National Academies book on evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

The Cardinal has no idea of whether or not common descent is virtually certain (as the Pope says it is) His education does not include much biology. But it’s good to see that he agrees with the scientists on this board that science cannot refute God.

Of course he is unaware that there is no evidence for “design” in nature. But as Paul says in Romans, we can perceive creation in nature.

We just can’t use science to do it.

 

[PhilVaz]

With this, his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history’s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the “evolution” paradigm has become, so to speak, a “master key,” extending itself within many fields of knowledge…

The acceptance of purposefulness, of “design” [English in the original], is entirely based on reason, even if the method of the modern natural sciences may require the bracketing of the question of design. Yet my common sense cannot be shut out by the scientific method. Reason tells me that plan and order, meaning and goal exist, that a time-piece does not come into being by accident, even less so the living organism that is a plant, an animal, or, above all, man. (Cat Lect, October 2, 2005)

I am thankful for the immense work of the natural sciences. Their furthering of our knowledge boggles the mind. They do not restrict faith in the creation; they strengthen me in my belief in the Creator and in how wisely and wonderfully He has made all things… (Cat Lect, ibid)

It is one of the marvelous aspects of our earthly life that as men we are related to all other creatures. We share with them the same laws of matter, the same building blocks of life. We have no other sphere of life than that of all other living beings. We are all together in this ‘Noah’s ark’ of a planet. (Chance or Purpose, page 116-117)

Matter, the elements, of which our body is made up, originated in the tremendous nuclear fusion processes within the stars…astrophysicist Marco Bersanelli adds: 'we are in the literal sense “children of the stars” '…To acknowledge this is in no way humiliating. Being part of the universe is nothing to be ashamed of…It is likewise no humiliation when it becomes clear that man’s entry on the stage of the earth entails a long story. The long road of ‘hominization’ is the subject of intensive research…Is there a common line of descent? Are there several ‘origins’? And above all, from what chronological point can we talk about ‘man’? Can there be a gradual transition from animal to man? If man, homo sapiens, developed from ‘hominids’, man-like species, then how did hominids become men? (Chance or Purpose, page 117,118)

The Pope [Pius XII] emphasizes here [in Humani Generis] that the notion that the human body has its origin in material that already exists and is living does not stand in contradiction to the faith. The human soul, on the other hand, cannot be a product of evolution. Nor is it ‘produced’ by the parents. It is directly created by God. This doctrine of the Church represents the concrete application of the biblical teaching about the special creation of man, alone of all living things, ‘after the image and likeness of God’ (cf. Gen 1:26)…[refers to Gen 2:7]…He [man] is associated with all other living things through his earthly origin, but only on account of the soul that God ‘breathed into him’ is he a man. This accords him his distinctive dignity as well as his unique responsibility, which exalts him above all other living things and at the same time makes him their shepherd. (Chance or Purpose, page 123)

CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBORN (also)

To summarize: (1) design is based on reason, (2) but science must “bracket” the question of design since it is a philosophical issue, (3) Darwin was awesome, (4) macroevolution is true, (5) we are children of the stars, (6) our ancestors were ape-like hominids, i.e. no problems with human evolution, (7) our souls make us truly human, (8) classic creationists are speaking “nonsense” (see Cat Lect, Nov 13, 2005 also in Chance or Purpose, page 37-38 different translation).

Phil P

 

[edwest2]

More nonsense. Cardinal Schoenborn has clearly stated that neo-Darwinian evolution is not true. As the principal author of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I accept that statement without qualification.

cardinalschonborn.com/books.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Sorry ed. As you see from Shoenborn’s own writings, your characterization of his statement is wrong. And since even Pope Benedict has acknowledged the fact of evolution, isn’t it time you accepted the Church’s teaching that evolution is consistent with Christian faith?

 

[edwest2]

Your statement is in error. Fortunately, everyone here can read Cardinal Schoenborn’s own words and make up their own minds.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Sorry ed. If you look at what he actually wrote, compared to what you said he wrote, they don’t match up.

 

[wildleafblower]

I’ve previously posted quite a few articles about beetles and some articles about Charles Darwin. Love that guy (He was an amazing man!) Low and behold I found online after a trillion hits to the search over weeks, **The Autobiography of Charles Darwin **, Cambridge 1828-1831 Here is a snippet about the BEETLES that Charles Darwin wrote!

