Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[stoplooklisten]

I am not atheist, there are many more gods in my scriptures than in yours.

Good to know…following a crucified Jesus who said many hard sayings that include “Follow Me.” was never going to be an attractive option for those unwilling to absorb the cost of discipleship.

 

[Dovekin]

Allyson,

This is from John Paul II’s 22 October 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He addresses many of the issues that keep coming up here.

Man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ. It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: if the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.
John Paul II.

 

[Allyson]

Why are you repeating to dodge the simple question? Every living cell observed contains specified digital information. We call digital organized information “intelligence”. The proposition is that all intelligent effects require an intelligent cause. This proposition (two universals embedded) is easily falsifiable with just one example to the contrary. So again I ask, what repeatable intelligent effect do you offer that emanates from an unintelligent cause?

I said that you were shifting goal posts because I had asked you a very specific question and came back asking about sometime else in your prior comment that I was not asking about. It made it look like you did not have an answer to my specific question that does not have anything to do with what you are asking me now.

You said and I asked:

o_mlly:

One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.

Who are ID Science proponents that are not creationists? I know of no one who is not in some way associated with a creation science organization like the Discovery Institute or the Institute for Creation Research etc. Yes, when I was first introduced to ID in 2003, the claim was that it was not creationism, but in reality the name Intelligent Design was adopted by creationism to get around Edwards v. Aguillard. It is just squishy enough of a term that it can apply to someone who believes God did it through natural process or to creationism. I think that some theologians do not mean creationism when they say intelligent design, but all the people I know of doing the science are propping up creationism in one form or another.

I am genuinely interested to know who the scientists are that are ID but not creationists. I would include long and short earth in the definition of creationist.

You called this a red herring. I have no idea why except maybe I asked a question you were not prepared to answer. I do not know is always an acceptable answer.

 

[o_mlly]

Not a strawman. I have no wish to target anything which does not reflect your real opinion; but I do agree I made an unjustified assumption. Was it not true?

If one has no wish to strawman then the one ought use the “quote” facility on this website than incorrectly paraphrasing another.

I wish you’d keep things clear.

Confusion is not always in the sender but in the receiver. If you cannot string together what you claim is being shifted around then I can only conclude you are not reading the posts.

Of course not. But you have no evidence that what you claim is true either.

All universal claims are easily falsifiable with just one contradiction. So far no one has offered such an example. Do you have a “black swan” you can share?

… clear understanding of what we both understand by intelligence …

Again, if one is confused, rather than blame the sender, one ought to re-read the posts. It appears the confusion is in the receiver. From post #789:

We call digital organized information “intelligence”.

Let me spell it out using substituiton. Please provide a repeatable observation of a living being that contains “digital organized information” with an unintelligent cause.

Of course, the claim cannot be verified (neither can gravity) but it can be quite easily falsified.

I’m sure you agree that that’s a false argument

No, I do not see that as a false argument. Are you not the zygote that is intelligent? Is an unconscious person unintelligent? The creature need not manifest its faculties continuously to demonstrate those faculties are resident. If you are offended by the word “cripple” then substitute “bi-pedal”. The meaning does not change.

If I saw a log in two, that does not make the sawdust intelligent …

Whatever is your point? No one claimed that all effects caused by intelligent beings result in intelligent effects.

 

[o_mlly]

This is a fraudulent misrepresentation of my hypothetical.

No, it’s basic physics. I asked for a repeatable observation. You gave an unrealistic hypothetical.

You asked for an example of “Information organized” by something other than an intelligent cause. You did not specify the type of causality, which may be why we disagree.

Did the hot or cold water move to encompass the animals? I think not. The cause is the intelligent animals moving to organize themselves.

If you want to go back to glass bubbles instead of animals, you can rework the hypothetical.

I searched on “bubbles” in the thread and did not find a previous post. ?

Please provide repeatable observations, not unrealistic hypotheticals.

 

[o_mlly]

You called this a red herring. I have no idea why except maybe I asked a question you were not prepared to answer. I do not know is always an acceptable answer.

A red herring is a diversion from the issue at hand. Make a case that your question is relevant to the argument. “Who” does or does not support the claim is irrelevant and smacks of leading us into just another fallacy.

 

[Allyson]

A red herring is a diversion from the issue at hand. Make a case that your question is relevant to the argument. “Who” does or does not support the claim is irrelevant and smacks of leading us into just another fallacy.

I asked you an honest question from a position of genuine interest. You gave me a dishonest answer. You made an assertion, and I wanted an example.

One must distinguish between *ID Creationists" proponents and ID Science proponents.

