The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[rossum]

Students will never hear Dr. Giertych’s rebuttal to Rossum’s claims [or others] which I post here:

I am not a medical man, so the details of the manner in which cholesterol kills are too far from my speciality to comment. But I have a question. On what basis do the discoverers of this variant claim that it is a mutation? Are the parents of the people with this variant devoid of it? There is variation in nature, lots of it. An unknown so far variant was found. So what? We keep on finding new species all the time and variants within species. Is lack of this variant ‘evidence’ for a negative [or positive] mutation? This did not come from research on induced mutations. Induced mutations are negative or neutral. No positive ones were found. I stand by my statement. Maciej Giertych I added the phrase [or positive] in brackets.

Might I refer Dr Giertych to the paper “AIMilano apoprotein identification of the complete kindred and evidence of a dominant genetic transmission.” by Gualandri et al in Am J Hum Genet. 1985 November; 37(6): 1083–1097. PMCID: PMC1684746. To quote from the abstract:The complete population of the small village was sampled, and, by the use of an analytical isoelectric focusing technique for the detection of the mutant, a total of 33 living carriers, ranging in age from 2 to 81 yrs, were identified. Analysis of the genealogic tree of the complete family groups showed that the apoprotein (apo) AIMilano is transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait, all carriers coming from a single mating couple, living in the eighteenth century.
The carriers of this mutation all trace back to a single 18th century couple, which is where this mutation appears to have originated.

Dr Giertych may also want to refer to the evidence supporting my other example of a beneficial mutation, the HbC mutation: “Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria.” Modiano et al Nature. 2001 Nov 15;414(6861):305-8. PMID: 11713529

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

You should read it because your ignorance of what ID really is, and is not, is astonishing. Your paragraph directly above is proof of that.

Just as you recommend to others not to rely on YEC websites, I recommend to you not to rely on anti-ID web sites.

LOL. You are funny. I don’t read ID websites, actually, I have never read a single ID website. I do read books by ID theorists. Tell me, if I am so ignorant of what ID theory is about, how does formal and final causality relate to “design” as conceived by ID theory?

If you don’t get the answer correct, we will know who is trully ignorant about ID theory.

 

[itinerant1]

Because it will show you the evidence that points to a designing intelligence. The philosophers can determine what or who the designer is.

It seems that you have a pattern of changing to the topic of ID theory when all of your creationist arguments have fallen flat on their face.

 

[itinerant1]

Well, in the interest in giving ID more than a fair hearing, first of all, what is SITC? Did you explain what SITC is in a previous post? If not, one should not just drop acronyms and expect everyone to know what they refer to.

Okay. Signature Inside the Cell. Duh?

 

[itinerant1]

No doubt you have been turned off by YEC folks, maybe even ID folks who can’t explain their position clearly, or to your satisfaction.

From the other side, there are obviously some as well who can’t explain their side of things. That by itself doesn’t mean that your side is wrong.

But SITC is generally considered to be a well explained, well researched, well documented exposition of why ID is the best explanation of how life arose from muck. It doesn’t say that “X didn’t happen, this did”.

I’m one of those who can’t explain things to your satisfaction, so shame on me. I’m not very smart. But it seems to me that if you really want to know this side of things, that you’d want to read the best material available. Even if ricmat is wrong, it doesn’t make ID wrong.

I recommend that you read Aristotle’s Metaphysica, preferably with the commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas. Get back to me when you understand it.

 

[buffalo]

I think you missed my point completely. Design according to the ID theory is misunderstood. It is philosophically confused. Evidence that points to a designing intelligence cannot be scientific evidence. Cardinal Schonborn has made that clear. Furthermore, ID theory is confused as to the nature of design itself, as I said, ID theory confuses design with finality. My posts weren’t fer nothin’.

This Cardinal Schonborn?

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
Note that in this quotation the word “finality” is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

 

[buffalo]

It seems that you have a pattern of changing to the topic of ID theory when all of your creationist arguments have fallen flat on their face.

If you haven’t noticed I am a Catholic Creationist that explores the intersection between faith and reason which is where ID sits. It is no wonder my posts reflect that. Geesh.

You asked why you should read signature in the cell - i replied to that.

