Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[reggieM]

Something worth reading. Let’s discuss.

Is Darwinian Evolution Compatible with Religion?

This is an important essay and it blows the cover off of the claims that we hear so often on CAF. It looks at Theistic Evolution – which some people think is the default “Catholic position” on evolutionary theory. The two biggest (most quoted and referenced) proponents of this idea are Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. This essay shows that the attempt to reconcile Darwinism and religious faith ends up with a major and radical contradiction between those two scientists’ ideas (when they’re supposed to be in agreement). Collins says that God is actually guiding random processes, but God’s guidance is undetectable. Miller says that God is not guiding the process of evolution.

Miller is promoted up very often on CAF as an example of a “Catholic” who believes in evolution and who can perfectly reconcile evolution and Catholicism. We hear the comments very often: “What problem could you have with evolution? There is no conflict at all with evolutionary theory and the Catholic faith. I can’t understand why you’re so afraid of evolution - it’s perfectly compatible with Catholicism. Etc. etc.”

Now let’s look at how Kenneth Miller “reconciles” evolution and “Catholicism”:

Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller considers the position of guided but undetectable design in his book Finding Darwin’s God, but rejects it. “Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected,” he insists. Miller denies that the evolutionary process was directed in order to produce any particular result—even the development of human beings. In fact, he says he agrees with the view “that mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that **we are here **not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God p 244

Yes, let’s discuss. Miller had to create an entirely new “god” in order to reconcile “Catholicism” with evolution. Miller believes in an “ignorant god” – an “imperfect god” who is not worthy of being worshipped.

Amazingly, we hear Kenneth Miller’s name being promoted by some people who otherwise claim to be orthodox Catholics (or so I thought). But Miller has created a “god” that is less knowing and certain than the gods of some pagan religions. Miller’s is a completely false religion ruled by a god who did not know that human beings would evolve.

As John West summarizes:

In Miller’s view, while God may have wished for some sort of rational creature to develop in the universe, he assigned the job to an undirected process that could have produced any number of different results other than human beings. Thus, it was mere “happenstance” that human beings developed. Miller’s view is a radical departure from traditional Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) teaching that human beings are created as the result of God’s specific plan.

This is quite amazing and I will look forward to seeing the responses in reply.

 

[greg_b]

The human soul has no impact or influence on the human body?

I never said that, don’t put words in my mouth, your idiocy and attempts at lying is really showing.

 

[greg_b]

This is an important essay and it blows the cover off of the claims that we hear so often on CAF. It looks at Theistic Evolution – which some people think is the default “Catholic position” on evolutionary theory. The two biggest (most quoted and referenced) proponents of this idea are Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller. This essay shows that the attempt to reconcile Darwinism and religious faith ends up with a major and radical contradiction between those two scientists’ ideas (when they’re supposed to be in agreement). Collins says that God is actually guiding random processes, but God’s guidance is undetectable. Miller says that God is not guiding the process of evolution.

Miller is promoted up very often on CAF as an example of a “Catholic” who believes in evolution and who can perfectly reconcile evolution and Catholicism. We hear the comments very often: “What problem could you have with evolution? There is no conflict at all with evolutionary theory and the Catholic faith. I can’t understand why you’re so afraid of evolution - it’s perfectly compatible with Catholicism. Etc. etc.”

Now let’s look at how Kenneth Miller “reconciles” evolution and “Catholicism”:

Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller considers the position of guided but undetectable design in his book Finding Darwin’s God, but rejects it. “Evolution is a natural process, and natural processes are undirected,” he insists. Miller denies that the evolutionary process was directed in order to produce any particular result—even the development of human beings. In fact, he says he agrees with the view “that mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that **we are here **not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.” Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God p 244

Yes, let’s discuss. Miller had to create an entirely new “god” in order to reconcile “Catholicism” with evolution. Miller believes in an “ignorant god” – an “imperfect god” who is not worthy of being worshipped.

Amazingly, we hear Kenneth Miller’s name being promoted by some people who otherwise claim to be orthodox Catholics (or so I thought). But Miller has created a “god” that is less knowing and certain than the gods of some pagan religions. Miller’s is a completely false religion ruled by a god who did not know that human beings would evolve.

As John West summarizes:

In Miller’s view, while God may have wished for some sort of rational creature to develop in the universe, he assigned the job to an undirected process that could have produced any number of different results other than human beings. Thus, it was mere “happenstance” that human beings developed. Miller’s view is a radical departure from traditional Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) teaching that human beings are created as the result of God’s specific plan.