*But no pursuit at Cambridge was followed with nearly so much eagerness or gave me so much pleasure as collecting beetles. It was the mere passion for collecting, for I did not dissect them, and rarely compared their external characters with published descriptions, but got them named anyhow. I will give a proof of my zea : one day, on tearing off some old bark, I saw two rare beetles, and seized one in each hand; then I saw a third and new kind, which I could not bear to lose, so that I popped the one which I held in my right hand into my mouth. Alas! it ejected some intensley acrid fluid, which burnt my tongue so that I was forced to spit the beetle out, which was lost, as was the third one. ]

I was very successful in collecting, and invented two new methods; I employed a labourer to scrape during the winter, moss off old trees and place it in a large bag, and likewise to collect the rubbish at the bottom of the barges in which reeds are brought from the fens, and thus I got some very rare species. No poet ever felt more delighted at seeing his first poem published than I did at seeing, in Stephens’ ‘Illustrations of British Insects,’ the magic words, “captured by C. Darwin, Esq.” I was introduced to entomology by my second cousin W. Darwin Fox, a clever and most pleasant man, who was then at Christ’s College, and with whom I became extremely intimate. Afterwards I became well acquainted, and went out collecting, with Albert Way of Trinity, who in after years became a well-known archaeologist; also with H. Thompson of the same College, afterwards a leading agriculturist, chairman of a great railway, and Member of Parliament. It seems therefore that a taste for collecting beetles is some indication of future success in life!

*darwin-literature.com/The_Autobiography_of_Charles_Darwin/2.html
http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Autobiography_of_Charles_Darwin/2.html

I, myself, am a sea shell collector.(hobby) After 30 plus years most of the sea shells that I have are no longer on the beaches. They are gone. I guess that makes my collection rare.

 

[reggieM]

The long road of ‘hominization’ is the subject of intensive research…Is there a common line of descent? Are there several ‘origins’? And above all, from what chronological point can we talk about ‘man’? Can there be a gradual transition from animal to man? If man, homo sapiens, developed from ‘hominids’, man-like species, then how did hominids become men? (Chance or Purpose, page 117,118)

Phil P summarized the above as:

our ancestors were ape-like hominids

Can you see how that’s a distortion of the text?

The Pope [Pius XII] emphasizes here [in Humani Generis] that the notion that the human body has its origin in material that already exists and is living does not stand in contradiction to the faith. The human soul, on the other hand, cannot be a product of evolution. Nor is it ‘produced’ by the parents. It is directly created by God. (Creationism).

This doctrine of the Church represents the concrete application of the biblical teaching about the special creation of man, alone of all living things

As opposed to Darwinian theory.

**‘after the image and likeness of God’ **(cf. Gen 1:26)…[refers to Gen 2:7]…

As opposed to Darwinain theory.

This accords [man] his distinctive dignity as well as his unique responsibility, which exalts him above all other living things and at the same time makes him their shepherd. (Chance or Purpose, page 123)

As opposed to Darwinian theory.

To summarize: (1) design is based on reason,

The Cardinal stated elsewhere that evidence for design was “overwhelming” – as opposed to the Darwinists here who say that there is no evidence.

(3) Darwin was awesome

I would say the same about Hitler and Stalin, myself. Quite awesome in their power over people.

 

[edwest2]

Well, let’s have everyone else read it then and make up their own minds:

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0060.html

“… defenders of neo-Darwininian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least the acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with the Christian faith. But this is not true.”

Quite clear.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

John Paul concludes, “It is clear that **the truth of faith **about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

A very clear condemnation.

the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.”

This just repeats the de fide teaching.

“We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

It’s not the product of evolution.

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist.

As we have seen on this thread. It is false. The Pope is not a satisfied evolutionist, and Cardinal Schonborn knows him far better than anyone here does.

“An unguided evolutionary process — one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence — simply cannot exist.”

Again, very clear. Darwin taught that evolution was an unguided process – as do his disciples today. They’re teaching something that “cannot exist”.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

We are not products of evolution. We are not products of the accidental processes of natural laws working on matter.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

A very clear condemnation.