 

[itinerant1]

This Cardinal Schonborn?

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:
“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”
He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”
Note that in this quotation the word “finality” is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

Correct so far. Furthermore, Intelligent Design theory is not, in my view, the correct answer to neo-Darwinian materialism.

What you conveniently left out of your posts are statements by Cardinal Schonborn which clearly say that he does not agree with Intelligent Design theory.
Would you care to address that fact?

 

[buffalo]

Correct so far. Furthermore, Intelligent Design theory is not, in my view, the correct answer to neo-Darwinian materialism.

What you conveniently left out of your posts are statements by Cardinal Schonborn which clearly say that he does not agree with Intelligent Design theory.
Would you care to address that fact?

Yes - if ID pushes supernatural intervention at various point rather that letting the creative act unfold he would not agree. If ID simply points to a designing intelligence during the act of creation then he agrees.

This statement by the Cardinal is key:

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

 

[itinerant1]

Yes - if ID pushes supernatural intervention at various point rather that letting the creative act unfold he would not agree. If ID simply points to a designing intelligence during the act of creation then he agrees.

This statement by the Cardinal is key:

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

You have argued against Darwinian ideology, with quotes, etc. and are presenting that argument as if it is an argument in favor of ID theory. Such an unwarranted leap in logic goes nowhere.

Also, as I pointed out in a recent and previous post, any argument against Darwinian ideology is not an argument against Darwinian science or evolution science generally.

Furthermore, you have misrepresented Cardinal Schonborn’s objection to ID theory. You have stated what you would like him to maintain, but it does not work that way for obvious reasons.

Father Oakes is on the same page with Schonborn and so perhaps you can grasp something of the issues involved by considering the following excerpts:

"Q: What are your objections to the Intelligent Design movement?

"Father Oakes: Primarily that ID advocates seem regularly to confuse finality with design. Now because people only design things for a purpose, the two concepts are too often conflated. But they are different…

“I also object to the way the ID Movement conflates the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causality.”

(from Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2))

 

[buffalo]

You have argued against Darwinian ideology, with quotes, etc. and are presenting that argument as if it is an argument in favor of ID theory. Such an unwarranted leap in logic goes nowhere.

Also, as I pointed out in a recent and previous post, any argument against Darwinian ideology is not an argument against Darwinian science or evolution science generally.

Furthermore, you have misrepresented Cardinal Schonborn’s objection to ID theory. You have stated what you would like him to maintain, but it does not work that way for obvious reasons.

Father Oakes is on the same page with Schonborn and so perhaps you can grasp something of the issues involved by considering the following excerpts:

"Q: What are your objections to the Intelligent Design movement?

"Father Oakes: Primarily that ID advocates seem regularly to confuse finality with design. Now because people only design things for a purpose, the two concepts are too often conflated. But they are different…

“I also object to the way the ID Movement conflates the Thomistic distinction between primary and secondary causality.”

(from Evolution in the Eyes of the Church (Part 2))

Huh? I have argued on the merits of ID the science, and the difficulties facing darwinism, the science. The neo-darwinian ideology fails on its own not needing any help from me… The neo-darwinists definitely regularly stray into philosophical statements well beyond their competence.

Share with me what the good Cardinal meant when he wrote - "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Design and purpose - Design is for purpose. No mind designs something without a purpose. Is you claim that God’s designs are purposeless? Is the canvas that God paints on blobs of paint thrown at it or artistic brushstrokes of an image?

I believe I have been trying to point out that ID theorists who would maintain that God just jumps in and designs something would be against both St Augustine and St Thomas. When we go betond the scientific observations we as philosophers can explore the meanings. I did ask you to comment on the St Augustine posts I made a while back.

The designs we infer go back to the “breath” of creation.

 

[grannymh]

No real scientists are. But evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala was just awarded the Templeton Prize for progress in the discussions about science and religion.

It is my understanding that the religion Francisco Ayala relates to is not Catholicism.
Did an analytic post on one of his “religious” type comments way back.

 

[ricmat]

Well, in the interest in giving ID more than a fair hearing, first of all, what is SITC? Did you explain what SITC is in a previous post? If not, one should not just drop acronyms and expect everyone to know what they refer to.

