Not exactly, a common cold for example mutates frequently which is the reason you never catch the same cold twice. If evolutionary science was up to par, we would be able to administer one vaccine that would proactively mutate to prepare the body to combat any cold. This, of course, would require a knowledge of ID; anything with the words “random mutation” is insufficient to our understanding.There’s a whole lot of evolutionary biology in medicine, in studying and treating viruses and bacterial infections! This is an argument FOR the accuracy and success of evolution, not against it!
This is a nonsensical statement, because empirical science as a discipline does not connect things to God. What problem do you have with understanding that the scientists recognize limits for their discipline and the Church agrees with those limits?
- There is no scientific evidence that evolution is connected to God. Got that?
Your problem continues to be in your misunderstanding of what “random” means and by believing this is the primary driver of evolution. It is not. It is only one among many factors.The current version of evolution is a self-starting, self-operating engine that takes raw material, adds a random mutation and spits out life forms. If a life form happens to be in the right environment at the right time, it gets selected, if not, it doesn’t.
God directly created the physical universe and designed all its laws and processes. How is that not “direct” and “causal?”
- This bears no relationship to the direct, causal work of God, without which, according to Communion and Stewardship, evolution simply could not exist.
To the outside world, this is evolution:
Again, yes, this is one philosophy that is being promoted by some. As I have shown, many, even most scientists, do not ascribe to it. The abuses of the science don’t influence the truth of the science, just as the abuses of the faith don’t influence the truth of the faith. There’s a logical fallacy in trying to claim a premise is false because the conclusion is false. It works the other way around.You are just another animal.
You are the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
If we could rewind evolution, things would have turned out differently.
By whom? And what do I care if someone rejects the idea that God is behind it all, except to correct them? That’s what Benedict is talking about, “audacity” and all–correcting where people go wrong.To anyone who says that God is connected to the kind of evolution I’ve just described, allow me to remind you that you are using the same type of “god did it” argument that is regularly rejected.
What’s your definition of “direct” and “causal?”The Catholic perspective involves a direct, causal role for God. Therefore, “scientific” evolution is, maybe, partly descriptive of a process that involves significantly more than what is contained in the biology textbook.
You seem to greatly exaggerate what the Pope is saying to become a total refutation of evolutionary science. I don’t see where you get that.You say I go against the Church. Even the Pope found the necessity to say “we must have the audacity” in response to false questions like this.
Yes, because that idea is an “unscientific” one that draws conclusions about purpose and lack of design that are beyond the realm of science. Again, he shows no problem with the science, only problems with the abuses of it.Even the Pope had to address the nonsensical idea that we are the product of haphazard mistakes
For about the 20th time, yes, of course.Let’s go back for a minute, do you believe science to be compatible with holy scripture?
I’ve also addressed this many times. Simply put, Scripture tells us about God and His relationship to man. It does not give us scientific details. From Scripture, we know that God created the universe Good, with intention and purpose, and He sustains it.In other words, what role does scripture play when it comes to science.
To show this, you’d have to provide me with something I left out that contradicts my conclusions. I have openly invited you to do so. In the interest of trying to keep the length of my text down, I have of course only selected the most relevant quotations. How can you fault me for that?I have gone back to read some of your quotes, it seems you are selectively pointing out whatever quotes you can find to back up your claims.
The “work” being the Bible? The CCC? I have. And since I’ve referenced these and other Church sources much more than any of you have, I don’t think I’m the deficient one on this front. I recommend you take your own advice.I would read the work holistically, read the scriptures and ask God to enlighten your mind about these issues.
You can find a tool or a machine or a computer program you’ve never seen before, study its composition, and figure out how it operates. This does not tell you “why” it was created or what all it could do or be used for. Isn’t that easy enough to understand?What? If it’s “trying to attribute design to things” how can it not possibly “explain why something was designed a certain way”? This is self-defeating, once you know the design, you know the way it will behave.
If you mean that you think I believe that “evolution is the only explanation” in the sense that it doesn’t need God, that it explains our universe without need for God, you must be blind. Show me once, anywhere, where I have ever said anything like that. If that’s not what you mean, then what do you mean?I may not follow you correctly, but it seems you once were fine with the idea that evolution isn’t the only explanation, now you seem to present it as fact. Can’t really prove it, it just seems you have flopped.
Not quite. Because “evolution” is something “ordered.” You will think this is a contradiction. It is not. As I’ve explained, the “randomness” or “chance” in the system is merely a description of a pattern that we see, and variables that ARE knowable but which are too many and too minute for us TO know and thus predict. Just as we can’t know just how all the molecules in the air or ocean water are interacting with each other, even though we understand the chemical processes and physical forces that interact on a molecular level, we also can’t know what happens on the minute evolutionary level. We’d call the mixing of air and water and the interaction on individual molecules “random” or “chance,” though we know the laws and processes acting on them and if we could see each molecule and know the variables, we could tell you what would happen. Same thing with evolution. In that sense, both are extremely ordered and beautiful processes, with an order far above our own.According to him, evolution is a beautiful example of design. Why? Because design is something “ordered”, as he says.