A condemnation of science being applied to theology. As we told you, this is wrong. Am I to take it you now accept what we’ve told you? Neither John Paul nor Benedict have trouble with Darwinian theory, so long as it does not deny God’s role. Neither, as you learned, does Shoenborn.

the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.”

Yes. Your error is in wanting science to do it for you.

“We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

It’s not chance, although Pope Benedict points out that God can use random processes to do His will.

It’s not the product of evolution.

That’s your attempt to put words in the Pope’s mouth. It didn’t work.

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist.

Since he declared that common descent is virtually certain, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

As we have seen on this thread. It is false. The Pope is not a satisfied evolutionist,

He does accept the fact of common descent of all organisms, and evolution as consistent with our faith.

He could hardly do otherwise. The evolution of new taxa is directly observed.

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

So Darwin believed when he wrote “The Origin of Species.”

We are not products of evolution.

Our bodies are, as the Pope acknowledges. But we are not our bodies.

Why not just accept the Church’s teachings on this point? Let God be God, and you accept His creation as it is.

And then you won’t have to be upset any more.

 

[edwest2]

This is not about being upset. It is about the truth. I will not “say yes” to textbook, materialistic evolution. The theory is complete without God. Do you understand? The theory explicitly denies any supernatural intervention. It denies any truly causal role to divine providence. This is why the Church and only the Church, will be my advisor on this subject. In the meantime, millions believe it all happened by itself. Human beings are not as natural as salt crystals.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

The theory is complete without God.

That’s a very simple way to say it. The fact that Barbarian is arguing about this is an obvious example of his sophistry and obfuscation.

As Cardinal Schonborn stated:

Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Barbarian is claiming that both the Pope and the Cardinal are talking about scientific theories that don’t exist. In other words, they’re wrong to warn about this or condemn this since nobody holds or teaches these theories.

 

[PhilVaz]

reggie << We are not products of evolution. We are not products of the accidental processes of natural laws working on matter. >>

We are indeed the products of evolution. We are also the products of the Creator. So says Cardinal Schonborn. You have to get his book Chance or Purpose. He does not question the science. He questions some people’s philosophical ideas or interpretations of the science. (A) We are children of the stars, and (B) our immediate ancestors were ape-like, man-like hominids. He does not question either but accepts both of those propositions: “To acknowledge this is in no way humiliating…” (i.e. he acknowledges we are children of the stars), and “It is likewise no humiliation when it becomes clear that man’s entry on the stage of the earth entails a long story…” (i.e. he accepts the science of human evolution, that we evolved over a long period of time from the early hominids).

We are not products of wholly accidental processes since God runs the show. God created the universe, God initiates evolution, God guides evolution, God is in sovereign control of the universe. As the ITC statement notes:

“…God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation…In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life…it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” (International Theological Commission on creation and evolution, 2004).

This statement was signed by Cardinal Ratzginer (Benedict XVI). Another quote I’ve given before:

“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)

Amen. The present Pope, Cardinal Schonborn, and the Catechism (159, 283-284) entirely agree with the above.

So how long will this thread go on? You have a ways to go if you want to break the creation-evolution thread record: the world record is 1,252 replies, 15,710 views, at 84 total pages.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << citing Schonborn: “…defenders of neo-Darwininian dogma…” >>

Yeah, and he clearly has in mind folks like Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins, all atheists who use evolution to promote a philosophical worldview. Schonborn may be wrong in his interpretation of these guys, but this is what he means by neo-Darwinian dogma and ideology. He does not have in mind, he does not question, and he clearly accepts the legitimate sciences of biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, anthropology, etc which all affirm macroevolution is true. The following is Schonborn from October 2, 2005:

---

(1) In 1959, Sir Julian Huxley gave a speech at the centennial celebration of the publication of the famous work:

“In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure…” (Huxley)

I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a “confession of faith” – that faith being materialism.

(2) Thirty years later, in 1988, the American writer Will Provine wrote in an essay about evolution and ethics:

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable.” (Provine)

This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim.

(3) Four years later, the Oxford chemistry professor Peter Atkins wrote:

“Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment.” (Atkins)

Again, this is a “confession of faith”; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of “border-crossings,” that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview.