This is quite amazing and I will look forward to seeing the responses in reply.

Nice try, but yet again you have proven nothing. You creationists keep insisting there can only be 2 extremes, one is either evolution without God or God with no evolution. Here is how evolution works: God created the universe knowing full well how everything will turn out. Therefore he created it to have life and random processes yet since he knows what those random processes will do, it will all eventually happen under his plan. Why is this incredibly simple idea so hard for the infantile brains of creationists so hard to understand?

 

[buffalo]

Nice try, but yet again you have proven nothing. You creationists keep insisting there can only be 2 extremes, one is either evolution without God or God with no evolution. Here is how evolution works: God created the universe knowing full well how everything will turn out. Therefore he created it to have life and random processes yet since he knows what those random processes will do, it will all eventually happen under his plan. Why is this incredibly simple idea so hard for the infantile brains of creationists so hard to understand?

Did God know what Adam would look like?

 

[reggieM]

God created the universe knowing full well how everything will turn out. Therefore he created it to have life and random processes yet since he knows what those random processes will do, it will all eventually happen under his plan. Why is this incredibly simple idea so hard for the infantile brains of creationists so hard to understand?

You might want to ask Kenneth Miller who contradicted your view in the text I just posted (as did Fr. Coyne). If it “happens under his plan” then this refutes Darwinism. If God guides it, then this refutes natural selection. If God planned it, then this refutes random mutation.

So, you’re accepting Francis Collins’ view, that God designed it but we can’t detect His design?

I think you need to make your position clearer.

 

[Arandur]

Who says anything is an “error”? Do you consider a child with down syndrome an error? Clearly there is a genetic issue there. It is improbable God would leave anything to chance. This has nothing to do with our free will, however. I see no danger in the fact that God carefully cares for His works and guides it. Like I said, nothing happens by chance.

So God directly guides harmful mutations, that even result in organisms living in pain or dying?

Well, there are PRNGs that are “random”. But it’s still not possible to have a purely random computation.

PRNGs?
Doesn’t matter. “Random” is a description of a distribution. There are degrees of randomness and variability. It’s an observable pattern.

 

[Arandur]

Evolution states it is natural selection acting on random mutations.

Where does it state that?
Mendelian genetics alone demonstrates that inheritance of traits and recombination of traits (the primary source of change) is not random. There is randomness in some aspects of genetics, in some behaviors, in some environmental pressures, but evolution does not claim it is all random. Most forces are indeed far from random, otherwise we would not be able to describe a theory at all and make predictions.

 

[Arandur]

Darwinian evolution, strictly speaking, begins after the first life has developed, and so I agree with Larry Arnhart that it does not necessarily refute the claim that there may some kind of “first cause” to the universe that stands outside of “nature.” But this “first cause” allowable by Darwinism seems incompatible with the God of the Bible. It cannot be a God who actively supervises or directs the development of life. The most it could do is to set up the interplay between chance and necessity, and then watch to see what the interplay produces. Such an absentee God is hard to reconcile with any traditional Judeo-Christian conception of a God who actively directs and cares for His creation. In the end, the effort to reconcile Darwinism with traditional Judeo-Christian theism remains unpersuasive.
Therein lies my biggest issue with this theory. The God who meticulously created from Love, and interceded for us, even unto death, death on a cross can not be the Darwinian god.

I think the problem you and the person you quote have is a misunderstanding of God. Your premises and assumptions are wrong. If you accept ANY of science at all, you must accept that God has established consistent natural laws. If you accept this, then your understanding of God’s active direction and care of His creation MUST BE that He does so THROUGH those laws, by and because of them. Evolution is entirely consistent with this.

So the problem here is not with evolution, but with your understanding of God, an understanding that flies in the face of what His creation tells us about Himself. You must deny all of science to suggest that God does not run nature by consistent laws, processes, and relationships among them. That is quite contrary to Catholic understanding of God.

So what is it? Do you reject all of science and all of what we can observe of God through His creation? Or do you use that information to inform you about what God is like?

Scripture tells us that God created everything. Okay, no problems there with science.

Scripture tells us that God is unchanging and eternal. Hey, that seems to support science’s assertion that nature works by consistent processes!

Scripture tells us that God loves all of His creation and it is Good. No problems there.