And here is where Kreeft is more directly saying that evolution is ordered.Science proves that there is design in nature because “there is good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species”.
I don’t understand what your point is in reference to the objections. If you’re trying to mock arguments I’ve made against things you’ve said, I could go through and show you where you’ve garbled them and not used arguments as I’ve made them, but I think that would be a waste of time.Here are some of the objections that can be expected (did I miss any?):
Yes.But doesn’t “order implies design” rely on philosophical reasoning? Despite the fact that scientific evidence is considered, alternative reasoning appears to be necessary to make this connection. This is what I was trying to point out earlier.
In the sense that science is a subset of philosophy, yes, but not in the sense that these terms go beyond the boundaries of science. You need to understand those limits.Don’t the terms: “common ancestor”, “homology”, “natural selection”, “speciation”, “convergent evolution”, “scientific method” and “methodological naturalism” rely on philosophical reasoning? (of course they do – they’re philosophical concepts that science uses as tools or as things to prove).
The evidence science finds can be used in other philosophical manners to inform questions that are beyond the scope of science. The various “philosophies of science” excerpts and links I provided clearly show this, and that this is the mainstream view. Remember, the Church believes science is limited in scope (by its own definition) and that it is improper to go beyond it (which is what Benedict is combating). It is the error of Scientism to believe that science has no limits.It’s the same with the term “design”. It’s a concept. It can be defined. It can be observed. Science can show evidence for it – just as Dr. Kreeft stated explicitly and clearly.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.The “ordered appearance” is a “beautiful example of design”. So, design equals order. That is like saying “the term species means …” whatever the definition.
You’re saying that “convergent evolution” is first a philosophical concept that science uses as a preconceived notion that it tries to prove? This is wrong.Or something like “convergent evolution means …” the definition comes from philosophy, not science. It’s a philosophical concept that science sets out to prove.
No. What Kreeft is saying is more like “order implies design.” He’s saying that order (predictability, understandable laws and processes), an inherent but well-supported assumption of science by the way, is evidence of design. Design goes a step beyond observation (beyond science) to propose a meaning or purpose and something capable of creating it. Meaning or purpose is not a scientific subject. Something capable of creating physical laws and processes, of changing them, would necessarily be beyond them, so it is also beyond the scope of science. So evidence of possible design can be provided by science, but certainty of purpose, meaning, or who the designer was is not the subject of science.Design equals “order” – according to Dr. Kreeft.
Not “is defined by.” Design creates order of some kind (since it is a purposeful influence). Order is a side effect of design.Design is defined by something (he chooses order).
You realize he’s talking about the process of evolution, right? That evolution is ordered and thus is evidence of design?Design is a concept - it has meaning. He defines it, like any other term used in science. Then he seeks scientific evidence for it (ordered appearance) and says that there is very good scientific evidence for design (which is defined by “order”).
You can’t find any definition in nature. What’s your point? You need to be careful about the senses in which you use the term “philosophy” and make sure you don’t change how you use them within your argument, without qualifying them.It’s like saying that there is good evidence for the existence of “species” in nature. Species has a definition. It’s a philosophical concept (you can’t find the definition in nature – you have to create it).
I think I did pretty well. See my predicted objections. I think these 2 cover it:Not quite. Because “evolution” is something “ordered.” You will think this is a contradiction. It is not. As I’ve explained, the “randomness” or “chance” in the system is merely a description of a pattern that we see, and variables that ARE knowable but which are too many and too minute for us TO know and thus predict. Just as we can’t know just how all the molecules in the air or ocean water are interacting with each other, even though we understand the chemical processes and physical forces that interact on a molecular level, we also can’t know what happens on the minute evolutionary level. We’d call the mixing of air and water and the interaction on individual molecules “random” or “chance,” though we know the laws and processes acting on them and if we could see each molecule and know the variables, we could tell you what would happen. Same thing with evolution. In that sense, both are extremely ordered and beautiful processes, with an order far above our own.
As I said before, that “order far above our own” is what we observe when we see order coming out of chaos in chaos theory. It is why I’ve said that all is order to God. There is no chaos to Him, by definition, since He’s omniscient.
Those were not just your arguments, but arguments given against design.I don’t understand what your point is in reference to the objections. If you’re trying to mock arguments I’ve made against things you’ve said, I could go through and show you where you’ve garbled them and not used arguments as I’ve made them, but I think that would be a waste of time.
