Science presupposes order and design in nature, but since it is concerned only with the phenomenal order of things it does not reach to that level of causality (being itself and its determinations) that explains order, design and purpose. Cardinal Schonborn has made this same point.
This depends on what is meant by design or order or purpose. Philosophy can define those terms. Science can either presuppose that those things can be found in nature, or it can seek to find them. From the scientific view, there is randomness and there is design. If science can explain that as the result of a random process, then there is no reason or need to posit that there is design evident in the process. One could take the teleological view and state that the random process shows purpose and thus is evidence of design.
This is what you’re pointing to and is very commonly heard in Catholic teaching. I am not arguing against that view. I am only adding the extra component that is found in Catholic philosophy on teleology that was actually dropped by some Catholics in the mid-20th century, but revived by Intelligent Design theorists – who actually picked up the Catholic concepts again. That second-aspect to Catholic teleology is what Fr. McWilliams termed “strucutral order” which is evident in nature. Fr. Schantz, in his three-volume work “Christian apology” calls that the “physio-teleology” argument. It is different than the view you’ve given – not replacing the metaphysical view of the order and purpose found in the laws or proccesses on nature, but supplimenting it by showing concrete examples in nature that cannot be the product of accidental or random processes (such as evolution).
You’ve already supported this idea in your discussion on the mind. If the mind could be reduced to physicality and then explained by physical laws and processes, then the mind (and soul) would be reduced to a product of matter and energy – this would have a profound effect on the understanding of human life (and be incompatible with the Catholic Faith). Youv’e argued that science cannot explain the mind – and that gives support to your belief in the non-material composition of the mind itself. So, you’re looking at the phenominal aspect and arriving at conclusions about the non-materiality of the mind. That is basically the ID argument (although with less detail about design and intelligence).
So, this argument is not one regarding order found only at the noumenal level of being. In this case (about the mind), science would indeed be telling Cardinal Schonborn something about design in nature.
The response I got from one of you IDers was something like design is clearly seen by the common person. This kind of response fails to distinguish the order and design observed on the phenomenal level from the explanation of that design and order that is only accounted for at the noumenal level of being.
Sure, there are different kinds of design that can be observed at different levels of reality. But the fact that design and purpose can be explained at the higher level – in the metaphysical structure of reality, does not mean that design cannot be observed at the phenomenal level also. Again, that has been a classic apologetical argument for Catholicism for centuries. We can see things in nature which cannot be the product of chance (blind, undirected, random, accidental, purposeless) processes.
St. Thomas made that clear in answering whether nature came about by chance.
He offered both views-- the view you favor, which is the metaphysical understanding of order. That’s the theistic evolutionary view of Fr. Jaki and Fr. Oaks (side note - I’ve discovered that Fr. Oaks is not as sold on evolutionary theory as it might seem otherwise) for example.
But notice that St. Thomas uses a second argument – observations of order and design in nature. He compares it with a house that is ordered. ID merely takes it a step further and shows more precisely that some aspects of order in nature cannot be explained by any known natural laws.
This does not mean, as some suggest, that God is “interfering in nature” to fix things or create them ex nihilo. All it means is that some coordinating, organizing, designing and powerful intelligence must have been at work in the origin and development of those features.
This is something learned at the scientific level – not the philosophical level.
It’s just like forensics – looking for clues.
It is not the knowledge of natural science that says this thing exhibits design and purpose and therefore a Designer is at work.
The Church uses this exact method when investigating claims of the miraculous, though.
I have explained all of this before and so there has been no progress on this topic. I feel like it is déjà vu all over again.
You have explained this before but I don’t think you’ve addressed the scientific issues, or the fact that there is a long tradition in the Catholic Faith which does look to science to show evidence of God’s intelligence at work in nature.