Scripture tells us that God particularly loves all of His human children, created in His image and likeness with a soul. Again, no problem. Science can’t observe and has nothing to say about the soul.

Scripture tells us that God has a relationship with all of His children, actively (supernaturally) works in their lives, communicates with us, and works miracles. No problem there, either. Science can’t measure how God supernaturally acts, works, and communicates. In fact, there are many things within the realm of human experience that science can’t begin to explain, which suggests the existence of the supernatural and supports the concept of it.

Scripture tells us that God gave man dominion over the earth. Seems to fit rather well, does it not, with the idea that God makes nature to run by consistent laws and processes, then lets us discover them and use them, without God breaking those laws just to make things keep ticking.

When Jesus healed the blind from spit and vulgar dirt, did He inject a culture of cells that would evolve into a pair of eyes?

Why do you even present this nonsense? By definition, a miracle is a suspension of natural laws, so of course it would not need to operate by them.

 

[greg_b]

Did God know what Adam would look like?

Man, and you call yourself a Catholic if you don’t even know the answer to that question?

You might want to ask Kenneth Miller who contradicted your view in the text I just posted (as did Fr. Coyne). If it “happens under his plan” then this refutes Darwinism. If God guides it, then this refutes natural selection. If God planned it, then this refutes random mutation.

So, you’re accepting Francis Collins’ view, that God designed it but we can’t detect His design?

I think you need to make your position clearer.

God created all knowing in the end where all randomness would lead and what free decisions we would ultimately make. There, that’s it, if that’s too complex for you to understand then go back to preschool.

 

[Arandur]

That is an excellent website and a great essay by John West. Darwinism is compatible with “religion” as long as the beliefs are twisted enough to fit into the Darwinian paradigm. Some try that with Catholicism …

So, the only way to make Catholicism compatible with Darwinism, according to Fr. Coyne, is to create a false god (and heretical Catholicism) who does not know what evolution will create.

What nonsense. I don’t really know who Fr. Coyne is, but he’s missing some pretty glaring things. Try Peter Kreeft instead.

God can be omniscient and omnipotent simply because He is not contained by His creation. He is not limited by the bounds of nature. Isn’t that by definition? For if God were bound by time and bound by the laws of nature, He would not be God, but a creature within a nature that is greater than He is.

Isn’t that a really simple concept to grasp?

So God, as Creator, can change nature in any way He likes, having total control over it. Not only that, God is not bound by Time, for He existed before it and indeed created it, Time being a part of nature. Many who have contemplated God’s relationship with time have proposed that God is present to all time; in other words, all time is NOW for God. In a sense, that is true of the physical properties of light, so even the physical world informs us of the possible nature of God.

With all time knowable to God at once, He obviously can be truly omniscient and know exactly what His will would work. If He wills humans to be a certain way, He can create them by any means He wishes, even a process that takes a few billion years to prepare the world for man and to generate man’s physical form the way He wants it. In fact, such a thing would glorify God and show how much greater He is than us.

 

[Arandur]

The human soul has no impact or influence on the human body?

Where do you get that? Science actually suggests otherwise. There is much documentation of psychosomatic effects, and these cannot be understood by our knowledge of the brain only. The human soul is an essential part of our will and is ultimately unknowable to science, though some of its effects can be seen.

Further, there have been found connections between prayer and physical health and recovery.

So I don’t know where you get that science, of which evolution is a subset theory, would tell us that “the human soul has no impact or influence on the human body.”

I also don’t know where you get that science/evolution suggests that the soul is a result of chemical processes. Some have speculated philosophically about that, or that there is no soul, but yet again, we must clarify that these are philosophies, not science, for they are ideas about things beyond the observable realm of science. Such philosophies may take inspiration from evolution, but while the philosophy is erroneous, that does not make the source of its inspiration erroneous.

 

[buffalo]

So God directly guides harmful mutations, that even result in organisms living in pain or dying?

PRNGs?
Doesn’t matter. “Random” is a description of a distribution. There are degrees of randomness and variability. It’s an observable pattern.

God allows evil and random mutations as a result of the fall.

 

[reggieM]

Where do you get that?

Apparently, you’re going to answer for greg_b now?

 

[buffalo]

Man, and you call yourself a Catholic if you don’t even know the answer to that question?

God created all knowing in the end where all randomness would lead and what free decisions we would ultimately make. There, that’s it, if that’s too complex for you to understand then go back to preschool.

I know the answer. I was asking for your response, which there are probably ten questions or so you will not directly answer.

