Pope's astronomer dismisses ID and says Church was "spectacularly wrong" in its treatment of Galileo

[reggieM]

Theistic evolution and ID are coming closer together all the time. From the ID site, Uncommon Descent:

A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement

The ASA organization (Theistic Evolution) has invited ID-favorable speakers to their conferences.

Francis Collins has recently praised the work of Michael Behe.

The division between Theistic Evolution and ID is not as radical as some think. Most Catholic evolutionists accept some of the foundational concepts of ID. In fact, every orthodox Catholic must accept that God intervenes in nature, that design is observable in nature, and that neo-Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of human beings.

 

[lao_tzu]

Francis Collins has recently praised the work of Michael Behe.

Not a chance, reggie. I don’t know about the rest of that you just posted, but this one is blatantly untrue. Collins is well known to have praised the work of Behe’s greatest debunker, Ken Miller.

As ever, Jesse

 

[grannymh]

Theistic evolution and ID are coming closer together all the time. From the ID site, Uncommon Descent:

A Convergence Between Biologos and the Intelligent Design Movement

The ASA organization (Theistic Evolution) has invited ID-favorable speakers to their conferences.

Francis Collins has recently praised the work of Michael Behe.

The division between Theistic Evolution and ID is not as radical as some think. Most Catholic evolutionists accept some of the foundational concepts of ID. In fact, every orthodox Catholic must accept that God intervenes in nature, that design is observable in nature, and that neo-Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of human beings.

Is this the website Biologos you are referring to? biologos.org/

If it is, then in my humble opinion, some theistic evolution is not compatible with Catholicism.

This is what came up when I put Adam in the search bar.

Was Adam a Real Person? Part III | The BioLogos Forum

In the final chapter of Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008), Denis O. Lamoureux opens, "My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity. …
snip
As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.

biologos.org/blog/was-adam-a-real-person-part-iii/

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[reggieM]

Not a chance, reggie. I don’t know about the rest of that you just posted, but this one is blatantly untrue. Collins is well known to have praised the work of Behe’s greatest debunker, Ken Miller.

I’m not going to bother trying to find the quote by Francis Collins since I didn’t intend that comment to mean that Mr. Collins fully agrees with Michael Behe.
There is more convergence between the two views than many would think, however, since Francis Collins believes that human morality was intelligently designed and not the product of an evolutionary process.

As for the rest of what I posted, you can read the link and learn more about the topic.

 

[reggieM]

Is this the website Biologos you are referring to? biologos.org/

Yes.

If it is, then in my humble opinion, some theistic evolution is not compatible with Catholicism.

I agree. I find ID theory far more compatible with Catholicism. You can read Vincent Torley’s analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’ views on creation and how they are more consistent with Intelligent Design than with Theistic Evolution here:

St. Thomas Aquinas and his Fifteen Smoking Guns (Part One of a five-part reply to Professor Tkacz)

I think this is an important article for your research, Granny. Darwinian theory is incompatible with St. Thomas’ teaching on the origin of the human person.

In the final chapter of Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008), Denis O. Lamoureux opens, "My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity. …
snip

Right. This is the kind of heretical doctrine that many who blindlly follow Darwinian theory fall into.

As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.

Right again, and I agree with your excellent insight offered some time ago, that we need much stronger apologetics supporting the Church’s teaching on the origin of the human race through our first parents.

 

[lao_tzu]

I’m not going to bother trying to find the quote by Francis Collins since I didn’t intend that comment to mean that Mr. Collins fully agrees with Michael Behe.

Hello reggie,

There is no such quote. You may attempt to find one or forgo the effort, but the result will be the same. No such quote will be presented because it is not true. This is not a question of less than full agreement. Your statement was wholly inaccurate. Collins is firmly opposed to Behe and the other members of the Discovery Institute, and goes to great lengths to spell out his disagreements in his book, The Language of God, a copy of which is presently sitting next to me, along with Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, supported by Collins, which presents the same position.

As for the rest of what I posted, you can read the link and learn more about the topic.

There’s no way to say this gently. Dembski is a bitter failure as a researcher, reduced to mining publications for support for his position in lieu of actual results of his own. That is, in the time he can spare from dubbing in fart noises on flash videos. He retains no credibility whatsoever. Your link merely highlights the case, where he cites an entire article that carefully, in excruciating detail, dissects the serious academic failings of Behe’s work before exiting with a grand gesture of parting kindness laid on the withered remains of the fallen victim. It can in no way be considered a rapprochement with Behe in particular or with ID more generally.