Creation and Evolution: To the Debate as it Stands

---

If you want Schonborn’s up-to-date viewpoint, you must get his book Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (Ignatius, 2007) which is a new translation from the German of his 2005-2006 Cat Lectures on this topic. It will not do just to quote his July 2005 NY Times editorial (which is btw not included in the book). See his full book on the topic.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Furthermore, one more time for those who don’t yet get it, here is what Cardinal Schonborn thinks of Charles Darwin himself and his Origin of Species, not “neo-Darwinian dogma and ideology” but Charles Darwin himself, the 19th century scientist, and his book:

“There is no doubt that Darwin’s principal work was a stroke of genius, and it remains one of the truly great works in the history of ideas. With an incredible gift for observation, and a great deal of hard work and prodigious mental powers, he produced this seminal book, which is among the most influential works in the history of ideas. And he could see in advance that many areas of science would benefit from his research. We can in fact say, today, that the model of ‘evolution’ has become a universal key to understanding, and its use has spread to many areas of knowledge.” (Chance or Purpose, page 26)

For those of you who can’t read (i.e. reggie and Ed), this says:

Darwin was awesome.

Schonborn goes on to distinguish Darwin’s scientific contribution, from such philosophical or theological positions as “Darwinism” and “Deism” (pages 26-28). Again, Schonborn has no problem with and accepts all legitimate science, which includes Darwin’s genius (Schonborn’s word). For heaven’s sake, get his book now.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Ed << This is not about being upset. It is about the truth. >>

Ed, you can’t handle the truth. (“A Few Good Men”) The truth is found in my last 3 posts.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote long ago (originally 1986): “All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary – rather than mutually exclusive – realities. But let us look a little closer, because here, too, the progress of thought in the last two decades helps us to grasp anew the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason.” (In The Beginning)

You Can’t Handle the Truth I’m back on these creation-evolution threads for a while, and we’ll take them to 85 pages, 1300 replies, and 20,000 page views if we theistic evolutionists have to, and surpass all kinds of CA Forums world records!

Phil P

 

[The_Barbarian]

edwest2 tries another approach:

The theory is complete without God.

If so, then so is chemistry and physics, neither of which involve God. Why do you think they have to? The Pope has already pointed out that they shouldn’t. We have pointed out that they shouldn’t.

Reggie tries another way:

That’s a very simple way to say it. The fact that Barbarian is arguing about this is an obvious example of his sophistry and obfuscation.

You’re upset that the Magisterium says that science should not be talking about God. But creationists are out on the limb by themselves on this one; scientists agree with the Church.

Shoenborn’s statement:
Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of “chance and necessity” are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

And yet the Pope says that God can use contingency to His purposes. They can’t be both right, unless you’ve misrepresented their statements.

Barbarian is claiming that both the Pope and the Cardinal are talking about scientific theories that don’t exist.

Nonsense. Such ideas aren’t theories, but they do exist. You and edwest, for example, have invented them. However, evolutionary theory as scientists use it, does not in any way reject God’s role in the world.

In other words, they’re wrong to warn about this or condemn this since nobody holds or teaches these theories.

I think it’s fine to make these points; after all, you’re proposing such a theory, and scientifically-illiterate atheists do. Dawkins, as aggressive an atheist as he is, isn’t wild enough to actually claim evolutionary theory disproves God.

That is the way of the ignorant and the creationist.

 

[edwest2]

Evolutionary theory, as scientists use it, explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role.

You’ve never read a contract, have you?

“It says here that evolution works without any supernatural cause?”

“That’s right.”

“Where do I sign?”

“Right here.”

“So, evolution works with God, right?”

"That’s nowhere in the theory. So, it would be reasonable to believe that no supernatural force of any kind was involved, including your God.

“So you can just join the atheists over there.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Evolutionary theory, as scientists use it, explicitly denies to divine providence any truly causal role.

You’ve never read a contract, have you?

“It says here that evolution works without any supernatural cause?”

“That’s right.”

“Where do I sign?”

“Right here.”

“So, evolution works with God, right?”

"That’s nowhere in the theory. So, it would be reasonable to believe that no supernatural force of any kind was involved, including your God.

“So you can just join the atheists over there.”

God bless,
Ed

Good ol’ Ed, writing fiction about science again.

Peace

Tim