So we agree God knew what Adam would look like. Did He plan for Adam to look like that? (Your answer please)

 

[reggieM]

What nonsense. I don’t really know who Fr. Coyne is, but he’s missing some pretty glaring things. Try Peter Kreeft instead.

You’re on the right track and I appreciate the reference.

Peter Kreeft – Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 5
5. The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty of the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

God can be omniscient and omnipotent simply because He is not contained by His creation. He is not limited by the bounds of nature. Isn’t that by definition? For if God were bound by time and bound by the laws of nature, He would not be God, but a creature within a nature that is greater than He is.

Isn’t that a really simple concept to grasp?

I don’t understand how that relates to the essay in question. Why not try discussing the points raised in that and not my comments on it?

… even the physical world informs us of the possible nature of God.

Again, I think you’re providing better answers here. I also liked where you summarized your views elsewhere - even though I disagreed, I thought it was a good explanation. In this case, however, I do agree that the physical world informs us about the attributes of God. They can be seen.

If He wills humans to be a certain way, He can create them by any means He wishes, even a process that takes a few billion years to prepare the world for man and to generate man’s physical form the way He wants it. In fact, such a thing would glorify God and show how much greater He is than us.

This refutes Darwinism though. If there is intention and purpose, there is not randomness (mutations and environmental conditions are random).

 

[Arandur]

You might want to ask Kenneth Miller who contradicted your view in the text I just posted (as did Fr. Coyne). If it “happens under his plan” then this refutes Darwinism. If God guides it, then this refutes natural selection. If God planned it, then this refutes random mutation.

So, you’re accepting Francis Collins’ view, that God designed it but we can’t detect His design?

I think you need to make your position clearer.

I don’t know what any of those people have stated. I don’t really care. If Kenneth Miller believes God is not omniscient, or if He did not intend the creation of humans, then of course He is wrong. That does not make evolution wrong, or mean that evolution cannot be reconciled with the faith (which two popes now have made it clear enough that it can be). Let me again make the distinction between evolution as a scientific theory and philosophy inspired by evolution, what you like to call “Darwinism” or “evolutionary psychology.”

Any suggestion that God is not omniscient (that God does not know what the result of His natural processes would be) or that He did not intend humans is a suggestion that God is less than nature and thus not its Creator, not omnipotent. Therefore those ideas are false.

If it “happens under his plan” then this refutes Darwinism.

Darwinism the philosophy, that proposes that nature can happen without God, yes. Obviously that is wrong. This is no reflection on the process of evolution, however, which we propose is in fact the “plan” spoken of. This is the simple solution and likely reality.

If God guides it, then this refutes natural selection.

That does not follow. There is a false premise this argument is relying on, and that is that natural selection is not created by God. If natural selection IS created by God, then that can indeed be the method God intends and uses to guide evolution. Therefore, what this statement is really saying is “If God guides evolution through natural selection, then this refutes natural selection.” It is a nonsensical internal contradiction.

If God planned it, then this refutes random mutation.

Wrong again, with another nonsensical internal contradiction. Same as with natural selection. God planned the process of random mutation. This shows a misunderstanding of “random.” As we’ve covered before, “random” is a description of a distribution, a tendency toward “normal.” God is the creator of all laws and is thus the ultimate mathematician. In a mathematical sense, God’s plan itself is “normal,” the center that all random distributions tend towards. It can truly be said, then, that “chance,” in the sense of “randomness,” is really under God’s central limit. In other words, rather than have only the value 3.5 come up on a die all the time, God allowed for variation among the outcomes of dice even though the average of those outcomes will tend toward one average. God loves great variety.

In fact, insistence on human choice or free will is a strong evidence that God can and does use and allow for variation in outcomes while still working His plan. We Christians insist on free will, we insist that God still makes His plan come about despite it, and we insist that God knows what we will choose. If we insist on all that, then how can way possibly say that God cannot bring about His intended plan despite variable outcomes among possibilities in nature, and how can we possibly say that God would not know what those outcomes would be?

In other words, you can’t believe in the Bible and say that God CAN’T work an intentional plan through evolution. You can’t believe in human free will and also say that God can’t know or use evolutionary variation.

It is important to consider the consequences of arguments; if an argument is true, it must be true wherever it is applied. It must be consistent. The ideas in your quotation are erroneous because they would invalidate religious truths at the same time they would invalidate evolution. You can’t have your cake (killing evolution) and eat it too (holding on to religion). They’re simply not in opposition in the ways you propose, but rather they rely on the same rational arguments to be true.