I can only suggest that you read the link and learn more about the topic.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Touchstone]

Is this the website Biologos you are referring to? biologos.org/

If it is, then in my humble opinion, some theistic evolution is not compatible with Catholicism.

This is what came up when I put Adam in the search bar.

Was Adam a Real Person? Part III | The BioLogos Forum

In the final chapter of Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (2008), Denis O. Lamoureux opens, "My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity. …
snip
As many of our readers know, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a critically important topic in the discussion of Christianity and human origins. Although BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans (see here), science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve, which opens this interesting discussion.

biologos.org/blog/was-adam-a-real-person-part-iii/

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

granny,

Yes, Biologos officially takes no position on the historicity of Adam and Eve (see also, comment at the lovely TeamPyro blog here, from Biologos president Darrel Falk), and you can find authors at Biologos (as well as commenters) who fall on both sides of that issue.

Indeed, some forms of theistic evolution are contra Catholic dogma, and for the same basic reason that conservative evangelicals reject them – the “non-historical” nature of Adam & Eve is too destabilizing to the rest of the Biblical narrative.

That’s the fundamentalist’s caution; you can’t go down the science road, for the data (or its interpreters at least) won’t stop where things get theologically uncomfortable. I was a theistic evolutionist for decade or more, and this I found true. The genetic evidence makes a historical Adam & Eve hugely problematic. Where does the TE go? Just assert dogma there, chopping off science at that point, and refusing to follow the data farther? That’s an option, but if you are gonna do that, you might as well start way back with a more straightforward reading of the rest of Genesis.

Anyway, TEs are extra-despicable because they demonstrate a great degree of harmony between science and their theology (the historical Adam & Eve problem notwithstanding), and this is infuriating for literalists. It’s hard to say “you can’t DO that”, when so many devout Christians are doing that.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

Hello reggie

Hello!

He retains no credibility whatsoever.

Interesting opinion. I disagree, but it’s worth hearing your views.

Your link merely highlights the case, where he cites an entire article that carefully, in excruciating detail, dissects the serious academic failings of Behe’s work before exiting with a grand gesture of parting kindness laid on the withered remains of the fallen victim. It can in no way be considered a rapprochement with Behe in particular or with ID more generally.

You might want to review the comment thread where key members of Biologos participated and indicated their interest in working more closely with ID.

If you’re saying that Theistic Evolutionists have nothing in common with those who support ID, then you can easily be corrected on that view by reading comments from Catholics here on CAF who are comfortable with both positions.

So again, I appreciate your opinion but I think you’re a bit too millitant about something and I can’t find any reason that you need to take that attitude, myself.

 

[grannymh]

reggieM:
I agree. I find ID theory far more compatible with Catholicism. You can read Vincent Torley’s analysis of St. Thomas Aquinas’ views on creation and how they are more consistent with Intelligent Design than with Theistic Evolution here:

St. Thomas Aquinas and his Fifteen Smoking Guns (Part One of a five-part reply to Professor Tkacz)

I think this is an important article for your research, Granny. Darwinian theory is incompatible with St. Thomas’ teaching on the origin of the human person.

Thanks, Reggie for link.

Scanning it, I find that it is a toe to toe discourse regarding what St. Thomas was really teaching. I will read it in full later since I did not immediately see the key point that St. Thomas makes about truth. Professor Tkacz calls this obvious point the third alternative.

In my humble opinion, this third alternative would bring people together. It certainly has energized my defense of the real Adam and Eve as I explore natural science.

Hopefully, when I go back to Vincent Torley’s analysis, I will find his comments regarding St. Thomas’ approach to truth.

Blessings,
granny

 

[reggieM]

I took a few minutes to look for the Collins quote on Behe and I think it came from his 2008 talk at Stanford University (this report mentions that Collins says ID is “interesting but flawed”), although I don’t have the transcript. More important than his opinion on Michael Behe is the content of Francis Collins’ thought – which I already explained has a strong pro-ID component, namely that God created human morality.
This essay gives an overview of Francis Collins’ views:

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-08-032-f

From the article (my emphasis):

For instance, in [Collins’] arguments for design from the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, Collins makes the same kind of argument for design that Behe makes, inferring design as the best explanation of the current evidence. In each case a critic could note that Collins has himself violated the rule of methodological materialism he has invoked against intelligent design theory…
Collins contends that “humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.”

