The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[buffalo]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Design is studied by ID theorists. Empirical science is studied by empirical scientists.

Perhaps the Cardinal would endorse IDvolution.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

The point I am emphasizing pertains to (1) the proper scope and limits of the scientific method, and (2) the need for a correct philosophical explanation of design.

ID theory errors on both counts.

 

[itinerant1]

It’s been fun, but I am at work and have to get back to doing some work.

 

[ricmat]

The point I am emphasizing pertains to (1) the proper scope and limits of the scientific method, and (2) the need for a correct philosophical explanation of design.

ID theory errors on both counts.

With regard to 1, it certainly couldn’t hurt to read SITC. At least you could return here and say “I read it, and here is where it has problems…”.

And there are some folks who disagree with you on both counts. Just because Itinerant1 says something is true doesn’t make it true. Keep an open mind.

 

[ricmat]

It’s been fun, but I am at work and have to get back to doing some work.

Work is good. It pays the bills

 

[buffalo]

The point I am emphasizing pertains to (1) the proper scope and limits of the scientific method, and (2) the need for a correct philosophical explanation of design.

ID theory errors on both counts.

ID theory makes 1 claim - design exists and can be detected by scientific investigation, conclusions reached by calculating the probabilities.

The rest is philosophy.

 

[Philipp]

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

Neither of Rossum’s examples cited here gives any evidence of NEW FUNCTIONALITY. The Apo-AI mutation merely protects the already-existing functionality of the heart and circulatory system against blockages. It does NOT add any new functionality. The same thing is true of the HbC mutation. It protects the blood from the malaria parasite but it compromises the overall health of the organism. It adds no new functionality. In response to Rossum’s implicit claim that the mutation in humans that confers immunity to sickle cell anemia is a positive mutation because a heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia would be immune to malaria and sickle cell anemia, permit me to demonstrate by means of a thought experiment that he is wrong.

Let us imagine Adam and Eve on day six of creation week. The Church teaches that they were both created in a state of perfect health of body and mind. Therefore, they had no “genetic load,” no mutations of any kind. Now let us mentally compare the body of Adam immediately after the Fall with the body of a heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia. If Rossum is correct, and the heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia is generally “healthier” because of his immunity to malaria and sickle cell anemia, then he should be generally healthier than Adam who, immediately after the Fall, would have lacked this mutation. But that is absurd. Both genetics research and the first books of the Bible show that harmful mutations have accumulated with time in the human gene pool. This is why Adam’s sons and daughters could marry and Abraham could marry his half-sister 2000 years later, without violating God’s law. In light of genetics and the Bible there is no question that Adam immediately after the fall was much healthier physically than any heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia.

Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation which gives one a reproductive advantage over normal people in scenarios where malaria is rampant, because people with sickle-cell anemia aren’t as susceptible to malaria. But sickle-cell anemia itself is a lethal disease and represents a deterioration of function when compared with a normal person who has no disease. If malaria became so rampant in the world that only people with sickle-cell anemia survived, then the final population would be worse off functionally than the non-mutant population that lived before the plague hit. This is not “evolution.”

Please, fellow Catholics, see through this perhaps unintended deception and hold fast to the Faith of your Fathers! >>> I get chills when ever we sing the hymn, Faith of our Fathers after Holy Mass; I sing it with gusto:

Awake my soul and sing
Of Him Who died for Thee
And hail Him as thy matchless King
Through all eternity

Faith of our Fathers Holy Faith
We’ll be true to thee till death
Faith of our Fathers Holy Faith
We’ll be true to thee till death

 

[itinerant1]

With regard to 1, it certainly couldn’t hurt to read SITC. At least you could return here and say “I read it, and here is where it has problems…”.

And there are some folks who disagree with you on both counts. Just because Itinerant1 says something is true doesn’t make it true. Keep an open mind.

Just a quick note before I return to work…I really have no objection whatsoever to reading the book you suggested. I just object to ID theory for the reasons stated, even though it is closer to the truth than is Darwinian ideology.

 

[itinerant1]

ID theory makes 1 claim - design exists and can be detected by scientific investigation, conclusions reached by calculating the probabilities.

The rest is philosophy.

We don’t need science to tell us design exists. I know design exists without science telling me so. Science has a different job to do.

 

[buffalo]

We don’t need science to tell us design exists. I know design exists without science telling me so. Science has a different job to do.

How do you know design exists?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Why the limit?

 

[rossum]

Neither of Rossum’s examples cited here gives any evidence of NEW FUNCTIONALITY.

One creationist tactic is moving the goalposts. Up to now we have been discussing whether or not there can be beneficial mutations. I have provided two examples of beneficial mutations. Now suddenly Philipp has moved the goalposts to “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”. Since he has moved the goalposts, I will take it that he has conceded that the two mutations I mentioned are indeed beneficial in that they help prevent heart disease and help protect against malaria respectively.

Now Philipp asks for “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”. Well how is protection against malaria not “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”? Where previously individuals without the mutation were vulnerable to malaria now individuals with the HbC mutations are less vulnerable to malaria.

For a common source of mutations leading to new functionality just have a look at the adaptive immune system which uses mutations to adapt to new pathogens.

The same thing is true of the HbC mutation. It protects the blood from the malaria parasite but it compromises the overall health of the organism. It adds no new functionality. In response to Rossum’s implicit claim that the mutation in humans that confers immunity to sickle cell anemia is a positive mutation because a heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia would be immune to malaria and sickle cell anemia, permit me to demonstrate by means of a thought experiment that he is wrong.

I am afraid it is you that are wrong Philipp, the sickle cell mutation is the HbS mutation, (the S is for Sickle cell), which is mentioned in the abstract of the article I referred Dr Giertych to. The HbC mutation is a different mutation and is far less harmful. I suggest that you also read the article.