 

[Arandur]

God allows evil and random mutations as a result of the fall.

So if God permits “random mutations,” then in your understanding God can “allow” their influence in evolution?

 

[buffalo]

So if God permits “random mutations,” then in your understanding God can “allow” their influence in evolution?

Sure. I always have. It is clear they affect adaptation (micro-evolution). My focus is always on the origins of man despite what may or may not have been happening in the universe at the time.

 

[buffalo]

Wrong again, with another nonsensical internal contradiction. Same as with natural selection. God planned the process of random mutation. This shows a misunderstanding of “random.” As we’ve covered before, “random” is a description of a distribution, a tendency toward “normal.” God is the creator of all laws and is thus the ultimate mathematician. In a mathematical sense, God’s plan itself is “normal,” the center that all random distributions tend towards. It can truly be said, then, that “chance,” in the sense of “randomness,” is really under God’s central limit. In other words, rather than have only the value 3.5 come up on a die all the time, God allowed for variation among the outcomes of dice even though the average of those outcomes will tend toward one average. God loves great variety.

In fact, insistence on human choice or free will is a strong evidence that God can and does use and allow for variation in outcomes while still working His plan. We Christians insist on free will, we insist that God still makes His plan come about despite it, and we insist that God knows what we will choose. If we insist on all that, then how can way possibly say that God cannot bring about His intended plan despite variable outcomes among possibilities in nature, and how can we possibly say that God would not know what those outcomes would be?

In other words, you can’t believe in the Bible and say that God CAN’T work an intentional plan through evolution. You can’t believe in human free will and also say that God can’t know or use evolutionary variation.

It is important to consider the consequences of arguments; if an argument is true, it must be true wherever it is applied. It must be consistent. The ideas in your quotation are erroneous because they would invalidate religious truths at the same time they would invalidate evolution. You can’t have your cake (killing evolution) and eat it too (holding on to religion). They’re simply not in opposition in the ways you propose, but rather they rely on the same rational arguments to be true.

This is an interesting point of view.

Let me understand it. On the distribution graph God had in mine an apex point? And that all His allowed processes tend toward this?

 

[Arandur]

You’re on the right track and I appreciate the reference.

Peter Kreeft – Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 5
5. The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. **But are the order and beauty of the product of intelligent design **and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

I agree with this. Do you think somehow, despite all I’ve said, that I’m arguing against God designing nature, designing evolution?

I don’t understand how that relates to the essay in question. Why not try discussing the points raised in that and not my comments on it?

I had thought your comments, since you took the time to make them, were the most relevant part of our discussion. I have not had time yet to read the essay, and I’m generally more interested in what the person I’m having a discussion with writes than with what someone else rights. Comments about something else are reflective of what you think about that thing.

Again, I think you’re providing better answers here. I also liked where you summarized your views elsewhere - even though I disagreed, I thought it was a good explanation. In this case, however, I do agree that the physical world informs us about the attributes of God. They can be seen.

This refutes Darwinism though. If there is intention and purpose, there is not randomness (mutations and environmental conditions are random).

Please be clear on definitions. I do not consider “Darwinism” to be “evolution.” By the way you’ve described “Darwinism,” it seems clear that you are talking about a philosophy inspired by evolution but going well beyond it, a philosophy suggesting that there is no God or at least that God did not create/design nature and evolution. I have spent a lot of time here myself actively refuting such a philosophy and presenting one that is compatible with evolution and Catholicism, instead.

I’d also like to be clear on our definition of “randomness.” You seem to mean “random” to mean completely without any design or direction, such that no one (not even God) can know the outcome.

I have used “random” in a much stricter sense, that of a description of statistical distribution. Further, please look at my later post where I explain how if you believe that God created everything, He must also have created mathematical laws and thus have created “randomness.” Thus God designed randomness, knows what the outcomes will be (all time is known to Him at once, and He must know it if He knows the outcomes of free choices), and therefore can carry out His plans/intentions even with/using “randomness.”

So “randomness” in its broad sense, even how it is used often in common parlance, does not apply to God. It in fact cannot, if God is Creator. Thus my stricter definition, the one used by math and science, must be the one we use in our discussion. And by my definition, “random” is not “unknown” to God. The converse is simply a nonsensical statement, given the normative definition of “God.”