So, for Jesse’s interest – I can’t get very excited about the differences here between Collins’ views and those of ID since neither fully accept the claims of Darwinian theory and both argue that God’s intervention in nature is a necessary part of their view.

 

[reggieM]

Francis Collins’ organization, Biologos supports “cosmological ID”, using the same arguments that ID uses in biology.

From The Biologos site on Fine Tuning

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”?
Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.

biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/

 

[grannymh]

So, for Jesse’s interest – I can’t get very excited about the differences here between Collins’ views and those of ID since neither fully accept the claims of Darwinian theory and both argue that God’s intervention in nature is a necessary part of their view.

Re: “God’s intervention in nature is a necessary part of their view.” How does one explain that statement using real examples? From the ID point of view.

 

[reggieM]

Re: “God’s intervention in nature is a necessary part of their view.” How does one explain that statement using real examples? From the ID point of view.

Good question, granny.

We could take a look at Francis Collins’ support of Intelligent Design theory in these two examples:

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator.

Here Dr. Collins states that the fine-tuning, or precise alignment in the order of the cosmos is an indicator of “a Creator”. This means that “nature alone” is not sufficient to explain the coincidental arrangment of the universe which enabled life on earth.

So, we observe order (design) in nature, which cannot be explained by chance and natural law alone, and infer a Designer (Creator).

Here’s Francis Collins again from the post I quoted:

Collins contends that “humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.”

In this case, at the biological level, “humans defy evolutionary explanation”. That again is the Intelligent Design argument. Darwinian processes cannot explain the origin of consciousness, free-will, rationality, imagination, memory and religious-sense of human beings and these things “point to our spiritual nature” (and thus God).

So, we observe that chance and law cannot explain what we observe. In Intelligent Design terms, the irreducible complexity of DNA code, for example, is indicator of the presence of an Intelligence at work.

Moving from the recognition of intelligence in nature to the belief that God is the author of nature requires more arguments than simply the ID view. ID is a starting point.

Here’s St. Thomas Aquinas giving the ID view

From the Summa Theologica (On the Government of Things in General (q 103, article 1):

Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible …

First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes].

Here’s St. Thomas making the same argument.

We observe a “well-ordered house” and we infer that there was “him that put it in order”.

So again, we see the language of genetic code in the cell and we recognize that there was a Mind who put it there.

 

[grannymh]

Good question, granny.

We could take a look at Francis Collins’ support of Intelligent Design theory in these two examples:
Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator.
Here Dr. Collins states that the fine-tuning, or precise alignment in the order of the cosmos is an indicator of “a Creator”. This means that “nature alone” is not sufficient to explain the coincidental arrangment of the universe which enabled life on earth.

So, we observe order (design) in nature, which cannot be explained by chance and natural law alone, and infer a Designer (Creator).

Here’s Francis Collins again from the post I quoted:
Collins contends that “humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature.”
In this case, at the biological level, “humans defy evolutionary explanation”. That again is the Intelligent Design argument.

“Humans defy evolutionary explanation” could very well be the Intelligent Design argument. But that is not specific enough when approaching human nature from a scientific view point.

One ID leader I contacted backed off completely to my specific question regarding the origin of human nature. This man had a legitimate reason so I do not fault his response. However, I do wonder why he did not direct me to someone else.

Another ID leader made the general comment that there was not much on the Catholic issue of Adam and Eve. My guess is that there is a big tent of general statements like the one from Dr. Collins, but people want to stay away from the monogenism issue. Frankly, I don’t blame them.

Darwinian processes cannot explain the origin of consciousness, free-will, rationality, imagination, memory and religious-sense of human beings and these things “point to our spiritual nature” (and thus God).

The original Darwinian processes have been updated big time regarding explanations for the intellect. The current problem is that many people do not realize that an explanation needs actual evidence which warrants the conclusions or explanations.

Consequently, many people will refer to “mountains of evidence” against the Catholic position of two sole parents of the human species because someone else told them that was the case or they heard a sound bite, etc. “Mountains of evidence” is a dream-come-true advertising slogan.

I would like to know if there are any ID scientists who support the position of two sole parents of humanity. If there are not any, that will not reflect poorly on ID. Those who support ID have the right to choose their area of interest. This right to choose one’s particular area of interest, is why I normally do not get into ID discussions.

So, we observe that chance and law cannot explain what we observe. In Intelligent Design terms, the irreducible complexity of DNA code, for example, is indicator of the presence of an Intelligence at work.

