consciousness or action, matter does. In short, the human being is reduced to a thing–a reified biological machine engineered by evolution and stimulated by the environment. This approach can potentially lead to a very dehumanizing account of the individual. The intrinsic uniqueness of individuality, personality, and the phenomenology of spiritual experience collapses in reductionism. By making the human being merely an organism, one has stripped the uniquely personal and idiosyncratic dimensions of selfhood down to biology.
— adapted from Jon Mills’ Five Dangers of Materialism

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM -

I invite you, and everyone else, to read the following brief abstract:

pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.abstract

According to the PNAS, we can go one one better than Richard Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker. We now have the Unconscious Watchmaker.

As Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, the Church is now in the position of having to defend reason itself.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Regarding secondary school level biology texts, I have not seen very many to know how evolution is typically presented. I would presume they lean toward an atheistic version, but I will see which books I can find and check it out.

My fourteen-year-old’s algebra and earth science text books both lean toward atheistic versions of those disciplines. Quadratic equations, volcanoes and earthquakes are all explained without reference to God.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

The problem here is that the BioLogos’ version of theistic evolution is theologically and philosophically untenable. BioLogos allows for, and seems to prefer the view that says evolution can account for the human soul. This is a metaphysically impossible scenario in which non-rational matter gives rise to rational consciousness, albeit under the influence of God on the evolutionary process.

Why is it metaphysically impossible?

 

[StAnastasia]

In the US we have had Darwin Day. We have the year of Darwin, all advanced by guess who? The NCSE.

Evolution weekend is promoted by the Clergy Letter Project, developed by Michael Zimmerman of Butler University.

 

[itinerant1]

My fourteen-year-old’s algebra and earth science text books both lean toward atheistic versions of those disciplines. Quadratic equations, volcanoes and earthquakes are all explained without reference to God.

StAnastasia

I don’t think your comment has a point that pertains to the discussion. However, I am not really sure what your point is.

Earlier I stated that evolution theory itself is not theistic or atheistic. Edwest seems to be claiming that all or most textbooks present atheistic evolution. Of course there is not one theory of evolution. There are specifically materialist or atheistic version of evolution theory. This is confirmed by Gould himself in Ever Since Darwin. I agree with Gould on this point about an extreme neo-Darwinian version of evolution. The difference is, I view such versions as incorporating philosophical naturalism. Extreme Darwinians often wrongly believe that methodological naturalism necessarily implies a philosophical naturalism.

As to whether textbooks generally present a materialist version of evolution, I cannot yet say, as I indicated. And I take Edwest’s reference to textbooks to mean books used in schools.

Did you note that I mentioned on the contrary that one of the evolution texts I used in college was definitely not atheistic. Now, since I have not reviewed many high school biology text to see how evolution is presented, I can give no opinion. The handful of high school text I have seen do not present an obviously materialist version of evolution.

However, it seems from your comment that perhaps you don’t believe that there is any such thing as atheistic or materialist evolution theory any more than there is atheistic math or geography. I not sure why you or anyone else would make such an obviously false claim. Again, I’m not sure what you are trying to say.

Furthermore, I would say that such a view, if I interpret you correctly, is so palpably wrong that it would be up to you provide some reasoning and evidence in support of your view. I have already in much earlier posts showed, beyond any doubt, the specific nature of materialist evolution from the writings of evolutionists themselves.

Because a text does not mention God does not mean that the subject is presented as atheistic. That much should be obvious. So, I am at a loss to make any sense out of your post

 

[itinerant1]

Why is it metaphysically impossible?

Because I say so.

Actually, it is hardly a question at all “if” one understands the radical ontological difference between material and spiritual reality.

An effect cannot be greater than its cause. That is, a cause cannot generate what its nature does not possess. Matter cannot produce what it does not possess, non-material being.

On a scientific level, primarily physics, we know that things in nature consist of physical matter and energy. One would need Dawkins’ skyhook to bring in spiritual reality, and not a crane building bit by bit from physical matter and energy.

The only way around this is to assert that the spiritual soul is not truly a spiritual substance after all, but some form of physical matter and energy. But that position leads into every manner philosophical difficulties, not to mention the theological implications. And why stop there with a materialization of the soul? Why not say that God himself is a physical body? And then we end up with pantheism, and Spinoza becomes one’s philosophical guru.

 

[StAnastasia]

However, it seems from your comment that perhaps you don’t believe that there is any such thing as atheistic or materialist evolution theory any more than there is atheistic math or geography. I not sure why you or anyone else would make such an obviously false claim.