I understood it the first time. I also provided other context of what Dr. Kreeft argues and believe about science and evolution. Why don’t you take another look at my posts from Kreeft, which, more directly and extensively than yours, show that Kreeft sees no problem with evolution as science, only where people take it beyond science. Take another look, and tell me how you can possibly think that I have understood him wrongly.Let’s look at this post from Dr. Kreeft again (which I posted twice and commented on in post 522 in this thread – you might want to look at that again)…
Please review that text and comment on what Dr. Kreeft says.
Define “evaluate.” Science can describe physical observations of “order,” yes. “Order,” like “randomness,” is really a description of a pattern. The term “order,” though, implies purpose–not merely a “purpose” as a function, like the function of an organ, but as an intent of the design. Intent is a philosophical question beyond science. Science can’t “evaluate” intent.Can science evaluate order (which equals design for him)? Yes.
Notice that Kreeft accepts the strong scientific evidence for “evolving.” He calls it “ordered” because evolution is a process that operates by certain principles. It is because of those principles, that process, that it is predictable in various ways, that patterns can be perceived.There is “There is **very good scientific evidence **for the evolving, ordered appearance of species.”
- Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
- Not chance.
- Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
What? First off, where have I ever used the term “negative evidence?”You’ve argued incorrectly several times that this is “negative evidence”.
That is not correct. Something is either designed or it is not.
Why would I want to refute the claim? I’ve always said the universe was designed, and evolution was part of its design.To refute that claim, all you have to do is come up with another option.
Some confusion here. I’ll change what I’m saying:You’re saying that “convergent evolution” is first a philosophical concept that science uses as a preconceived notion that it tries to prove? This is wrong.
“Convergent evolution” is a hypothesis that has not been successfully falsified, and thus has been accepted as probably valid. This is how science works. It tries to falsify its hypotheses. Further, it is a description of an observation of morphological traits among species. A description of an observation is a scientific concept.
“Conform itself?” Now that sounds like starting with preconceived notions and not attempting to honestly find truth.Every scientific endeavor needs to start with the truth and conform itself to that ultimate Reality.
Science is a subset of philosophy with limits. You must recognize the limits. The Church tells you to.To separate theology/philosophy from science is to deny the presence of truth in science.
As “philosophy” can be used to mean all investigations of knowledge, and as science is a subset of that, then yes. But you’ve got to quite blurring boundaries of disciplines if you hope to have a meaningful discussion; you’re making the words meaningless when you keep confusing their difference senses.I hope you begin to realize that any scientific endeavor is ultimately probing into the Mind and therefore it’s essentially a theological/ontological study.
Show me your argument for how you leap wildly to that conclusion.Not exactly, a common cold for example mutates frequently which is the reason you never catch the same cold twice. If evolutionary science was up to par, we would be able to administer one vaccine that would proactively mutate to prepare the body to combat any cold.
See above. One might call the immune system’s production of its various cells with their variety of receptor sites “random.”This, of course, would require a knowledge of ID; anything with the words “random mutation” is insufficient to our understanding.
I try to do you the courtesy of responding to what you say and explaining carefully what I mean. I’m sorry you have a problem with discussion or with listening.More lengthy posts.
It’s the best description we have of some natural processes.Evolution is not a fact.
I think you’re using “actual design” as a loaded term, meaning your warped definition. Otherwise I would agree.Actual design exists in nature.
Of course. Science describes His creation, providing evidence for our philosophical and theological investigation (which are disciplines of reason).We can detect God in nature through natural reason.
I qualified that statement. Again, you don’t listen/read well. Let me try again.“Meaning or purpose is not a scientific subject.” Baloney.
I still don’t know what you think I’m objecting TO.ReggieM:
I think I did pretty well. See my predicted objections.
Yes, because all those laws and processes by which everything operates and to which everything is subject work together in such an orderly (predictable and purposeful) fashion that I believe they were all designed by God.But I would summarize your objection as this:
#19. There is no difference between what is produced by design or by random forces, because there is nothing which is not designed. By looking at nature, I see design. A pile of rocks is designed. The occurence of mutations is planned and designed. Confetti in a windstorm is an example of ordered/design, the same as a software program.
It is ultimate proof that everything in the physical universe was designed, that all its laws and processes were, yes. This is the context in which Kreeft means it. I still take issue with your use of “intelligent design” since I think the movement is quite different from how Kreeft uses it.This is the ultimate proof of Intelligent Design theory.
Necessarily! If God created everything, and truth cannot contradict truth, then of course everything science describes is something God designed!Whatever science describes is direct proof and evidence of God’s design in nature.