Moving from the recognition of intelligence in nature to the belief that God is the author of nature requires more arguments than simply the ID view. ID is a starting point.

I have no problem with that approach. However, I am looking for info regarding specific scientific approaches to the issue of human nature itself. My guess is that human nature itself, as defined by Catholicism, is not in the job description for ID. That is perfectly o.k. Every organization has the right to declare its area of operation.

Even though my decision is to stick to my relatively small area of scientific interest, I do respect the people who are involved with ID. I am grateful for the information which they have shared with me. Hopefully, that will continue.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception

 

[reggieM]

This right to choose one’s particular area of interest, is why I normally do not get into ID discussions.

That makes perfect sense to me.
If you can develop a listing of scientists who support the Catholic teaching on Adam & Eve, whether they’re ID-oriented or not, I would love to see it, myself.

 

[grannymh]

That makes perfect sense to me.
If you can develop a listing of scientists who support the Catholic teaching on Adam & Eve, whether they’re ID-oriented or not, I would love to see it, myself.

While I agree that a list of scientists, theists or non-theists, who support human monogenism would be good; however for my use, it would have to be narrowed down to scientists who are very familiar with this century’s research regarding the origin of human nature. I will promise them anonymity.

At this point in time, I would prefer developing a short list of available scientists who are active, or have been active, in research projects denying the reality of two, real, sole, fully complete human beings who are the progenitors of the human species.
I will promise them anonymity.

Concurrent with this list, I need a list of analytical thinkers well versed in scientific methods, including the inductive method. I will promise them anonymity.

Regarding Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve, the specific dogma which I will use is the one regarding Adam and Eve as first and only parents of humanity. Supporting dogmas are the ones directly dealing with human nature. This information is in public domain.

Correctly, Professor Michael Tkacz points out the error of the “mutually exclusive or”. Many people assume that one is either a devoted evolutionist or devoted to the Intelligent Design theory. Tkacz offers Thomas Aquinas’ careful reasoning as the third alternative which can be used with apologetics. In our century this reasoning would draw out the good from biological science without abandoning Divine Revelation. Truth is the goal.

What really is at stake is Divine Revelation as contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Tkacz’s third alternative could move the evolutionary theory debate away from the current polarized positions of creation vs. evolution by using the reasoning of Thomas Aquinas when he was challenged by the development of the natural sciences.

In a sense, Thomas Aquinas faced the same dilemma regarding scientific research and Catholic doctrine that we are facing today. The basis for the statement “truth cannot contradict truth” is Aquinas’ admonishment to understand Catholic teachings in depth and to equally hold science to high standards.

Michael W. Tkacz writes: “Into this medieval debate comes Aquinas, who reasoned thus: God is the author of all truth; the aim of scientific research is the truth; therefore, there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two. Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth.”(emphasis mine)

Tkacz also writes: “In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research,** provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously**.” (emphasis mine)

Source for Michael Tkacz quotes:catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0811fea4.asp

Bessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[lao_tzu]

This essay gives an overview of Francis Collins’ views:

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-08-032-f

Hello reggie,

With all due respect, no, it doesn’t. The author of this essay, Jonathan Witt, like Dembski, is another member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that famously misrepresents both science and scientists. This is the equivalent of citing Luther on the position of the Catholic church.

As ever, Jesse

 

[buffalo]

Hello reggie,

With all due respect, no, it doesn’t. The author of this essay, Jonathan Witt, like Dembski, is another member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that famously misrepresents both science and scientists. This is the equivalent of citing Luther on the position of the Catholic church.

As ever, Jesse

I noticed a new tactic. When not able to deal, shoot down the person.

 

[reggieM]

I noticed a new tactic. When not able to deal, shoot down the person.

Correct. I gave significant quotes directly from Francis Collins’ website. These were ignored. The focus shifted entirely to Jonathan Witt, who also quoted Collins. But the fact that Witt is a member of the Discovery Institute means that what he said was in error?

That’s pretty flimsy.

We can accept what we see on the Biologos site. Strong support for cosmological ID with an entire section on Fine Tuning arguments.

 

[reggieM]

[quoting the Discovery Institute on science] is the equivalent of citing Luther on the position of the Catholic church.

Most Catholic scholars today accept that Luther (a Catholic, Augustinian monk) offered valid criticisms on Catholic practices that needed to be reformed. Unfortunately, he went astray, but many others also feel that the separation might have been avoided with a better acceptance for a valid, minority opinion.

So, your analogy might be very fitting but for reasons other than what you intended.