Sorry. SITC = “Signature in the Cell”.

 

[ricmat]

I recommend that you read Aristotle’s Metaphysica, preferably with the commentary by St. Thomas Aquinas. Get back to me when you understand it.

It’s over my head.

BTW - I didn’t say you needed to understand SITC, but just recommended reading it.

Perhaps Meyer is confused about formal and final causality. I don’t remember that he addressed that in the book. As I said, it’s a science book. It’s not a philosophy book. The difference between formal and final seems to be important to you. It may not be addressed in the book.

 

[ricmat]

…Intelligent Design theory is not, in my view, the correct answer to neo-Darwinian materialism.

Although some may view this as the purpose of ID, personally, I look at ID as perhaps offering the best scientific explanation of how simple life came to be, how complex life came to be, and in the most general sense, how the universe came to be such that we can sit here and argue about such things.

 

[buffalo]

Question on the table

Did God’s design include mutations (failures) as a way to fulfill His creative act?

 

[buffalo]

Although some may view this as the purpose of ID, personally, I look at ID as perhaps offering the best scientific explanation of how simple life came to be, how complex life came to be, and in the most general sense, how the universe came to be such that we can sit here and argue about such things.

Agreed.

 

[ricmat]

You have argued against Darwinian ideology, with quotes, etc. and are presenting that argument as if it is an argument in favor of ID theory.

Also, as I pointed out in a recent and previous post, any argument against Darwinian ideology is not an argument against Darwinian science or evolution science generally.

Your quote above was made in response to someone else’s post, but I would like to note that SITC does not take this approach at all. In fact, in general, if you read the FAQ’s on the Discovery.org web site, you’ll see that the purpose of ID is not to overthrow everything darwinian, but to accept those things that work, and find a better explanation for those things that don’t work.

 

[itinerant1]

Huh? I have argued on the merits of ID the science, and the difficulties facing darwinism, the science. The neo-darwinian ideology fails on its own not needing any help from me… The neo-darwinists definitely regularly stray into philosophical statements well beyond their competence.

It seems that you are not clear as to what in Darwinism is ideology and what is science. The previous quotes you posted addressed neo-Darwinian ideology

Share with me what the good Cardinal meant when he wrote - "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Design is not studied by the methods of the natural sciences. Science does not study purpose or final causes. A system of thought that denies design is ideological and oversteps the boundary of methodological naturalism.

Design and purpose - Design is for purpose. No mind designs something without a purpose. Is you claim that God’s designs are purposeless? Is the canvas that God paints on blobs of paint thrown at it or artistic brushstrokes of an image?

Again, the natural sciences do not reach to the level of causality that explains design. That is exactly Schonborn’s position. Causality in itself is metaphysical, i.e. the four causes are formal, final, material, and efficient.

I believe I have been trying to point out that ID theorists who would maintain that God just jumps in and designs something would be against both St Augustine and St Thomas. When we go betond the scientific observations we as philosophers can explore the meanings. I did ask you to comment on the St Augustine posts I made a while back.

Positing such interventions in nature by God is unwarranted, of course, but that issue aside, there remains the problems pointed out by Fr. Oakes regarding ID’s confused and improper understanding of causality. The import of these problems, which he has correctly identified, is that it makes ID theory unacceptable to anyone with a background in classical philosophy. This is why Schonborn cannot and has not endorsed or supported ID theory despite what many people have wrongly assumed.

Regarding Augustine, I had posted a request for you to PM or post the numbers of the posts about Augustine you wanted me to consider. I guess you missed that request. It was just to save myself some time by not having to backtrack.

The designs we infer go back to the “breath” of creation.

But when we address this theological notion we should use correct philosophical analysis and explication, and this is where ID theory gets things garbled.

 

[buffalo]

Your quote above was made in response to someone else’s post, but I would like to note that SITC does not take this approach at all. In fact, in general, if you read the FAQ’s on the Discovery.org web site, you’ll see that the purpose of ID is not to overthrow everything darwinian, but to accept those things that work, and find a better explanation for those things that don’t work.

He admits here:

LOL. You are funny. I don’t read ID websites, actually, I have never read a single ID website. I do read books by ID theorists.

---

He relies on “other” sources. I wonder who that could be.​