I don’t accept the ID notion of irreducible complexity. I accept that interim complexity can alter and build on itself, as also happens with human machines.Irreducible complexity equals proof for design.
Against what definition of “design?” Many of those arguments accepted ultimate design, so how could they be against design of that kind?Those were not just your arguments, but arguments given against design.
Good! I hope everyone else understands this point, too!Actually, I agree with you that ultimately randomness is merely a function of ignorance. If we knew everything, then there would be nothing random.
Just because there is another “sense” to the term “random” doesn’t mean that it is false to use it in its more limited scientific sense. Kreeft argues against the common cultural implication of “chance” as if some unknowable event occurred; he points out that such a “chance” is an impossibility, as it assumes as a sort of article of faith something beyond the physical universe, and yet tries to deny that at the same time, thus violating the law of noncontradiction.But this is not how human experience, or Dr. Kreeft has used the term.
I deeply disagree. If you think Darwin has more authority than God’s Word, you are gravely mistaken. Science was never meant to be devoid of scripture.Simply put, Scripture tells us about God and His relationship to man. It does not give us scientific details. From Scripture, we know that God created the universe Good, with intention and purpose, and He sustains it.
Give empirical evidence in nature of the term “convergent evolution”. Then, provide empirical, scientific evidence to show the correct meaning of that term.
You might try looking at fossils, or go in a lab for experiements. Science may discover that this term exists – perhaps as a combination of chemicals. Then, the true and correct definition of the term will exist also. …
Let’s say I have come up with a new naming convention for colors.
I declare that the box above is the color “red”.
Where have I ever said anything like that?I deeply disagree. If you think Darwin has more authority than God’s Word, you are gravely mistaken.
Explain to me WHY you disagree with this:Science was never meant to be devoid of scripture.
Excellent. A term is not part of the empirically observable data. It is a philosophical concept.A “term” is not something physical. It is a part of language, and language is sounds or symbols that we attribute meaning to. I’m not arguing about the nature of language.
Excellent again. A term is not part of the empirically observable data. It is based on philosophy. Science relies on the philosophy first – to define terms. Terms cannot be found in nature.A “term” is not something we’ll find evidence of in nature, since we made it up and agreed upon it to convey a meaning.
“Design” is a concept used to describe something you you claim that you’ve observed in nature.“Convergent evolution” is a concept used to describe something that we observed in nature.
This is precisely what Dr. Kreeft stated. Science gives very good evidence of “order”. “Order” is a philosophical term. He uses it to mean “design”. Thus, science gives evidence of design.Science can provide empirical evidence supporting the validity of a concept.
You do not have an argument against Intelligent Design theory and actually accept it as part of your worldview.So what’s your point?
How is that a flop? Evolution is the best explanation of the observational evidence AND the instantaneous 6-day creation our CHURCH tells us is not actually meant to be taken literally. It is symbolic and poetic–that does not mean “meaningless!” In fact, “symbolism” and “poetry” by definition are full of meaning! But the main point is that the Church tells us the creation story is not meant to be read like a scientific account.Again, a flop. First you say claim evolution is the best explanation, then you scoff at the idea of an instantaneous 6 day creation.
No, YOU misunderstand our Church if you think our Church is saying that we must believe in an instantaneous 6 day creation as a scientific account in Scripture. I have given you the Catechism and papal references. I think that extremely solidly backs up my view here, unless you have more authority than the bishops or the popes.What you were doing in essence was undermining the authority of the Word, while lifting up Darwin to be above scripture.
*]That Darwin’s theory (natural selection+random mutations) is intrinsically incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Yes. Based on what we know, this is the most likely scenario.*]That there MAY be evolution that took place in nature that gave rise to bio diversity.
You’re blurring the meaning of “philosophy” as relates to our argument. Philosophy is the love of knowledge or study of knowledge and so, in that sense, encompasses all things that we know and discuss.Those terms, and their definitions are all philosohpical. Science cannot function without this philosophical basis. Science seeks empirical evidence to support the philosophical concepts (terms and definitions).
I don’t accept your use of “philosophical term” because you’ve rendered those words meaningless by basically saying every single word in language is a “philosophical term.” We must restrict ourselves to more narrow and meaningful definitions.“Design” is a concept used to describe something you you claim that you’ve observed in nature. … Science gives very good evidence of “order”. “Order” is a philosophical term. He uses it to mean “design”. Thus, science gives evidence of design.
As I understand the term “Intelligent Design” to be commonly used today (I have listed several senses in which it is used) I have a problem with Intelligent Design as a political and “scientific” movement.You do not have an argument against Intelligent Design theory and actually accept it as part of your worldview.
You are dead wrong here.Additionally, your idea of evolution is radically different than what mainstream science teaches. It’s your own version of evolution, as I see it.