Let us imagine Adam and Eve on day six of creation week. The Church teaches that they were both created in a state of perfect health of body and mind. Therefore, they had no “genetic load,” no mutations of any kind. Now let us mentally compare the body of Adam immediately after the Fall with the body of a heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia. If Rossum is correct, and the heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia is generally “healthier” because of his immunity to malaria and sickle cell anemia, then he should be generally healthier than Adam who, immediately after the Fall, would have lacked this mutation. But that is absurd. Both genetics research and the first books of the Bible show that harmful mutations have accumulated with time in the human gene pool. This is why Adam’s sons and daughters could marry and Abraham could marry his half-sister 2000 years later, without violating God’s law. In light of genetics and the Bible there is no question that Adam immediately after the fall was much healthier physically than any heterozygous carrier of sickle cell anemia.

Your point is completely irrelevant. I am not talking about the sickle cell mutation, HbS, I am talking about a different mutation, HbC. To be more precise, HbS is beta6Glu → Val while HbC is beta6Glu → Lys. HbS replaces the beta 6 Glutamic Acid with Valine; HbC replaces the same Glutamic Acid with Lysine. I deliberately did not put forward HbS as an example in order to avoid the very argument you are now trying to use. HbC does not cause sickle cell anaemia so the argument from sickle cell anaemia fails.

This mistake shows that Philipp is insufficiently knowledgeable about biology to be considered a reliable authority. He has made egregious mistakes in geology, such as referencing a piece by Ed Conrad, and now he is showing his lack of background knowledge in biology. Lack of relevant knowledge is a serious handicap in a scientific debate. I would suggest that Philipp try a different line of argument.

We are also getting perilously close to the suspended topic of evolution. The topic of this thread is the age of the earth, not the nature of mutations.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

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

I’m just the new kid on the block. But it seems to me the squabbles are missing the point of contention which is human nature itself. Once human nature is secure than one can go back in time to sort out the details. Until then, it is a squabble over peanuts.

Blessings,
granny

Our Lord hung from the Cross for all of us.

 

[buffalo]

One creationist tactic is moving the goalposts. Up to now we have been discussing whether or not there can be beneficial mutations. I have provided two examples of beneficial mutations. Now suddenly Philipp has moved the goalposts to “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”. Since he has moved the goalposts, I will take it that he has conceded that the two mutations I mentioned are indeed beneficial in that they help prevent heart disease and help protect against malaria respectively.

Now Philipp asks for “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”. Well how is protection against malaria not “NEW FUNCTIONALITY”? Where previously individuals without the mutation were vulnerable to malaria now individuals with the HbC mutations are less vulnerable to malaria.

For a common source of mutations leading to new functionality just have a look at the adaptive immune system which uses mutations to adapt to new pathogens.

I am afraid it is you that are wrong Philipp, the sickle cell mutation is the HbS mutation, (the S is for Sickle cell), which is mentioned in the abstract of the article I referred Dr Giertych to. The HbC mutation is a different mutation and is far less harmful. I suggest that you also read the article.

Your point is completely irrelevant. I am not talking about the sickle cell mutation, HbS, I am talking about a different mutation, HbC. To be more precise, HbS is beta6Glu → Val while HbC is beta6Glu → Lys. HbS replaces the beta 6 Glutamic Acid with Valine; HbC replaces the same Glutamic Acid with Lysine. I deliberately did not put forward HbS as an example in order to avoid the very argument you are now trying to use. HbC does not cause sickle cell anaemia so the argument from sickle cell anaemia fails.

This mistake shows that Philipp is insufficiently knowledgeable about biology to be considered a reliable authority. He has made egregious mistakes in geology, such as referencing a piece by Ed Conrad, and now he is showing his lack of background knowledge in biology. Lack of relevant knowledge is a serious handicap in a scientific debate. I would suggest that Philipp try a different line of argument.

We are also getting perilously close to the suspended topic of evolution. The topic of this thread is the age of the earth, not the nature of mutations.

rossum

Say you have millions of pathogens. A deleterious mutation takes place that gives an immunity to one. One could make a case that every single mutation has a benefit. We will just have to wait long enough to stumble upon the discovery of which one it is.

If it didn’t kill you it is beneficial. I don’t like this argument.

 

[grannymh]

This Cardinal Schonborn?

“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.”

This is where the real debate should be focused. The only living organism which absolutely cannot be reduced to matter is the human being.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Me, too.

 

[grannymh]

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))

More evidence for the conflict I spotted in January…

 

[grannymh]

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))

Interesting article! Please provide the link for Part 1.

Father Oakes raises an interesting question and answers it with a reference.
Would you also please provide the link to Father Oakes referenced article “Original Sin: A Disputation” In November 1998 issue of First Things magazine.

Thank you for your kindness.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

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.

What about the thought that the entire universe exhibits unity of design? Look at the earth from whatever age. Every cell, atom, and bit of energy is in relationship to the unity of design.

 

[grannymh]

The point I am emphasizing pertains to (1) the proper scope and limits of the scientific method, and (2) the need for a correct philosophical explanation of design.

ID theory errors on both counts.

I look out my window and see design. I don’t understand the problem.

 

[ricmat]

What about the thought that the entire universe exhibits unity of design? Look at the earth from whatever age. Every cell, atom, and bit of energy is in relationship to the unity of design.

Yes, this is the most awesome part of the whole discussion. Things just didn’t “happen.” Everything, from the fundamental laws of nature, to the fundamental constants of nature, to earth’s unique situation (see Privileged Planet) must all be in place for us (and only us humans), to sit here and ponder “Why?” The universe is not an accident. We are not an accident.

Well, at least some of us ask “why?” It seems a bit dull to just dismiss the question by saying that things just happened, period.