I am not concerned with the rest of that comment from which I drew the quote. I want to know who is an ID Science proponent who is not in some way also connected to ID creationsim. That is not a difficult question to answer. How can that possibly have anything to do with a fallacy. I am not seeking to make an arguement. I just want information so I can examine another perspective. That is all!

 

[Dovekin]

Please provide repeatable observations , not unrealistic hypotheticals.

Now I have to be realistic! You make too many demands.

Information is organized by temperature and barometric pressure, unintelligent causes. It allows meteorologists to try to predict the weather, which is usually an example of an intelligent cause producing disorganized information.

The question is who organizes the information, the glass bubbles or the observer. As I said, I thought the animals would help you understand, but they were a bad substitute.

 

[Allyson]

It has been an interesting late morning reading all the replies since I posted last night. Not one person who has been replying is not a believer from what I can tell, yet there have been accusations of wannabe atheism. I just have to shake my head. Understanding the purely natural forces at work in the physical world is not atheism by default. The JPII quote captures that well.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

incorrectly paraphrasing another

Incorrect? I’m very sorry. So if this is incorrect: “God is the name you give to the intelligent source…” would you care to say what the nature of this mysterious “intelligent source” is?

All universal claims are easily falsifiable with just one contradiction

Indeed. And I gave you one, but was then told that a zygote was intelligent. By corollary, it seems that a zygote is bipedal. Following your logic, a zygote can also make an omelette and drive a car.

The creature need not manifest its faculties continuously to demonstrate those faculties are resident.

That’s a good point. But no zygote has ever demonstrated any kind of intelligence. You are equating the organism that the zygote will grow into with the zygote itself, which is a linguistic appropriation with which I disagree. There is, I suppose, a sense in which an acorn is an oaktree, but there are a great deal more senses in which it isn’t.

Well, never mind, let me try to get to the heart of your request…

Cite just one repeatable example of an intelligent effect from an unintelligent cause.

I think you’ll have to follow me along a bit, if you don’t mind.
Firstly, I’m going to exclude all living things, in case it turns out that they all count as intelligent effects from intelligent causes.
That takes us to the inanimate world, and I’m attracted to snowflakes. Certainly extremely organised. Certainly repeatable. But digital? I’m not sure what you mean by digital. However, if people are digital, then I guess snowflakes are too.

How will that do, for a start?

 

[buffalo]

Actually, burden of proof belongs to design without cause, Where are the observations of an unintelligent cause of a intelligent effect?

And why ID is falsifiable and evolution is not. There is a 10 Million $$$ prize going for the first one to do it. @rossum - Throw your hat in the ring.

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences - is the largest gathering of scientists …

Lots of atheists on that roster…,

 

[buffalo]

You may be right, but my question was how to distinguish between the two by observation. Can you explain?

We do not observe bottom up design.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

We do not observe bottom up design.

Does this mean something? If so, can you explain it more clearly? Many thanks.

 

[buffalo]

In the thermometer I showed earlier, did the glass bubbles organize? If you want to go back to glass bubbles instead of animals, you can rework the hypothetical. I only switched to animals because I thought it might help you see the connection to evolution you are missing. Maybe if we switch to amino acids you will see an organization of information done by unintelligent temperature that is fundamental to what ever kind of “organized information” you want to discuss?

We should not confuse patterns in nature with symbols, maps and language.

 

[buffalo]

Does this mean something? If so, can you explain it more clearly? Many thanks.

That is the entire issue of the ID argument. If we observed self organizing FSCI and/or the purposeful arrangement of parts we would not be debating. There is a 10M dollar prize for this. Lee Cronin (atheist and not an ID guy) is ironically developing a program to detect design after 15 or so steps of chemical reactions. I had to chuckle over this one. I am not sure he knows the implications of what he stated.

 

[buffalo]

Science goes full circle​

Science goes full circle on teleology. Michael Denton discusses the return to the teleological ideas of the past. The universe is biocentric.

Science goes full circle

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin

idvolution.blogspot.com

 

[rossum]

And why ID is falsifiable and evolution is not.

Evolution is falsifiable. It has been falsifiable since Haldane’s apocryphal “Precambrian Rabbit” in the 1970s.

Whoever offered that prize is obviously ignorant of science. I recall Kent Hovind offering a similar prize, is that what you are referring to?

 

[Dovekin]

We should not confuse patterns in nature with symbols, maps and language.

No, we should not. If you promise not to do it, I will as well…

 

[stoplooklisten]

An uncreated God is one of the options for avoiding the regress.

Thank you for the acknowledgment.

The scientific method works only in the present. It depends upon repeatable experiments. We cannot repeat the past and put it under observation. We cannot repeat the future. It hasn’t happened yet.