How do you derive that odd conclusion? I merely noted that like his biology book, my son’s algebra and earth sciences texts do not mention God.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think it would be a huge mistake to imagine Christ going from planet to planet redeeming its inhabitants.

Why would this be a huge mistake?

 

[itinerant1]

How do you derive that odd conclusion? I merely noted that like his biology book, my son’s algebra and earth sciences texts do not mention God.

Like I said, I’m not sure what you meant.

You said, “My fourteen-year-old’s algebra and earth science text books both lean toward atheistic versions of those disciplines. Quadratic equations, volcanoes and earthquakes are all explained without reference to God.”

The statement that “both lean toward atheistic versions of those disciplines” is problematic. What makes them lean toward atheistic versions just because they don’t mention God?

To be atheistic or lean in that direction a text would have to say something that tended to or actually denied the existence of God. To ignore God in a scientific discipline is worlds apart from denying God. Only the latter situation implies atheism.

I just didn’t think you would make that particular mistake, so I was wondering then what can you mean.

Peace

 

[NowAgnostic]

Because I say so.

Actually, it is hardly a question at all “if” one understands the radical ontological difference between material and spiritual reality.

But maybe there isn’t one. Do you have a conclusive philosophical disproof of, say, panpsychism? Or, say, dual-aspect monism?

An effect cannot be greater than its cause. That is, a cause cannot generate what its nature does not possess. Matter cannot produce what it does not possess, non-material being.

That’s just begging the question about the difference between material and non-material being, and assuming non-material being as “greater” than material being.

On a scientific level, primarily physics, we know that things in nature consist of physical matter and energy. One would need Dawkins’ skyhook to bring in spiritual reality, and not a crane building bit by bit from physical matter and energy.

And why do you hold energy as only “material”? On another scientific level, neuroscience, we know that “non-material” being is very, very closely linked with “material” being - the functioning of the brain. The most parsimonious explanation is that the supposed distinction between “material” and “non-material” is spurious.

The only way around this is to assert that the spiritual soul is not truly a spiritual substance after all, but some form of physical matter and energy.

Again begging the question, assuming energy is only physical.

 

[itinerant1]

Why would this be a huge mistake?

First, I have seen what Fr. Mathew Fox and his ilk have done with that kind of thinking, i.e. a Cosmic Christ. It’s a theological disaster.

Second, I believe the speculation about a planet hopping Christ stems from a superficial understanding of the Incarnation and Redemption. The Incarnation and Redemption is viewed by many theologians and mystics as unique and unrepeatable.

Third, when anyone I have seen tries to follwo through with this kind of speculation and its various possible implications, they end up with a very strange picture of God.

Fourth, Cardinal Ratzinger actually addressed this very issue and I am repeating his conclusion, which I agree with, but I know he has a much fuller understanding of the matter from his days at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So, my fourth reason is more an appeal to the authority of the Roman Curia.

The Vatican site has an extensive publication on the New Age thinking, and they have spent time on this issue, but I have not researched it that much to give a full explanation. You would have to consult the theologians who have addressed this issue.

 

[itinerant1]

But maybe there isn’t one. Do you have a conclusive philosophical disproof of, say, panpsychism? Or, say, dual-aspect monism?

That’s just begging the question about the difference between material and non-material being, and assuming non-material being as “greater” than material being.

And why do you hold energy as only “material”? On another scientific level, neuroscience, we know that “non-material” being is very, very closely linked with “material” being - the functioning of the brain. The most parsimonious explanation is that the supposed distinction between “material” and “non-material” is spurious.

Again begging the question, assuming energy is only physical.

I can’t make any sense out of this. Why in particular is it question begging?

 

[StAnastasia]

To be atheistic or lean in that direction a text would have to say something that tended to or actually denied the existence of God. To ignore God in a scientific discipline is worlds apart from denying God. Only the latter situation implies atheism.

What high school biology textbooks actually deny the existence of God, as Ed West was implying?

 

[itinerant1]

What high school biology textbooks actually deny the existence of God, as Ed West was implying?

Good question. I never really asked Ed for specifics. I just thought I would make it point to review more high school biology texts and form my own opinion. I suspect his statement is not completely accurate.

In post # 954, Ed says, “3. Textbook evolution is entirely atheistic. If it wasn’t, the ACLU would be in court right now to get it kicked out of public schools. So tacking anything ontological or religious onto it does not matter as far as the theory’s supporters are concerned.”